|
Kurtofan posted:Scotch-Irish Scots-Irish. Scotch is a drink.
|
# ? Aug 14, 2016 16:23 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:35 |
|
i think the german/irish/italian/etc-identifying americans arrived in the 19th century, while the american-identifying area was settled by southerners, the descendents of british/irish who mostly arrived in the 18th century, and didn't see much impact from the big ellis island-style migration. the extra century-plus in-country results in lower relevance for the origin-based identity edit: this table offers some support for the claim that the south was characterized by low immigration between 1850 and recent decades https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab14.html there might be something about a 'dixie' culture subsuming origin-based identity, in which case you'd have a tie to slavery and racism, since it's possible that northern 18th-century immigrants held onto their identities more strongly than southern 18th-century immigrants, but it's not strictly necessary to explain the data. we'd need to factor out post-1860 or so immigrants to get a good comparison and that would be hard to do oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 14, 2016 |
# ? Aug 14, 2016 17:10 |
|
oystertoadfish posted:i think the german/irish/italian/etc-identifying americans arrived in the 19th century, while the american-identifying area was settled by southerners, the descendents of british/irish who mostly arrived in the 18th century, and didn't see much impact from the big ellis island-style migration. the extra century-plus in-country results in lower relevance for the origin-based identity The South didn't attract much immigrants which is another reason why it lost the Civil War against the more industrialized higher population north.
|
# ? Aug 14, 2016 17:12 |
|
etalian posted:The South didn't attract much immigrants which is another reason why it lost the Civil War against the more industrialized higher population north. Yeah, other than New Orleans and maybe Houston and Atlanta, it pretty much took until the widespread adoption of air conditioning before rapid urbanization came to the South. edit looking at the numbers, ehhh. Southern cities pretty much didn't exist in 1850 but lots of them popped up and became huge during the next hundred years; Dallas, San Antonio, New Orleans and Houston were all within the ballpark of half a million people in 1950, but surprisingly Atlanta was only about half that. i say swears online fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Aug 14, 2016 |
# ? Aug 14, 2016 17:19 |
|
here's the data i linked in my edit - now in infographic format! it's not the % of each region's population that is foreign, it's the % of the national foreign-born population that resides in each region. that's why north + south together comes out to a lot less than 100% by the end of the graph anyway, i think this is the difference that engenders the 'american' self-designation in the south edit: the green line probably relates to the decline of the rust belt. not many immigrants are moving to like akron or detroit or flint any more i guess
|
# ? Aug 14, 2016 17:24 |
|
Re: Urbandale The population of the United States is far more integrated geographically in race and ethnicity. The vast majority of the population lives concentrated in urban areas on the coasts, and despite what you say, it is far more mixed up and integrated than Russia was in the early 20th century, where entire villages tended to be of a certain ethnicity, instead of the mixed towns and cities of the United States. What is your suggestion for creating polities for nations of the United States on the basis of demographics, when there is such territorial and cultural integration between them? Would you move millions of people from their homes to new parts of the country in order to force them to be part of a new policy on the basis of ethnicity? Because that sounds a lot like the Trail of Tears.
|
# ? Aug 14, 2016 18:15 |
|
Yeah, I'd be curious if you could go more into that. It does sound like you are looking for more separation of the ethnic groups within the US, but I'd like to hear more. I haven't seen anything on the PSL site about that, and no one has brought it up at the meetings I've attended.
|
# ? Aug 14, 2016 18:19 |
|
Liberation of oppressed nations can take a lot of forms. Revolutionary integration, not separation, is the goal, but where I live is largely a series of military bases designed to keep an eye on the chican@ population with a big rear end fence dividing what is really one city into two separate ones on opposite sides of the border. Out here, we do things like water drops in the Sonora desert, because people die crossing it every year, and the Minutemen come by and slash the water jugs. We march on the border and they come out in uniform, trucks and shotguns pointed at the front of the march. When things start getting worse, when conditions start exacerbating, and they will, we recognize there may come a point where revolutionary integration with some nations is not desired by said nations. Maybe the Minutemen step up their terror campaign against the population and start bombing peoples houses. Its not unheard of - several were arrested a few years back with bomb making materials. Maybe Chican@s raise an independent Aztlan as a demand again. Maybe they don't want it independent, but rather some sort of new, federated relationship to the US as a whole. Maybe its simpler than that, and becomes simply another state. Its up to them, their destiny should no longer be decided by whites in Washington. Personally I'm a fan of a soviet-style house of national representatives based on plurality in a given geographical area, but revolutionary intercommunalism is also a popular concept, since it was largely designed to accommodate the partial shift of the black nation from the agricultural black belt to urban industrial and post-industrial multicultural cities.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 01:30 |
|
Every time I bring this up in a candidate class there's usually one or two white people who sheepishly ask if they're gonna get genocided. That's basically the question you're getting at with the trial of tears comment, right? The fear of just desserts? Its always interesting to me that people don't think of simple plurality rule in those situations. Then again, I guess the only long-term example of that in the United States is Atlanta. Most of the other black cities in the south were burned down by white terrorists after the bitter failure of Reconstruction.
Urbandale fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Aug 15, 2016 |
# ? Aug 15, 2016 03:27 |
|
Saurus is a white nationalist socialist who shilled for Trump for months here despite himself being an illegal immigrant so it is safe to assume he meant white genocide, yes
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 15:45 |
|
Urbandale posted:Liberation of oppressed nations can take a lot of forms. Revolutionary integration, not separation, is the goal, but where I live is largely a series of military bases designed to keep an eye on the chican@ population with a big rear end fence dividing what is really one city into two separate ones on opposite sides of the border. Out here, we do things like water drops in the Sonora desert, because people die crossing it every year, and the Minutemen come by and slash the water jugs. We march on the border and they come out in uniform, trucks and shotguns pointed at the front of the march. So the end of the union as we know it?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 16:04 |
|
Karl Barks posted:So the end of the union as we know it? Unions in general are good. But not all unions are good.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:00 |
|
Karl Barks posted:So the end of the union as we know it? the universal marxist copout is 'possibly, we'd have to analyze the material conditions.' that said, since we're speaking hypotheticals, i think its important to consider all possibilities. i could see the american house of representatives radically reformed into a body proportionate to the nationalities in the country as a whole. if you simultaneously encourage formerly-oppressed nations into local governance, you get a system awfully similar to the soviet of nationalities
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:10 |
|
Fullhouse posted:Saurus is a white nationalist socialist who shilled for Trump for months here despite himself being an illegal immigrant so it is safe to assume he meant white genocide, yes lol you loving what?? Urbandale posted:Every time I bring this up in a candidate class there's usually one or two white people who sheepishly ask if they're gonna get genocided. That's basically the question you're getting at with the trial of tears comment, right? The fear of just desserts? Do you really think that racism against whites is "Just desserts"? It doesn't work like that. But no, that wasn't what I was referring to. I wanted to know how the USA would turn into new nations along ethnic lines if people didn't gather geographically along ethnic lines. Two wrongs don't make a right, and you don't punish an ethnicity collectively for the actions of its members unless you're a racist nazi.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 03:25 |
|
what i meant was that the only reason white people would be scared of no longer holding primacy is if they were scared that what they did to other nations would then be done collectively to them. this is not what anyone on the ground pushing for national liberation thinks would happen. for instance, theres not a single chican@ nationalist org im aware of that argues for the expulsion of white settlers from what they call 'occupied Aztlan,' and we dont either. again, revolutionary integration is the goal. e: that said, we are not arguing the united states would turn into multiple nations, we are arguing that it already is multiple nations, all under the 'dominion' (using the term loosely) of a single country, the united states. if you were referring to the US splitting into multiple countries, thats only one of many possible scenarios. Urbandale fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Aug 16, 2016 |
# ? Aug 16, 2016 03:55 |
|
Urbandale posted:they were scared that what they did to other(s) would then be done collectively to them. ConservativeandLiberalReactionaries.txt
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 04:10 |
|
The Saurus posted:lol you loving what?? lol that's the only part of the description you dispute, huh?
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 04:15 |
|
Bryter posted:lol that's the only part of the description you dispute, huh? I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist who is also a nationalist. Also I'm welsh, so I'd prefer if my heritage wasn't whitewashed by Americans who can't respect the diversity and differences between different ethnicites all termed "white"
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 04:22 |
|
The Saurus posted:I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist who is also a nationalist. hell yes this is my poo poo right here *huffs this post* god drat
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 04:36 |
|
Bryter posted:lol that's the only part of the description you dispute, huh? I think it depends if you mean a white nationalist who is a socialist OR a nationalist socialist who is white 2nd one is cool and good, first one is like if you found a cool and good thing then didn't share it with nonwhites which is selfish and unpatriotic
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 04:58 |
|
I'm certainly not a "white nationalist" or a "national socialist" I believe in redistribution based on wealth and class lines, and that would obviously favour non-whites the most as they are the most screwed over by capitalism in the West. I believe some elements of nationalism, such as preventing a flood of immigrants through various channels to the benefit of corporations to weaken the bargaining position of the working class and tariffs to support domestic industry, are good.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 05:32 |
|
The Saurus posted:I'm certainly not a "white nationalist" or a "national socialist" That is nationalist and socialist Of course I didn't mean the special NSDAP trademark take on those words or I wouldn't have cut out the white supremacy
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 05:38 |
|
The Russian Communist Party's latest campaign theme is loving awesome https://www.rt.com/viral/346003-lenin-stalin-communist-russia/ sexy lenin
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 05:49 |
|
Homework Explainer posted:hell yes this is my poo poo right here *huffs this post* god drat The peoples of the united states are already codependent, and thinking that any separation is going to be productive or go smoothly (read: without ethnic cleansing and balkanization) is being naive. Talking about 'revolutionary integration', while advocating policy that would prevent that goal from happening, is just the hypocritical icing on the cake.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 06:34 |
|
rudatron posted:The irony here is that Urbandale is expressing exactly the same sentiment, only more dressed up, yet people aren't (but should be) aggressively rejecting it. I'm not sure how Urbandale is saying anything even remotely nationalist other than the fact that he proposes that there are already nations within the united states. rudatron posted:The peoples of the united states are already codependent, and thinking that any separation is going to be productive or go smoothly (read: without ethnic cleansing and balkanization) is being naive. Talking about 'revolutionary integration', while advocating policy that would prevent that goal from happening, is just the hypocritical icing on the cake. He's not advocating separation, and explicitly mentions that in his posts. He also explicitly mentions that there doesn't need to be any movement of different races/ethnicities for liberation to occur. Are we reading the same posts here? What policy does he supposedly advocate that would prevent revolutionary integration?
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 07:20 |
|
Odobenidae posted:I'm not sure how Urbandale is saying anything even remotely nationalist other than the fact that he proposes that there are already nations within the united states. He explicitly said it was one of the possible end results. quote:if you were referring to the US splitting into multiple countries, thats only one of many possible scenarios. For my part, I can't support any plan to break up the union. The balkanization of the US is a scary thought, to me. I seriously doubt it would help minority groups. Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Aug 16, 2016 |
# ? Aug 16, 2016 14:06 |
|
Yes, he listed it as a possibility because our Welsh friend was mistaken and concerned about getting ethnically cleansed in his imagined balkanization of the country. Saying that you want revolutionary integration is not advocating for the balkanization of the country. I think if you look really hard at the two you'll find that they're polar opposites.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 14:56 |
|
Words have meaning, 'nationalism' means a belief that 'nations' is a meaningful partitioned 'unit' of humanity, and that state structures should conform to those units. If you're talking of the US as a set of nations, and a reordering of society to conform to those boundaries, you are embracing a kind of nationalism. End of. Even if you say 'well we don't want balkanization', too bad, that's what you will get. History tells us that people can find small differences to kill each other over, if given the opportunity to do so. If you can confidently handwave away that historical trend, then I'd hate to see the look on your face when it's pistolero's slicing your jugs, instead of minutemen, after someone promises to Make Aztlan Great Again.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 15:38 |
|
Rudatron, you're not participating in the conversation in good faith if you can't see what folks are plainly talking about in terms of the right to self-determination and its relationship with internationalism and anti-colonialism. edit: right on cue DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 16, 2016 |
# ? Aug 16, 2016 15:43 |
|
i don't think it's fair/good faith to accuse him of being a white nationalist because he's not entirely sold on the idea of breaking up the US
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 16:34 |
|
Rudatron isn't anything like that from what I saw but Saurus is notorious.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 16:52 |
|
It's a little strange to profess support for national liberation when the people of the "nation" haven't expressed any desire to be "liberated". Other than that minor detail, I fully support the autonomy and self-determination of all peoples, which is why the nation-state must be smashed.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:06 |
|
Reminder:quote:lol:
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:09 |
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Rudatron, you're not participating in the conversation in good faith Oh no !!!
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:13 |
|
GunnerJ posted:Reminder: The bernout thread was filled with thinly or not at all veiled racism against black people in the south.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:14 |
|
tsa posted:The bernout thread was filled with thinly or not at all veiled racism against black people in the south. Oh, well in that case, nevermind.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:18 |
|
Wouldn't 'not seeing' what 'folks are plainly talking about' be ignorance instead of bad faith? Regardless, I do see it, it's dumb, I've stated why. You can't simply accuse someone of bad faith, because they don't agree with you. I mean the whole project is counter to the legacy of the civil rights movement and all that, right, "we are citizens who are being disrespected, having our rights denied, we want inclusion & respect inside US society" was the message, not "we want a separate state because we don't trust things to ever get better", which is what is being presented here, that was the fringe.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:32 |
|
Ormi posted:It's a little strange to profess support for national liberation when the people of the "nation" haven't expressed any desire to be "liberated". Other than that minor detail, I fully support the autonomy and self-determination of all peoples, which is why the nation-state must be smashed. Agreed, anything that seperates those who don't own the means of productions while pitting them against each other and creating the illusion of shared interests with their oppressors needs to be smashed.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 17:38 |
|
rudatron posted:Wouldn't 'not seeing' what 'folks are plainly talking about' be ignorance instead of bad faith? Regardless, I do see it, it's dumb, I've stated why. You can't simply accuse someone of bad faith, because they don't agree with you. i'm in agreement with urbandale on this one and wouldn't want the us to balkanize but uh malcolm x was hardly a fringe figure in the civil rights movement
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 18:14 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:35 |
|
Ibogaine posted:Agreed, anything that seperates those who don't own the means of productions while pitting them against each other and creating the illusion of shared interests with their oppressors needs to be smashed. lol that there are leftists who would say anything but this.
|
# ? Aug 16, 2016 18:26 |