Posted on 11/30/2004 2:28:45 PM PST by Lorianne
But let's face it, there is a heck of a lot more stuff out there to buy than 50 years ago. Back then houses were smaller, you didn't necessarily need a car, the extent of a home entertainment system was a radio. You could still live pretty cheaply if you want to live like you did 50 years ago, but people aren't going to knock down the door to do that.
You are right. I wasted all our money on that lavish country club we joined.
Or it must be all the manicures and facials I get every week.
Or it must be the monthly spa visits.
Who are you to make assumptions about how we spend our money? No we do not own an entertainment center. No we do not own a stereo. Our newest car is a 1991 plymouth bought used.
I had our house appraised last month--a 4br, 2 full bath, eat in kitchen, formal dining, updates too numerous to name, on a "postage stamp" property. $109,000. In other Lansing neighborhoods, my house would be valued at $150,000 or more.
...and you're starting to sound like some kinda nutcase which is too bad--I agreed with much of what you stated earlier in the thread. Newsflash: There is no gene for being an American. If there is a gene which causes xenophobia, my friend, I think you may posess it.
I think the person who first used the phrase is using an imprecise rhetorical flourish.
Nevertheless, Mitochondrial DNA markers can be used to determine everyones ancestory. Therefore, the amalgamated group I mentioned before will show a common thread of ancestory from the relatively small number of pre-1880 (and even more so pre-1800) immigrants to this country.
What exactly is your implication, Herm? Did these kids wander away from home one day and find themselves in an orphanage? Isn't it absolutely more likely that the genetic donors of these children left their kids in an orphanage?
As for Jolie...for someone so high-profile and with so much money, I think she would set a better example by adopting a child here in America. She can well afford a team of lawyers to handle the red tape--something which most Americans seeking to adopt cannot afford to do. However, in her defense, I certainly do not recall reading about how she snuck into some poor, unsuspecting villager's hut one night and swiped a couple of kids.
You should strongly consider more reasonably priced real estate beyond Worcester or in New Hampshire. Sacrificing family size for high priced real estate simply isn't worth it.
Nonsense. America is different from a nation like Germany. There is no ethnic component to being American. A Turk living in Germany cannot really claim German identity because "Germanness" involves both an ethnic and culutral component.
Granted, this country (or, at least, large chunks of it) were founded by people of Northern European extraction. However, there have been successive waves of immigration to this country from places that the Founding Fathers would not have considered as being compatible with "Americanness" (such as Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe). The idea that Anglo-Saxon genes are dominant in this country today is not accurate.
Genetics is not something one can change, but culture is. That is why the US was able to attract and assimilate milions on non Anglo-Saxon immigrants whereas a country like Japan could not attract or assimilate millions of non-Japanese: once a person accepts American culture, they ARE an American.
The Boston Brahmin domination and definition of this country has passed.
A child raised by Americans and assimilated into American culture IS as American as one born to an Anglo-Saxon like John Kerry.
BFD! Not a single one of my ancestors set foot on North American soil before 1905--most of them came over in the 1920s. Guess I'm not an American, right?
Being an American--claiming to have allegiance to ANY nation, for that matter--has nothing to do with genetics. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. Ideals, baby. I am an American because I would fight for my country and I would die for my country. Being born here just means I can run for President.
I have to disagree with that statement. Some nations clearly have an ethnic aspect to their definition. You could live in Japan for generations and still not be considered Japanese, whereas Japanese immigrants to this country can become Americans as soon as they adopt this country's ideals.
So your advice is to close my business, move my family further away from the rest of the family, have my wife quite her job...or I can start driving about 2 hours one-way to my business so I can see my new baby for about an hour a day. Sounds like a great plan to me. I just don't know what I was thinking...
Many of us whose families were here before those immigrant waves you mention subsequently reject this reasoning. We believe that the original American settlers are the definition of the American nation, and that our ancestors not only formed this nation, but created this country to which others subsequently immigrated. We therefore reject the idea that "we are a nation of immigrants" because our ancestors did not immigrate to a new country - they moved from one part of the Empire to another, no differently than if they had moved from London to Glasgow or Belfast.
But more fundementally, a nation by definition is people of common descent. If America is not a nation like Germany or Spain, then American is not a nation at all. Just a land with many different subnations. You are trying to redefine words.
Granted, this country (or, at least, large chunks of it) were founded by people of Northern European extraction. However, there have been successive waves of immigration to this country from places that the Founding Fathers would not have considered as being compatible with "Americanness" (such as Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe). The idea that Anglo-Saxon genes are dominant in this country today is not accurate.
The first immigration law from 1789 granted citizenship only to "free white persons". Most states required active citizens to be professed Christians or at least deists. Various federal court cases over this resolved that Indians from the subcontinent are not white and could not become citizens, while Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese Christians are. So the Founders appeared to have every intention that other Europeans could migrate here and become citizens. Even American Indians were not granted citizaenship until 1924. The disabilities on non-white foreigners becoming citizens were not removed until 1952, IIRC, from the immigration reforms in the McCarran Act.
As to Anglo-Sexon dominance, that is still so. The majority of people in the US continue to report to the Census as being of ancestory coming from the original settlers of the US - from the British Isles, from Germany and Holland, from France, and from Scandanavia. The three largest groups are the Germans, English, and Irish. If you also include the many Americans who are Black or Native Indians, you have the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of the US. Asians and South/Eastern Europeans - the two groups of "new immigrants" are a small fraction of the US population - 15% would be pushing it.
America has had 3 Irish presidents (Buchanan, Kennedy, and Reagan), 4 German/Dutch presidents (Roosevelt, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower) and 36 English presidents (everyone else).
The vast majority of current politicians and movers and shakers belong to those three groups and the blacks. Wake me up in 100 years when someone from outside those groups actually has a chance.
You are confusing citizenship with nationality. Try using a dictionary to understand the definitions of words.
Yes.
Why bother having children if you won't be raising them? You are proposing having another person raise your children for you so you can pay for an expensive house. Don't you see a problem there?
**I lost my cool for an instance and retorted that she should think about the possibility of spending her eternity celebrating all her vacation's in a very hot environment**
bwaaahaha
I notice from your profile page that you are Catholic. Up until very recently, Catholics in this country were not considered "true" Americans, especially the Irish and Italians. It seems that the definition of who can be a "true" American has been malleable through history. Certainly, the idea that Blacks were true Americans would have been laughable up until very recently.
We therefore reject the idea that "we are a nation of immigrants" because our ancestors did not immigrate to a new country - they moved from one part of the Empire to another
Just to give you one example, over 40% of Americans have an ancestor who immigrated through Ellis Island alone. To claim that America is not a nation of immigrants is to defy reality.
But more fundementally, a nation by definition is people of common descent. If America is not a nation like Germany or Spain, then American is not a nation at all. Just a land with many different subnations. You are trying to redefine words.
You're using one possible definition, but another defintion, according to Webster's, is "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government; a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status." America fits either of those definitions quite well.
As to Anglo-Sexon dominance, that is still so. The majority of people in the US continue to report to the Census as being of ancestory coming from the original settlers of the US - from the British Isles, from Germany and Holland, from France, and from Scandanavia. The three largest groups are the Germans, English, and Irish.
Right there, your definition is too broad. You cannot honestly claim that the Irish would have been considered "real" Americans up until very recently. You pretty much have to exclude anyone who is of Irish (34 million), Italian (20 million), Hispanic (13% or so), Black (12%), Native (1.5%), Asian (1.2%), Jewish (2%), Muslim (1%) from the definition. That's nearly 50% of the country.
There is more than one definition of "nation."
Maybe it's because these kids were largely ignored by their parents when they were growing up, became depressed, parents again ignored them by medicating them, and the kids took things into their own hands, however extreme. (This is not saying parents who work ignore their kids.)
It's going to take a lot less than that for Hispanics to become dominant in this country....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.