networker67
|
posted on December 16, 2000 07:22:01 PM new
We went into this briefly during a hot topic on the ebay outlook back in October. However, I want to know does anyone have any idea what makes a true American? And sorry just being born here entitles you to United States Citizenship doesn't make you an American. I'll review the posts and post what I think makes us American sometime Sunday afternoon. Then the participants can spend the rest of Sunday attacking it or agreeing with it.
|
xardon
|
posted on December 16, 2000 07:30:04 PM new
But I'm not going to be here Sunday and plus I need time to think. I didn't know about this! Can I do some other project instead?
|
gravid
|
posted on December 16, 2000 07:50:05 PM new
I am getting ready for all the variations of "My country right or wrong."
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on December 16, 2000 07:57:04 PM new
US citizenship works for me, not sure why it doesn't work for you.
|
kitsch1
|
posted on December 16, 2000 08:01:44 PM new
What makes us Americans is kind of the same as what makes us a part of our families.
We live thru pain together, we laugh tho we hurt so bad, together or apart from everyone. Some in our family don't understand us or even like us, but there we are. Trying always, most especially during Holiday celebrations to love one another and understand one another.
We fight to get along and fail sometimes. Let an outsider try to destroy one of us tho and there is hell to pay.
Like, a certain relative of mine; I hardly ever see her and when I do its like she's a toothache. But, try to hurt her in front of me and yer toast.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on December 16, 2000 08:06:10 PM new
I always found that one of the beautiful features of America is that the you don't have to "love it or leave it".
IMO, that is something to love, as distasteful as the homegrown America-haters might be.
|
stusi
|
posted on December 17, 2000 02:20:26 PM new
the "true" part is extremely subjective. on the surface it would seem to imply patriotism-having a protective interest in the safety and policies of the country. many feel that if one does not vote then one is not a "true" American. whenever i see or hear a question like this, somehow i can't help but think of the question of flag-burning. is it un-American or is it that exact type of freedom of expression that is "true" American?
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 17, 2000 02:41:33 PM new
Hello Networker67,
Why not simply post what you think and believe?
Why do you want to see the opinions of others before you post your own?
United States citizenship does it for me whether by birthright or naturalization.
Or are you seeking some philosophical discussion about what it means to be American.
|
uaru
|
posted on December 17, 2000 03:28:03 PM new
...does anyone have any idea what makes a true American? And sorry just being born here entitles you to United States Citizenship doesn't make you an American
US citizenship would make a person an American by my standards. I know there are some that will try and argue a person's philosophy or values would make them an American. With that measuring stick could it be argued that an Ethopian holding the same philosophies or values would be an American too. Maybe they'd argue that it was a case of values and philosophies and geography. I lived overseas for many years. I wonder if I was an American by the standards being pondered? 
All generalizations are false, including this one
|
MrJim
|
posted on December 17, 2000 05:55:48 PM new
Technically, all US Citizens are by definition Americans. As are all non-citizens residing in America.
From the Dictionary:
American:
A native or inhabitant of America.
A citizen of the United States.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 17, 2000 06:04:49 PM new
Well its Sunday evening, I took the time to read the sentiments of other posters. I offer no comment on those replies. But I will say this since all Americans (including native ones) claim a heritage other than just being born here or naturalized. Being American cannot be anything but philosophical. With that said consider this as a definition of American.
An American is one who holds true and dear to the basic belief that the principles and freedoms of The United States Constitution applies to them and everyone else responsible enough to accept. That with great freedoms the citizenship must exert great responsibility in exercising and respecting those freedoms they hold for themselves. Because an American accepts that exerting some of his freedoms, might encroach on the freedoms of another.
Well what do you think. I am actually crazy enough to live by this definition.
See I believe you have the freedom to burn the flag. I have the freedom to throw a bucket of water on the fire.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 17, 2000 07:33:16 PM new
What do I think?
I don't think you live by that definition.
I also don't think that it is logical or plausible to try to live by that definition. In particular this statement...
"Because an American accepts that exerting some of his freedoms, might encroach on the freedoms of another."
If a person, in the exercise of their freedoms (whether Constitutionally granted or otherwise) encroach on the freedoms of another then who prevails?
And by prevail I don't mean merely who wins the dispute and continues to exercise the freedom that encroaches on the other's freedoms. I mean who prevails in a moral sense. Who is right? And who has the right?
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 17, 2000 07:50:37 PM new
Oh and Networker67, should you choose to answer my questions in that last post, be very very very careful lest you step into a bear trap the likes of which you've never encountered.
Heheh
|
networker67
|
posted on December 17, 2000 08:47:31 PM new
That's why under my definition you are not an American. You can't grasp the concept that all those rights require a degree of responsibility and respect of the rights of another.
You have the right to own a gun. I have the right to protest your right. Who is right? Under the current interpretation of the constitution you have the right to own a gun. I also under that same constitution have a right to protest your right.
So we both are right. We both have to exert responsibility that our rights require that we respect others rights. An American knows that distinction. The one just intent on having and exerting rights with no respct of the rights of others is just a person fortunate enough to be born here to have those rights.
The one who thinks someone has to prevail in a moral sense. Overlooks the fact that morals themselves are derived from abstract concepts. Unlike principles they don't require a degree of responsibility and respect.
So trust me I live by it and mean every word of it. Its how I can live in and love a Country that has freedoms based on principles that it spent 180 years morally denying to many of its populace and still love it. Because I know by its basic principle of majority rules it grew past the moral sense that made members of its populace think it was morally right to ignore the basic principles of its freedoms.
To further the argument, I beleive that right now today in America. You could strike the 13th, 15th, 19th, amendments to the Constitution and Blacks wouldn't return to slavery, and along with women would still have the right to vote. See we only have those amendments because some people need clear language to limit the extent of what they morally think is right.
However since you can't show me where in the Constitution it ever allowed slavery or limited the right to vote. I say nothing would change, but since we have people who enjoy having their freedoms and exercising them above respecting the rights and freedoms of others due to some corrupt moral sense. We need certain things spelled out for those individuals who haven't the mettle to accept the challenges that so much freedom places on a citizenship. Because they focus on abstract moral values when time tells us principles endure past time. Morals on the other hand change like the weather.
Why do you think the Constitution is based on Principles and not Morals. Those founding fathers knew that morals change as society changes. What's morally acceptable today might become unacceptable tomorrow. So they built this Country on Principles and not Morals.
So fire away with that morals nonsense. No moral sense argument will stand up to a principle argument.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 17, 2000 09:02 PM ]
|
uaru
|
posted on December 17, 2000 09:10:57 PM new
I find it mildly interesting that both of these comments would come from the same person in the same post.
That's why under my definition you are not an American. You can't grasp the concept that all those rights require a degree of responsibility and respect of the rights of another.
The one who thinks someone has to prevail in a moral sense. Overlooks the fact that morals themselves are derived from abstract concepts.
|
fred
|
posted on December 17, 2000 09:17:57 PM new
"This American system of ours, call it Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you will, gives each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it."
- gangster Al Capone
Fred
|
kitsch1
|
posted on December 17, 2000 09:27:04 PM new
Why didnt you just say that you wanted to force your views of what it is to be an American in the first place Networker?
You could have left those of us who spoke from the heart out of your little game.
Who in the hell are you to judge who is American and who isnt?
|
krs
|
posted on December 17, 2000 09:50:22 PM new
Networker,
Hogwash. The amendments are guarantees, in writing, and cannot be denied. It's like when you buy a new car. If you don't have it writing, sure enough someone will come along and screw you on it.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 17, 2000 10:18:17 PM new
kitsch - Sorry you feel that way. Aren't you glad I beleive you have the right to feel that way.
fred - Big Al had it right. Grab it with both hands. Which makes me ponder what would Al have done to make it to the history books if the morally pompous folks hadn't gotten the 18th Amendment passed. Strange how the only amendment based on a perception of morality is also the only one repealed. America went against the formula of principles over morals and for 13 years all hell broke loose. Why because no moral argument can be forced on all the people. Especially when they hold principles that what they are doing is not wrong. Which is why so many otherwise law abiding citizens broke the law daily during prohibition.
uaru - Sounds like you are still stuck on principles over morals. Hopefully the Prohibition example helps clarify it a little better for you.
krs - Not exactly, only the first 10 are guarantees in writing. 11 - 27 are refinements for clarity under the law. Don't beleive me go back and read them. 1 -10 guarantee rights, 11 - 27 provide clarity for interpretation to avoid abstract moral ignorance. The only possible exceptions are 14 and 16 which both have certain guarantees. Which by the way some moral folks still managed to get the interpretation of 14 botched. Which created the need for 15, 19, and 24. Funny thing about those moral folks they seem to require a great deal of clarity when those morals tell them certain things should be a certain way when basic principles of the Constitution state otherwise.
See folks before you get all upset. Americans aren't people of morals, we are people of principles. People of certain morals just seem to need a great deal of clarity when it comes to explaining that. The Constitution itself is a classic example of that. It took 5 amendments for certain moral folk to understand that, We The People in principle means everybody. Not just special somebodies but everybody. I guess those lofty morals tend to get in the way of sound judgement. Unless there is a better explanation of why it took 5 refinements to the Constitution for people to figure out we the people is all the people not some of the people.
Hey I know what I'll just wait for that better explanation.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 17, 2000 10:48 PM ]
|
krs
|
posted on December 17, 2000 10:30:49 PM new
Sure, like emminent domain.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on December 17, 2000 11:38:35 PM new
I know that in many other countries they think it is our arrogance and ego that make us American.
I think it is our diversity - in thought,religion ,politics , lifestyles ...all things. We can be who we want and think like we want and pretty much do what we want to do with our lives. All the while pretending to love our neighbors. Gosh, I love America
[ edited by rawbunzel on Dec 17, 2000 11:40 PM ]
|
xardon
|
posted on December 18, 2000 05:09:34 AM new
I much prefer wry, pithy responses to carefully detailed, point by point, rebuttals.
So I'm just going to pith on your posts, and leave it at that.
|
krs
|
posted on December 18, 2000 08:09:17 AM new
Networker,
I'm inclined to xardon's way of thinking now, as your wilting points are insufficient to support any agenda of yours, even. You alter them on the wing, I mean, thus making them useless, even to you.
But, before I do that I'll just present you with: It doesn't make any difference how they got there, the amendments are warrants in law, reliable in the courts, and addressing problematic points as they have come up. How you can ascribe a moral underlay to the limitation of the number of terms that a president may serve, for example, is beyond me, but I find that I'm really not interested in how your collage will try to make one appear.
|
sgtmike
|
posted on December 18, 2000 08:12:46 AM new
Do not morals and principles go hand in hand?
|
fred
|
posted on December 18, 2000 08:28:48 AM new
networker67, We are a nation of laws. With or without proibition Capone would have still been the parasite he was.
Capone was a registered Democrate. He felt this was the party he could control, and this he did.
Fred
|
stusi
|
posted on December 18, 2000 08:29:34 AM new
networker-although we have "banged heads" before, i tend to agree with most of what you say. when people question your approach, you get defensive and ask whether they think you should talk ebonics or rhyme like Jesse Jackson. when you say things like "i'll review the posts" and "then the participants can spend Sunday ..attacking it or ..agreeing with it", you continue to talk down to all here like you are the teacher and we are all your students. you seem to totally lack humility and i have never seen you admit to being wrong or even modifying your views. for someone so smart you make numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes. if i were to make a definitive and demeaning but erroneous statement(as you did about Judaism) about Black culture you would get quite angry. the point is that you are not and cannot be an expert in all areas. are you an acknowledged expert in any area of study? what are your credentials? your intolerance of others' views is at odds with your definition of an American.
|
xardon
|
posted on December 18, 2000 09:03:23 AM new
stusi, none of us get the spelling and grammar right. I try to overlook all but the most egregious gaffes in posts and appreciate the same consideration for my own.
.....and you should talk about grammar and spellng?
|
networker67
|
posted on December 18, 2000 09:04:36 AM new
sgtmike - That really depends on your school of thought. Some think they go hand in hand. Some think one relies on the other. Some think one stands above the other. And some think such as I that they are easily seperable concepts with no reliance of one to the other.
I'll further. Ask yourself this are the 10 Commandments morals or principles. Some will say they form a moral code. Others will say they form a legal code. Yet others will say they are guiding principles. Which would you say they are and why.
KRS - You lost me on that last point. Since I think I was quite clear that nothing with the exception of one amendment had or has anything to do with morals. In fact I pointed out that one happens to also be the only one repealed. I recall the respondent stated the amendments are guarantees. And I agreed that the bill of rights 1 -10 are guarantees. But 11 - 27 all serve as clarification. I furthered that statement as they reflect to those moral arguments. That in a few specific areas the so-called moral folks seemed to require a great deal of clarification on matters. By the way no agenda here, asked a question presented my premise and then to your dismay supported it. And used our Constitution to do it. Can pull other places from history that clearly show America operates from principle and not morals.
To quote codasaurus, careful how you reply. My next support for the argument will cut your legs from under your argument. In fact I know his intelligently researched reply will generate it anyway. I am actually waiting for it.
Fred - I agree we are a Nation of Laws. But I disagree that Capone would have still been a parasite hadn't the opportunity of Prohibition been created for him. And sadly since history has already been written we will never know. Betcha didn't know that several current homeless shelters and missions in Chicago are located in buildings he donated to them. And the donations were made before his syphillis took control.
edited to add my reply to fred and to clarify for pat the cut the legs from under you. Seeing this is the internet we should know not to take things so literally. But like the Constiutition a little clarity is needed since it avoids confusion and shenaigans to curt the rules.
Hey pat my cut the legs from the argument reply won't be combative in fact I going to one of my favorite places with it. Even you might want to say something.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 18, 2000 09:19 AM ]
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 18, 2000 09:31 AM ]
|
pattaylor
|
posted on December 18, 2000 09:15:28 AM new
Ahem!
With statements like:
"be very very very careful lest you step into a bear trap the likes of which you've never encountered"
and
"...will cut your legs from under you"
my intuition is telling me this thread has great potential to become combative.
Please, let's try to keep it civil, okay? After all, 'tis the season and all that.
Thanks.
Pat
[email protected]
|
stusi
|
posted on December 18, 2000 09:18:46 AM new
xardon- yes, when typing fast we all can make grammatical and spellng(?) mistakes. my point was that it shouldn't be expected from someone of such supposed perfection. i didn't expect such a quick defense from someone who asked sarcastically if they could do another project and who was "pithing" on the poster in question. we are, however, being taken off the subject once again by continuous nasty comments from the same posters.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 18, 2000 09:24 AM ]
|
