Multiculturalism = fracturing of society.

88chaz88 said:
What exactly is "American culture" if it's not a direct product of multiculturalism? Did the pilgrims set sail with hot dogs and rap music?
Click to expand...
American culture predates "diversity" TM which started in the 70s essentially. the Pilgrims were pioneers and colonists, as in establishing a new nation from the wilderness.
 
LittleLissa said:
What about the Native Indians that were slaughtered en masse to clear the way for white settlers. Aren't they the true 'homogenous' Americans- I mean if you insist on a 'homogenous' America, that's the truest definition you'll find, (and it ain't white). After that time any idea of white homogeny - and some kind of supreme 'right' is hypocritical and some kind of ludicrous racist fallacy.
Click to expand...
They weren't slaughtered, as like in a slaughter house, they were systematically defeated via battle, treaty and alliances over 100s of years. Those same Natives attacked the Jamestown settlement 10 days in. And while the Indians were definitely homogeneous in the sense of their racial identity, they had many nations, not just 1. Its funny though, you say the indians were more homogeneous than the colonists, Id say they were just about equally homogeneous in their own respective cultures. Indians were also war like people, most of the tribes in the north east murdered and replaced the tribes they fought that had originally inhabited that space the mohegans come to mind.
 
Billy said:
They weren't slaughtered, as like in a slaughter house, they were systematically defeated via battle, treaty and alliances over 100s of years. Those same Natives attacked the Jamestown settlement 10 days in. And while the Indians were definitely homogeneous in the sense of their racial identity, they had many nations, not just 1. Its funny though, you say the indians were more homogeneous than the colonists, Id say they were just about equally homogeneous in their own respective cultures. Indians were also war like people, most of the tribes in the north east murdered and replaced the tribes they fought that had originally inhabited that space the mohegans come to mind.
Click to expand...

I was just saying it wasn't 'your' land to take. I also think it's hypocritical to have a history or immigration into the U.S. and for some people to now be turning around and saying that these people don't rightfully belong.
 
Billy said:
diversity is a source of conflict, not strength, be that as it may the US is not a diverse nation, never has been.
Click to expand...

If there is a country on earth that has had a larger scale of immigration from all around the world than America, then I am not aware of it. Perhaps you mean something different by diversity.
 
James said:
If there is a country on earth that has had a larger scale of immigration from all around the world than America, then I am not aware of it. Perhaps you mean something different by diversity.
Click to expand...

Canada could give it a run for it's money but of course immigration from the two bleed into each other.
 
So I think there was some slaughter. This doesn't sound like mutual warfare. Just an example from California. I think that there were warlike tribes but that it's way overgeneralized to characterize Native Americans as inherently warlike. @Billy you make it sound like they just lost at a game of Monopoly. I can find more examples of massacres, but I don't want to take the thread too far down that rabbit hole.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/california-native-americans-genocide-490824.html

He spent the next decade trying to compile a record of every single act of deadly violence perpetrated against the Native American people of California during the Gold Rush and its aftermath. Although the resources were scattered, they were plainly available in state and federal archives, as well as in university libraries from Berkeley, California, to Hanover, New Hampshire. There was no attempt to conceal what was done to the Indians in California. “A massacre, a lynching or a whole killing campaign—these things were hidden in plain sight.”

Madley found the murderers acted under the sanction of state and federal government. Feelings of racial superiority were deployed to justify the killing; greed supplied the sense of urgency. California’s statehood, in 1850, came two years after the discovery of gold. This was also the decade when the slaughter reached its apogee. Three hundred thousand came seeking gold. It happened that many of the goldfields in Northern California lay in the ancestral lands of tribes like the Karuk, the Wintu and the Miwok—all of which remain in California, diminished survivors of an unwholesome past.

It was a widely held belief in 19th-century California that all of the Indians had to be exterminated. Reported the Daily Alta California, “Whites are becoming impressed with the belief that it will be absolutely necessary to exterminate the savages before they can labor much longer in the mines with security.”

The killing of Indians was performed for reasons that seem, today, pathetically feeble. Madley describes how one vigilante gang, called the California Blades, set about destroying Nisenan villages over several missing mules.

The United States Army often participated in the mass killing, making Capitol Hill complicit in what was happening in the goldfields of the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere in California. In the winter of 1849, Indians wanting freedom killed Andrew Kelsey and Charles Stone, two slavers in what is today Lake County. In revenge, federal infantry and cavalry detachments attacked a village at Clear Lake. On May 15, 1850, they “poured in destructive fire indiscriminately upon men, women and children,” according to one account. As many as 800 members of the Pomo tribe were killed at what has come to be known as Bloody Island. “It took them four or five days to gather up the dead,” one survivor remembered.

A village of Yokayas on the Russian River was attacked by U.S. troops just days later, in what their commander deemed “a perfect slaughter pen.” Yokaya casualties may have been as high as 100. The U.S. troops lost no men, though two suffered wounds.

Much of the slaughter was carried out by state militias, which enjoyed financial support from both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. In Round Valley, north of San Francisco, the Eel River Rangers were so prolific in their murder of the Yuki that even some white observers became alarmed. “The killing of Indians is a daily occurrence,” reported California’s head of Indian affairs. “If some means be not speedily devised, by which the unauthorized expeditions that are constantly out in search of them can be restrained, they will soon be exterminated.”
 
Last edited:
Sloe Djinn said:
So I think there was some slaughter. This doesn't sound like mutual warfare. Just an example from California. I think that there were warlike tribes but that it's way overgeneralized to characterize Native Americans as inherently warlike. @Billy you make it sound like they just lost at a game of Monopoly. I can find more examples of massacres, but I don't want to take the thread too far down that rabbit hole.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/california-native-americans-genocide-490824.html

He spent the next decade trying to compile a record of every single act of deadly violence perpetrated against the Native American people of California during the Gold Rush and its aftermath. Although the resources were scattered, they were plainly available in state and federal archives, as well as in university libraries from Berkeley, California, to Hanover, New Hampshire. There was no attempt to conceal what was done to the Indians in California. “A massacre, a lynching or a whole killing campaign—these things were hidden in plain sight.”

Madley found the murderers acted under the sanction of state and federal government. Feelings of racial superiority were deployed to justify the killing; greed supplied the sense of urgency. California’s statehood, in 1850, came two years after the discovery of gold. This was also the decade when the slaughter reached its apogee. Three hundred thousand came seeking gold. It happened that many of the goldfields in Northern California lay in the ancestral lands of tribes like the Karuk, the Wintu and the Miwok—all of which remain in California, diminished survivors of an unwholesome past.

It was a widely held belief in 19th-century California that all of the Indians had to be exterminated. Reported the Daily Alta California, “Whites are becoming impressed with the belief that it will be absolutely necessary to exterminate the savages before they can labor much longer in the mines with security.”

The killing of Indians was performed for reasons that seem, today, pathetically feeble. Madley describes how one vigilante gang, called the California Blades, set about destroying Nisenan villages over several missing mules.

The United States Army often participated in the mass killing, making Capitol Hill complicit in what was happening in the goldfields of the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere in California. In the winter of 1849, Indians wanting freedom killed Andrew Kelsey and Charles Stone, two slavers in what is today Lake County. In revenge, federal infantry and cavalry detachments attacked a village at Clear Lake. On May 15, 1850, they “poured in destructive fire indiscriminately upon men, women and children,” according to one account. As many as 800 members of the Pomo tribe were killed at what has come to be known as Bloody Island. “It took them four or five days to gather up the dead,” one survivor remembered.

A village of Yokayas on the Russian River was attacked by U.S. troops just days later, in what their commander deemed “a perfect slaughter pen.” Yokaya casualties may have been as high as 100. The U.S. troops lost no men, though two suffered wounds.

Much of the slaughter was carried out by state militias, which enjoyed financial support from both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. In Round Valley, north of San Francisco, the Eel River Rangers were so prolific in their murder of the Yuki that even some white observers became alarmed. “The killing of Indians is a daily occurrence,” reported California’s head of Indian affairs. “If some means be not speedily devised, by which the unauthorized expeditions that are constantly out in search of them can be restrained, they will soon be exterminated.”
Click to expand...
Hell yeah! The good ol' days, white power muthatruckas!
/S

The alt right is just as bad as Holocaust deniers with their idealized revisionist view of history...
 
Additionally I think that America is inherently multicultural. The Rockefeller/Americana image etc just happened to be the dominant cultural narrative at that time. To ignore cultural differences between European settlers/immigrants, to make no reference to the influence of non-dominant cultures and subcultures, as well as to speak of Native Americans in generalities, brings us more towards a discussion of race than culture, for better or worse. I think the OP is way oversimplified.
 
acd said:
The alt right is just as bad as Holocaust deniers with their idealized revisionist view of history...
Click to expand...

I mean, that venn diagram seems to have some serious overlap.
 
Billy said:
I completely disagree, and history is on my side. History shows that multiculturalism always leads to conflict. Maybe you can show where it hasnt.
Click to expand...
Three examples from the early modern era: Alsace, the Low Countries and the North-Italian duchies and principalities. All to some extent "melting pots".
 
Billy said:
diversity is a source of conflict, not strength
Click to expand...

Billy said:
I personally strive on chaos and conflict most of the time, and when things are too smooth I feel the need to destroy as stagnation feels like death to me. I need to be constantly stimulated.
Click to expand...

You are a source of conflict...
 
Billy said:
Correct, western european culture while varied is still very related and in many ways interchangeable, which makes sense since Europeans had to interact with one and other for a long time.
Click to expand...

Have you ever visited Norway and Greece? I have. They are culturally very different despite being European.
 
Billy said:
diversity is a source of conflict, not strength, be that as it may the US is not a diverse nation, never has been.
Click to expand...

I think you should learn a little more about mbti. There is no way you are an INFJ. You claim to thrive on chaos and conflict. That is the antithesis of what any real INFJ would ever say. Your understanding of American history, mbti, and yourself seems to be limited. I live in LA where only about 1/4 of the population can be considered white or European. What do you recommend? Segregation? Mass deportations? Death camps? I mean why not just accept reality? America is currently diverse in many different ways. It was less so 200 years ago, but who gives a fuck? Do you also yearn for a time when light bulbs didn't exist? I can't really comprehend the point of a thread such as this one. It seems inherently futile. Pointless arguments devoid of honesty and reason are boring. Peace. I'm out.
 
dang said:
America is currently diverse in many different ways. It was less so 200 years ago...
Click to expand...

Nope, that notion gives Billy's ideas way too much false credit. In 1817 the slave trade was still in full swing, many Native American cultures were still around that aren't today, there was major immigration from Europe, much of America was still owned by Spain (oh and Spain has always been super diverse, ever heard of the Moors or Basque culture?) and you're only 30 or so years away from the first mass immigration wave from China.

Billy's ideas of some singular cultured America are a complete and total fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top