The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[Traitorfish]

Also, yall act as if 2018's standards of "there are 0.5% Swedeshere, we're Diverse" would have made any difference whatsoever in the definition of nationality that existed at the time.

We aren't talking about statistical outlier, we're talking about large stretches of the United States inhabited by people who sit outside of mainstream elite Anglo-American culture, whether they be freshly transported Antrim to the Shenandoah, or back-woods Yankees who'd spent a century and a half carving out a distinct culture into the Upper Connecticut. To the extent that such a culture existed, which it really didn't, because "mainstream elite Anglo-America" was comprised at a minimum of four distinct regional cultures around New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Chesapeake and the Carolinas.

It's not altogether clear that there was "an elite" in all of these colonies. In Pennsylvania, New York and New England, conflicts between Anglicans and Quakers, Dutch Reformed or Congregationalists, respectively, structured political life pretty much up to the Revolution itself. Throw in Founders of Scottish ancestry, like Hamilton, Dutch ancestry, like Philip Schuyler, or even Finnish ancestry, like John Morton (great-grandson of Martti Marttinen of Rautalampi), and this shining vanguard of Saxon valour disintegrates pretty quickly.

If anything, the mostly Anglo-Saxon people of the colonies would cheer at the news of Germans, Dutch, etc. being removed from American territory

Contemporary records show markedly more antipathy towards the Irish and Scots than they ever did towards the Germans and Dutch. You're right that modern notions of identity and diversity don't graft readily onto the eighteenth century, but it doesn't follow that we can substitute your own weird theories.

 

[sophie]

That's the point. The USA was never a nation-state, it has always been an empire. Which is to our discredit, and I would like to change that.

California would have been whatever the Spanish screwed it up as, except it wouldn't have been our problem lol

My question is more that "if the only thing which can meaningfully be termed 'A nation' within the US is white Anglo-Americans already living on the continent on the eve of 1776", then what does that say about literally every other so-called nation-state on the planet. Do any nation-states actually exist, in your reckoning?

 

[JMA2286]

My question is more that "if the only thing which can meaningfully be termed 'A nation' within the US is white Anglo-Americans already living on the continent on the eve of 1776", then what does that say about literally every other so-called nation-state on the planet. Do any nation-states actually exist, in your reckoning?

Of course they do. It's like asking if water is wet

 

[JMA2286]

We aren't talking about statistical outlier, we're talking about large stretches of the United States inhabited by people who sit outside of mainstream elite Anglo-American culture, whether they be freshly transported Antrim to the Shenandoah, or back-woods Yankees who'd spent a century and a half carving out a distinct culture into the Upper Connecticut. To the extent that such a culture existed, which it really didn't, because "mainstream elite Anglo-America" was comprised at a minimum of four distinct regional cultures around New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Chesapeake and the Carolinas.

It's not altogether clear that there was "an elite" in all of these colonies. In Pennsylvania, New York and New England, conflicts between Anglicans and Quakers, Dutch Reformed or Congregationalists, respectively, structured political life pretty much up to the Revolution itself. Throw in Founders of Scottish ancestry, like Hamilton, Dutch ancestry, like Philip Schuyler, or even Finnish ancestry, like John Morton (great-grandson of Martti Marttinen of Rautalampi), and this shining vanguard of Saxon valour disintegrates pretty quickly.


Contemporary records show markedly more antipathy towards the Irish and Scots than they ever did towards the Germans and Dutch. You're right that modern notions of identity and diversity don't graft readily onto the eighteenth century, but it doesn't follow that we can substitute your own weird theories.

Well it goes without saying that the Celts would be the first ones to go. Nobody likes them xD (it's a joke)

People can be rallied along lines of common origin much faster than diverse populations can be forced to work together. I don't care who rose to the top of the imperial class, or where they came from, it's meaningless to me at this point. It's like saying "first ____ president" or "first _____ university dean" or whatever other participation trophy garbage.

They aren't even theories, they are alternative historical daydreaming for my amusement, but thankfully you've provided the service of entertaining me even more than my daydreaming.

But yes, it would have been rather simple to homogenize and rally the newly minted American population, kick out people who do not belong there, and then encourage large families with subsidies, while advocating a foreign policy that pits the Spanish, French, and British against each other while we grew in population, built up the coast, then become an Atlantic power without having to beg for other country's scraps (immigrants), conquer territory from people who could barely even count, etc.

Moderator Action: Tone down the racist rhetoric, and I do mean right now. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Senethro]

Now that’s some real hipster racism! White nationalism for the whitest of whites.

 

[JMA2286]

Now that’s some real hipster racism! White nationalism for the whitest of whites.

Your humor is Jimmy Kimmel tier, try harder please

 

[Traitorfish]

People can be rallied along lines of common origin much faster than diverse populations can be forced to work together. I don't care who rose to the top of the imperial class, or where they came from, it's meaningless to me at this point. It's like saying "first ____ president" or "first _____ university dean" or whatever other participation trophy garbage.

Americans in 1776 were not "people of common origin", is my point, though. Even setting aside fifth of the country who weren't from Europe, and even setting aside the third of what remained who weren't from England, you still have groups with different origins and histories in England and in the United States. Even if we look narrowly at the sixty percent of Americans who could be reasonably described as "English" in some sense or another, it's not as simple as simply calling them all "English" and pretending that's sufficient to constitute a nation. It certainly wasn't for contemporaries.

But yes, it would have been rather simple to homogenize and rally the newly minted American population, kick out people who do not belong there, and then encourage large families with subsidies, while advocating a foreign policy that pits the Spanish, French, and British against each other while we grew in population, built up the coast, then become an Atlantic power without having to beg for other country's scraps (immigrants), conquer territory from people who could barely even count, etc.

Okay. How?

Now that’s some real hipster racism! White nationalism for the whitest of whites.

Family Guy got something right, I guess.

 

[sophie]

Of course they do. It's like asking if water is wet

Alrighty then, let's play. Show me a nation-state and I'll show you why at no point it actually represented a cohesive ethnic unit.

 

[JMA2286]

Alrighty then, let's play. Show me a nation-state and I'll show you why at no point it actually represented a cohesive ethnic unit.

I don't play these kinds of games with people who change the definitions as they go.

Go clean your room, bucko

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't play these kinds of games with people who change the definitions as they go.

Go clean your room, bucko

LOL...so this is what you consider a more mature style?

 

[JMA2286]

LOL...so this is what you consider a more mature style?

It's obvious the person in question has their own definition of nation-state, so I responded with Jordan Peterson, a more famous and smarter person who also does that kind of thing.

You're an unironic communist, don't talk about mature like it's anything you'll ever understand

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's obvious the person in question has their own definition of nation-state, so I responded with Jordan Peterson, a more famous and smarter person who also does that kind of thing.

You're an unironic communist, don't talk about mature like it's anything you'll ever understand

Actually, the person you said that to is very well respected around here, where people are familiar with just what education he has. You, on the other hand, have made yourself known in a completely different way. So have I, which is why I'm sure there are a whole lot of people laughing at your assessment that I am a communist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Are there ironic communists?

 

[Old Hippy]

Are there ironic communists?

yes the anarchist type

 

[W|M]

It's obvious the person in question has their own definition of nation-state, so I responded with Jordan Peterson, a more famous and smarter person who also does that kind of thing.

You're an unironic communist, don't talk about mature like it's anything you'll ever understand

 

[Traitorfish]

yes the anarchist type

Anarchists aren't ironic communists. Anarchists are, ironically, communists.

 

[Hygro]

It's obvious the person in question has their own definition of nation-state, so I responded with Jordan Peterson, a more famous and smarter person who also does that kind of thing.

You're an unironic communist, don't talk about mature like it's anything you'll ever understand

You should listen to JP more closely....

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

What are some 'advantages of being female' anyway?

Here’s one:

 

[Chose]

Here’s one:

It doesn't really strike me as an 'advantage of being female" that they can abuse men in public without people being too worried about it, even if this is generally true. You also can't really put too much weight into a video like this which has the potential for so much selection bias.

I did find it kind of funny though that some people just joined in with her, assuming that she was justified in whatever she was doing. Hey, maybe that is a fair assumption. Like honestly I was right there with the people in terms of my emotional responses. I was actually disturbed seeing the women thrown around in the first half, even knowing it was staged, and I actually found it mildly amusing the other way around.

You can get a good guess of who would beat up who just by looking at height and mass and definition, I'm sure that is playing a role here as well. It might be largely a function of that in additional to the gender assumptions. I think if you had a women who looked clearly physically capable of beating up the guy you would get different reactions.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why are right-wingers so obsessed with who gets to punch who?

It's as if they can't imagine a society which isn't fundamentally structured by violence.