The Evolution of Hispanic Identity

[Agnapostate]

When I criticized Christopher Columbus's legacy and the nature of the Spanish occupation of America, this underwent the usual rightist analysis of screeching about political correctness (is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?), and my commentary was depicted as anti-Anglo despite the fact that Columbus was an Italian of Genoa commanding a Hispanic occupation force. This conflation implies that there's some connection between Anglo and Hispanic identity because of common European origins. And yet, the incompatibility of aspects of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the "refusal to assimilate" on the part of modern Latin American immigrants of largely Native American descent is now cited as a reason for opposing "excessive" immigration.

What does this mean, exactly? Hispanic identity becomes divorced from Anglo identity once the Indians are successfully indoctrinated with it? :laugh:

[chloe]

When I criticized Christopher Columbus's legacy and the nature of the Spanish occupation of America, this underwent the usual rightist analysis of screeching about political correctness (is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?), and my commentary was depicted as anti-Anglo despite the fact that Columbus was an Italian of Genoa commanding a Hispanic occupation force. This conflation implies that there's some connection between Anglo and Hispanic identity because of common European origins. And yet, the incompatibility of aspects of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the "refusal to assimilate" on the part of modern Latin American immigrants of largely Native American descent is now cited as a reason for opposing "excessive" immigration.

What does this mean, exactly? Hispanic identity becomes divorced from Anglo identity once the Indians are successfully indoctrinated with it? :laugh:

I'm thinking Hogtrash will agree with you. He feels the same way.

[Gaffer]

What you refer to as excessive immigration is illegal immigration. There are yearly quotas to prevent massive influxes of immigrants. And its very important during times like these when there is a serious recession.

Do you just hate white people? or do you just hate history because you can't change it?

[cat slave]

Its always the "illegal" part that gets overlooked.

[Gaffer]

Its always the "illegal" part that gets overlooked.

Yep, they want to call them everything but what they are. Then bring up history to condemn all the white people in this country. Agna wants to extend his condemnation to white people in every country.

[Agnapostate]

Actually, while I'm not a proponent of what's called the "Black Legend" per se, I've always noted that the Hispanic invasion was a particularly vicious and brutal one and inflicted far higher casualties than the Anglo invasion. So no, there's no such conflation on my part.

At any rate, my question goes unanswered.

[HogTrash]

(is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?),The most "PC" position out there is to hate white people and to make lame excuses for the rest, Mr PC.

[HogTrash]

(is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?),The most "PC" position out there is to hate white people and to make lame excuses for the rest, Mr PC.

[Agnapostate]

Not surprising that my question again goes unanswered. :laugh:

[chloe]

When I criticized Christopher Columbus's legacy and the nature of the Spanish occupation of America, this underwent the usual rightist analysis of screeching about political correctness (is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?), and my commentary was depicted as anti-Anglo despite the fact that Columbus was an Italian of Genoa commanding a Hispanic occupation force. This conflation implies that there's some connection between Anglo and Hispanic identity because of common European origins. And yet, the incompatibility of aspects of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the "refusal to assimilate" on the part of modern Latin American immigrants of largely Native American descent is now cited as a reason for opposing "excessive" immigration.

What does this mean, exactly? Hispanic identity becomes divorced from Anglo identity once the Indians are successfully indoctrinated with it? :laugh:

I don't know much about hispanic history but I used live in new mexico and loved the culture. I used to have fun making tamales on xmas eve with my best friend and her grandma, we also used to eat tortillas as an afterschool snack, just put them right on the stovetop and melt butter on them YUM!

I had a major crush on a navajo indian, and he told me his version of thanksgiving was that white people poisoned the indians food and gave them alcohol to wreck them so they could steal the indians land, I thought he was hispanic and he got all offended and said he wasn't mexican he was navajo indian. So I guess there is a racial distinction. Whatever, he was goodlooking, thats all I know:coffee:

[Trigg]

Not surprising that my question again goes unanswered. :laugh:

Why don't you state CLEARLY what your question is.

[chloe]

Why don't you state CLEARLY what your question is.

:laugh2:

[SassyLady]

When I criticized Christopher Columbus's legacy and the nature of the Spanish occupation of America, this underwent the usual rightist analysis of screeching about political correctness (is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?), and my commentary was depicted as anti-Anglo despite the fact that Columbus was an Italian of Genoa commanding a Hispanic occupation force. This conflation implies that there's some connection between Anglo and Hispanic identity because of common European origins. And yet, the incompatibility of aspects of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the "refusal to assimilate" on the part of modern Latin American immigrants of largely Native American descent is now cited as a reason for opposing "excessive" immigration.

What does this mean, exactly? Hispanic identity becomes divorced from Anglo identity once the Indians are successfully indoctrinated with it? :laugh:

I'm with everyone else here - exactly what is your question? It seems that you made a statement/explanation and then asked a rhetorial question that needs no answer. Ask specifically and I'm sure that one of us Anglo-Americans will attempt to answer it.

[chloe]

Why don't you state CLEARLY what your question is.

:laugh2: what is the question? I thought he was just making a statement and wanted us to talk amongst ourselves....:beer:

[chloe]

I'm with everyone else here - exactly what is your question? It seems that you made a statement/explanation and then asked a rhetorial question that needs no answer. Ask specifically and I'm sure that one of us Anglo-Americans will attempt to answer it.

If anything he needs to dumb it down for me....:lol:

[SassyLady]

If anything he needs to dumb it down for me....:lol:

Nahhhhhh.......he's just quoting some liberal professor from the university.........all students his age have the same affliction. Spouting theory instead of experience! :thumb:

[chloe]

Nahhhhhh.......he's just quoting some liberal professor from the university.........all students his age have the same affliction. Spouting theory instead of experience! :thumb:

MrsKurt, not to derail this thread but your dogs are so cute.....

(sorry agna)

On Topic:Agna,I still don't know what you want to discuss/debate

[Agnapostate]

I had a major crush on a navajo indian, and he told me his version of thanksgiving was that white people poisoned the indians food and gave them alcohol to wreck them so they could steal the indians land, I thought he was hispanic and he got all offended and said he wasn't mexican he was navajo indian. So I guess there is a racial distinction. Whatever, he was goodlooking, thats all I know:coffee:

A lot of Indians are "Hispanic" or "Mexican," because those are a group of nationalities and an individual nationality, respectively. And there's no significant racial difference between an Apache in the U.S. and an Apache in Mexico, obviously. But U.S. Indians generally dislike being associated with "Hispanics," I've found, and that doesn't surprise me.


Why don't you state CLEARLY what your question is.

I've asked very clearly why Hispanic culture and identity evidently became incompatible with Anglo culture and identity when it was adopted by Indians, while it was conflated with Anglo culture because of their common European roots before. For example, my attack on the legacy of Columbus and the Spanish occupation of America (an attack on Hispanic elements) was unsurprisingly condemned as "PC" (when you can anticipate a gut "anti-PC" reaction, it's probably safe to assume that attacks on "PC" have themselves become "PC"), while Hispanic identity became separated from "safe" European identity when it was adopted by the indigenous (through force).


I'm with everyone else here - exactly what is your question? It seems that you made a statement/explanation and then asked a rhetorial question that needs no answer. Ask specifically and I'm sure that one of us Anglo-Americans will attempt to answer it.

I suspect that many of you aren't "Anglo-Americans" considering the recent incorporation of other whites into that category. Of rightist political commentators, for example, how is it that Irishmen like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, a German like Rush Limbaugh, or a Jew like Michael Savage are considered part of an "Anglo" majority?


Nahhhhhh.......he's just quoting some liberal professor from the university.........all students his age have the same affliction. Spouting theory instead of experience! :thumb:

It was my experiences through longtime residence in the Southwest, contrasted with those of others, that enabled me to see that anecdotal experiences weren't a sound basis for thorough analysis. While you're digesting that, try to remember that most of the "leftist" professors are socialists and radical progressives rather than liberals and that their empty dismissal by rightists doesn't constitute actual argument against their ideas...which is unsurprising. The prospect of Noam Chomsky debating Sean Hannity, for example, conjures up images of Floyd Mayweather boxing a Girl Scout. :laugh:

[Trigg]

So we'll just ignore what you mean by anglo-American.

Hispanic culture isn't incompatalbe with American culture simply because the vast majority of hispanics in this country are "indian". If they want to come here Legally and practice their culture and have an identity, than I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.

What you seem unable to grasp though is that there ARE borders, wheather or not you like that is irrelivant. If ANY hispanic comes here, of any color, illegally than they need to leave.

[HogTrash]

So we'll just ignore what you mean by anglo-American.

Hispanic culture isn't incompatalbe with American culture simply because the vast majority of hispanics in this country are "indian". If they want to come here Legally and practice their culture and have an identity, than I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.

What you seem unable to grasp though is that there ARE borders, wheather or not you like that is irrelivant. If ANY hispanic comes here, of any color, illegally than they need to leave.Although Agnapostate is in denial, he Is indeed a liberal...His marxist indoctrination has been thorough...The universities are most likely the culprits.

Who or what else could be so foolish and naive as to believe that a hybrid ideology can be created by combining anarchy and communism...Oil and water.

Hmmm?...If we could cross a chicken with an elephant we could get 50 lb eggs, boss.....LOL! :slap:

[Agnapostate]

So we'll just ignore what you mean by anglo-American.

"Anglo" is derived from the same etymological source as the term "English," is it not? The settlement of the U.S. by the British ensured that Anglo culture would be dominant (with Welsh and Scottish culture assuming an inferior role), something that extended to Anglo dominance over minority white ethnicities for some time. Or have you not noticed that the "micks" and "wops" were the underclass of yesterday?


Hispanic culture isn't incompatalbe with American culture simply because the vast majority of hispanics in this country are "indian". If they want to come here Legally and practice their culture and have an identity, than I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.

Why are you placing "Indian" in quotation marks? The Indians of Mexico, Guatemala, or Costa Rica are Native Americans just as the Indians of the U.S. are, as they are all among the indigenous peoples of America (despite the fact that you incorrectly imply that the U.S. has a monopoly over the term "American") and are descended from a small number of crossers of the Beringia land bridge.


What you seem unable to grasp though is that there ARE borders, wheather or not you like that is irrelivant. If ANY hispanic comes here, of any color, illegally than they need to leave.

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that you're not making any comment that's applicable or relevant to the thread. I've already stated that I'm not interested in either your legal fetishism or general immigration discussion in this thread; I'm looking for specific commentary on the evolution of Hispanic identity that I've mentioned. Why is it that attacks on Hispanic action made by me were "PC" and "anti-white" while commentary on the incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture is now common?


Although Agnapostate is in denial, he Is indeed a liberal...His marxist indoctrination has been thorough...The universities are most likely the culprits.

Who or what else could be so foolish and naive as to believe that a hybrid ideology can be created by combining anarchy and communism...Oil and water.

Hmmm?...If we could cross a chicken with an elephant we could get 50 lb eggs, boss.....LOL! :slap:

You're just regurgitating common rightist misconceptions. Anarchism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology and the term "anarchist" was first used as a self-description by the market socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. This was the case because anarchists are anti-authoritarians and opposed the hierarchical social relations that capitalism entailed, as they still do. What you're advancing is the "Er, but anarchism's no government, communism's all government, ain't that right?" line. That's not something that's new to me, so please come up with better arguments.

I strongly doubt that you can, considering that you believe that liberalism and Marxism are somehow related despite the fact that liberalism is centered around the sustainment of capitalism. Liberalism and socialism (of any kind, not just Marxism) are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.

[HogTrash]

"Anglo" is derived from the same etymological source as the term "English," is it not? The settlement of the U.S. by the British ensured that Anglo culture would be dominant (with Welsh and Scottish culture assuming an inferior role), something that extended to Anglo dominance over minority white ethnicities for some time. Or have you not noticed that the "micks" and "wops" were the underclass of yesterday?



Why are you placing "Indian" in quotation marks? The Indians of Mexico, Guatemala, or Costa Rica are Native Americans just as the Indians of the U.S. are, as they are all among the indigenous peoples of America (despite the fact that you incorrectly imply that the U.S. has a monopoly over the term "American") and are descended from a small number of crossers of the Beringia land bridge.



What you seem to be unable to grasp is that you're not making any comment that's applicable or relevant to the thread. I've already stated that I'm not interested in either your legal fetishism or general immigration discussion in this thread; I'm looking for specific commentary on the evolution of Hispanic identity that I've mentioned. Why is it that attacks on Hispanic action made by me were "PC" and "anti-white" while commentary on the incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture is now common?



You're just regurgitating common rightist misconceptions. Anarchism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology and the term "anarchist" was first used as a self-description by the market socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. This was the case because anarchists are anti-authoritarians and opposed the hierarchical social relations that capitalism entailed, as they still do. What you're advancing is the "Er, but anarchism's no government, communism's all government, ain't that right?" line. That's not something that's new to me, so please come up with better arguments.

I strongly doubt that you can, considering that you believe that liberalism and Marxism are somehow related despite the fact that liberalism is centered around the sustainment of capitalism. Liberalism and socialism (of any kind, not just Marxism) are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.It has since been discovered that socialism/communism cannot sustain itself without strict government control over everything.

Socialism/communism is the strict extreme control over every aspect of business, private and personal lives, while anarchy is total chaos...Oxymoron.

Totalitarianism is the inevitable final conclusion...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Kim, Minh and Castro, together murdered 100million+ people for this ideology of government slavery.

You are to far gone to see the reality of what I have said, despite all the undeniable examples that are part of the history of 20th century planet earth.


you believe that liberalism and Marxism are somehow related despite the fact that liberalism is centered around the sustainment of capitalism.

Liberals are the foolish unwitting pawns of the marxist who are for the most part indoctrinated in the universities...That is all.

[chloe]

[QUOTE=Agnapostate;394291]A lot of Indians are "Hispanic" or "Mexican," because those are a group of nationalities and an individual nationality, respectively. And there's no significant racial difference between an Apache in the U.S. and an Apache in Mexico, obviously. But U.S. Indians generally dislike being associated with "Hispanics," I've found, and that doesn't surprise me.
=QUOTE]

So Navajo is US Indian? Why do they dislike being associated with hispanics, thats weird. Yeah I still don't get the Jew thing. I thought Jewish is a religion. For instance my family history shows my ancestors as jewish, but then later it does not, well its because they changed religions. Jewish isn't a race eh. Im caucasian thats my race.

[Trigg]

[QUOTE=Agnapostate;394291]A lot of Indians are "Hispanic" or "Mexican," because those are a group of nationalities and an individual nationality, respectively. And there's no significant racial difference between an Apache in the U.S. and an Apache in Mexico, obviously. But U.S. Indians generally dislike being associated with "Hispanics," I've found, and that doesn't surprise me.
=QUOTE]

So Navajo is US Indian? Why do they dislike being associated with hispanics, thats weird. Yeah I still don't get the Jew thing. I thought Jewish is a religion. For instance my family history shows my ancestors as jewish, but then later it does not, well its because they changed religions. Jewish isn't a race eh. Im caucasian thats my race.

A Navajo wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Cherokee either. They aren't hispanic, they don't consider themselves Mexican.

It's really not any different than mistaking a Korean for a Vietnamese, yes they're both Asian, but they'll correct you if you get it wrong.

[Trigg]

"Anglo" is derived from the same etymological source as the term "English," is it not? The settlement of the U.S. by the British ensured that Anglo culture would be dominant (with Welsh and Scottish culture assuming an inferior role), something that extended to Anglo dominance over minority white ethnicities for some time. Or have you not noticed that the "micks" and "wops" were the underclass of yesterday?

I don't use antiquated terms anymoore.

Why are you placing "Indian" in quotation marks? The Indians of Mexico, Guatemala, or Costa Rica are Native Americans just as the Indians of the U.S. are, as they are all among the indigenous peoples of America (despite the fact that you incorrectly imply that the U.S. has a monopoly over the term "American") and are descended from a small number of crossers of the Beringia land bridge.

They aren't Native Americans, they're native to whatever country they now belong to. Go anywhere and tell someone your from the US and they'll call you American. It isn't me implying a monopoly it's a simple fact. I'd love for you to find an indian from another country who'll claim to be an American Indian. In fact I think your arguing out your ass and you've never even met an American Indian.

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that you're not making any comment that's applicable or relevant to the thread. I've already stated that I'm not interested in either your legal fetishism or general immigration discussion in this thread; I'm looking for specific commentary on the evolution of Hispanic identity that I've mentioned. Why is it that attacks on Hispanic action made by me were "PC" and "anti-white" while commentary on the incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture is now common?





Your question was
I've asked very clearly why Hispanic culture and identity evidently became incompatible with Anglo culture and identity when it was adopted by Indians

I answered
Hispanic culture isn't incompatalbe with American culture simply because the vast majority of hispanics in this country are "indian". If they want to come here Legally and practice their culture and have an identity, than I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.

So again, there culture isn't incompatable. The fact that most of the people who come here are Mexican Indians isn't the problem and neither is their culture. The problem is the legality and their refusal to learn the language.

[Binky]

If anything he needs to dumb it down for me....:lol:



:clap::laugh2: I'm glad you said it first as I was thinkin' the same damn thing......

[Binky]

When I criticized Christopher Columbus's legacy and the nature of the Spanish occupation of America, this underwent the usual rightist analysis of screeching about political correctness (is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?), and my commentary was depicted as anti-Anglo despite the fact that Columbus was an Italian of Genoa commanding a Hispanic occupation force. This conflation implies that there's some connection between Anglo and Hispanic identity because of common European origins. And yet, the incompatibility of aspects of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the "refusal to assimilate" on the part of modern Latin American immigrants of largely Native American descent is now cited as a reason for opposing "excessive" immigration.

What does this mean, exactly? Hispanic identity becomes divorced from Anglo identity once the Indians are successfully indoctrinated with it? :laugh:

Hey, do the rest of us that aren't psuedo intellectuals a favor and bring this down to a level we can all understand....Alrighty????? Thanks....:laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

It has since been discovered that socialism/communism cannot sustain itself without strict government control over everything.

Socialism/communism is the strict extreme control over every aspect of business, private and personal lives, while anarchy is total chaos...Oxymoron.

Totalitarianism is the inevitable final conclusion...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Kim, Minh and Castro, together murdered 100million+ people for this ideology of government slavery.

You are to far gone to see the reality of what I have said, despite all the undeniable examples that are part of the history of 20th century planet earth.

This comment is based not on a sound analysis of socialist political economy, but is instead based on the popular misconception that the political/economic system of the USSR and related authoritarian states was in some manner "socialist" or "communist," when in fact its ideology of rule by a party elite was necessarily in conflict with the collective and participatory elements that legitimate socialism and communism necessitates. The political/economic system in question can thus best be described as state capitalist in nature, since it effectively replicated the social hierarchies present in capitalism, where the means of production are controlled by a tiny elite. The only distinction was that a corporate elite owns and manages the means of production in the capitalist economy, whereas a state elite owns and manages the means of production in a state capitalist (or coordinatorist) economy.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/StateCapitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Capitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Coordinatorism.jpg

Try that one again.


Liberals are the foolish unwitting pawns of the marxist who are for the most part indoctrinated in the universities...That is all.

Here's how debate is supposed to work:

1. You make Claim A.

2. I issue a rebuttal to Claim A.

3. You address the rebuttal to Claim A. You do not simply repeat Claim A again. If you do that, the debate will not progress.

And thus, it will not progress here. *shrug*


So Navajo is US Indian? Why do they dislike being associated with hispanics, thats weird. Yeah I still don't get the Jew thing. I thought Jewish is a religion. For instance my family history shows my ancestors as jewish, but then later it does not, well its because they changed religions. Jewish isn't a race eh. Im caucasian thats my race.

Jews are an ethnoreligious group, with the term usually being applied to the ethnicity. The Navajo have retained their cultural affinity somewhat. Most Indians in Latin America have been incorporated into mainstream Hispanic cultur


Your question was

I answered

So again, there culture isn't incompatable. The fact that most of the people who come here are Mexican Indians isn't the problem and neither is their culture. The problem is the legality and their refusal to learn the language.

Those claims are both unsound, but since I've already rebutted one of them without response from you, I won't bother with the other one. Moreover, you don't seem to be interested in discussing the topic. As long as you're here, however, it's again worth correcting your inaccurate misconception that "America" is synonymous with "the U.S." This is a U.S. term itself, and residents of other American countries do not use the term in any such way.


Hey, do the rest of us that aren't psuedo intellectuals a favor and bring this down to a level we can all understand....Alrighty????? Thanks....:laugh2:

I'm a "pseudo intellectual" because I adopt opinions that you dislike and that can therefore not have legitimate intellectual basis. If I adopted positions that you supported, I'd of course be "brilliant." :laugh:

[chloe]

:clap::laugh2: I'm glad you said it first as I was thinkin' the same damn thing......

yeah he's real smart and half the time I have to look up his words in a dictionary, but if his post goes on too long I feel my eyes glaze over and I start daydreaming, like I used to when I was in school and the teacher was giving a lecture but it was boring, I try to find something that I can remember caught my attention and then focus on that. He always responds politely even if all I got from the post was navajo indians are hispanic. LOL:cool:

[chloe]

[QUOTE=chloe;394322]

A Navajo wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Cherokee either. They aren't hispanic, they don't consider themselves Mexican.

It's really not any different than mistaking a Korean for a Vietnamese, yes they're both Asian, but they'll correct you if you get it wrong.

I understand that thanks for the clarification !

[Agnapostate]

My posts are "long" because I can type extremely quickly and fight several people at once, but the part dealing with you in particular should be short and sweet. :D

[chloe]

My posts are "long" because I can type extremely quickly and fight several people at once, but the part dealing with you in particular should be short and sweet. :D

Indeed:laugh2:

[Gaffer]

My posts are "long" because I can type extremely quickly and fight several people at once, but the part dealing with you in particular should be short and sweet. :D

The ladies are right you use way too many words most people are not familiar with and what you type is extremely boring. Not to mention that comma's can be your friend. I can understand what you write, but I really don't want to take the time to sort through all the drivel. I hope you don't talk, in real life, the way you type on here or most people will fall asleep listening to you.

You may be an academic and type fast, but your ability to communicate with others through your writing has a lot to be desired. Say what you need to say in short concise sentences.

I think you hate white people and have sat through too many liberal history lectures making you a brainwashed academic.

[Trigg]

Those claims are both unsound, but since I've already rebutted one of them without response from you, I won't bother with the other one. Moreover, you don't seem to be interested in discussing the topic. As long as you're here, however, it's again worth correcting your inaccurate misconception that "America" is synonymous with "the U.S." This is a U.S. term itself, and residents of other American countries do not use the term in any such way.


1. My claims are not unsound, you simply disagree with them. Mexican indian culture isn't, and never has been the problem. You can sit there and think it's whitie having a problem with Indians and that isn't the case, it all goes back to illegally sneaking into this country. That is the problem most Americans have with Mexican Indians or any other Mexican.


I'l like to know what you rebutted. I copied your question verbatum, if there was another one hidden in there somwhere type it again.

2. What other countries have you been to???? Every other country I've ever been to INCLUDING MEXICO refer to us as Americans. In fact in Mexico I was asked are you American or Canadian. You don't like the term to bad, it is used by EVERYONE to refer to people in the US. You, in fact, are the one with the inaccurate misconception in regards to this term.

[HogTrash]

1. My claims are not unsound, you simply disagree with them. Mexican indian culture isn't, and never has been the problem. You can sit there and think it's whitie having a problem with Indians and that isn't the case, it all goes back to illegally sneaking into this country. That is the problem most Americans have with Mexican Indians or any other Mexican.


I'l like to know what you rebutted. I copied your question verbatum, if there was another one hidden in there somwhere type it again.

2. What other countries have you been to???? Every other country I've ever been to INCLUDING MEXICO refer to us as Americans. In fact in Mexico I was asked are you American or Canadian. You don't like the term to bad, it is used by EVERYONE to refer to people in the US. You, in fact, are the one with the inaccurate misconception in regards to this term.By the rationale of Agnapostate, we are all africans except he only wants to take us back in time just enough to justify his white hatred.

Even the American native tribes fought and conquered lands and good hunting grounds from rival tribes...Most people on the planet today now live on what was originally someone elses land.

Like most marxists, he has been programmed to hate and ridicule the white race even though they are not guilty of anything all other races have not done at some time in the past.

The Frankfurt School created and instituted the marxist strategy of "Critical Theory" http://frankfurtschool.us/history.htm

to indoctrinate the young in the universities of which Agnapostate has obviously been exposed to and is attempting to spread.

A fascinating video that explains everthing in less than 10 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh2DdJLycPM&NR=1

[Agnapostate]

The ladies are right you use way too many words most people are not familiar with and what you type is extremely boring. Not to mention that comma's can be your friend.

If you want to correct others' punctuation, you might want to be a tad more precise with your apostrophes, comrade. ;)


I can understand what you write, but I really don't want to take the time to sort through all the drivel. I hope you don't talk, in real life, the way you type on here or most people will fall asleep listening to you.

You may be an academic and type fast, but your ability to communicate with others through your writing has a lot to be desired. Say what you need to say in short concise sentences.

I think you hate white people and have sat through too many liberal history lectures making you a brainwashed academic.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. Liberalism is quite anathema to me, as it is the most effective means of sustaining capitalism, and my anarchism of course entails anti-capitalism. Thanks for not commenting on the thread, though; that would have been boring enough itself.


1. My claims are not unsound, you simply disagree with them. Mexican indian culture isn't, and never has been the problem. You can sit there and think it's whitie having a problem with Indians and that isn't the case, it all goes back to illegally sneaking into this country. That is the problem most Americans have with Mexican Indians or any other Mexican.

I didn't mention Native American culture. I mentioned the adoption of Hispanic culture by Native Americans. Since you seem to be perpetually incapable of comprehending this, I'll try explaining it one last time. Hispanic culture was protected as a "European" concept when I attacked it, since it was of course limited to Spaniards themselves in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. But at this point, some Anglo supremacists cite an incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the need for those that practice Hispanic culture (primarily Indians, at this point) to "assimilate." You've apparently assumed that since you are not among this number, no such people exist. That's not the case. I've merely inquired on a forum drowning with rightists because they're more likely to have adopted the social authoritarianism needed for understanding that nationalistic concept.


I'l like to know what you rebutted. I copied your question verbatum, if there was another one hidden in there somwhere type it again.

I've rebutted your legalism fetish by pointing out the divergence between legal and ethical standards. However, as that's not related to the thread topic, it's irrelevant anyway.


2. What other countries have you been to???? Every other country I've ever been to INCLUDING MEXICO refer to us as Americans. In fact in Mexico I was asked are you American or Canadian. You don't like the term to bad, it is used by EVERYONE to refer to people in the US. You, in fact, are the one with the inaccurate misconception in regards to this term.

Actually, no, the term "gringo" is used in Mexico, as well as "norteamericano" (though that doesn't make much sense either). This is as it should be. The U.S. is only one country on a pair of continents that contain many other countries, and consequently has no monopoly over the term "American."


By the rationale of Agnapostate, we are all africans except he only wants to take us back in time just enough to justify his white hatred.

If nothing else, you do happen to provide the sort of comic relief that these discussions sorely need.

[Trigg]

=Agnapostate;394629

I didn't mention Native American culture. I mentioned the adoption of Hispanic culture by Native Americans. Since you seem to be perpetually incapable of comprehending this, I'll try explaining it one last time. Hispanic culture was protected as a "European" concept when I attacked it, since it was of course limited to Spaniards themselves in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. But at this point, some Anglo supremacists cite an incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the need for those that practice Hispanic culture (primarily Indians, at this point) to "assimilate." You've apparently assumed that since you are not among this number, no such people exist. That's not the case. I've merely inquired on a forum drowning with rightists because they're more likely to have adopted the social authoritarianism needed for understanding that nationalistic concept.

So, you found a racist websight that doesn't like indian mexicans SHOCKER THERE. On this websight no one has stated a dislike of Mexicans based on their culture. In fact no one I've talked to, on this websight or in my dealings with people, have a problem with Mexicans practicing their culture. It's that pesky illegal thing that people have a problem with.


Actually, no, the term "gringo" is used in Mexico, as well as "norteamericano" (though that doesn't make much sense either). This is as it should be. The U.S. is only one country on a pair of continents that contain many other countries, and consequently has no monopoly over the term "American."

Actually, no, the term American is used in Mexico and worldwide to discribe someone from the US. When was the last time you were there????? In fact, I was just in Ireland and I was refered to as American over there also. Jamaica same, Finland same, Italy same. It isn't my term, everyone seems to use it but you. Watch BBC sometime, they refer to us as the Americans, the Middle eastern news -----Americans.

[HogTrash]

If nothing else, you do happen to provide the sort of comic relief that these discussions sorely need.I whole-heartedly agree...All good educators should learn to entertain as they teach and nothing is more entertaining than comedy.

[Agnapostate]

So, you found a racist websight that doesn't like indian mexicans SHOCKER THERE. On this websight no one has stated a dislike of Mexicans based on their culture. In fact no one I've talked to, on this websight or in my dealings with people, have a problem with Mexicans practicing their culture. It's that pesky illegal thing that people have a problem with.

If it was a "racist website," it would target all Native Americans rather than Mexican Indians alone, because anyone clever enough to realize that the Indians usually inaccurately described as "Hispanic" are Indians is clever enough to realize that all Native Americans are descended from a small number of common ancestors. Now, if you're not interested in discussing the topic, please leave the thread, as your legalism fetish has already been thoroughly shredded without response from you.


Actually, no, the term American is used in Mexico and worldwide to discribe someone from the US. When was the last time you were there????? In fact, I was just in Ireland and I was refered to as American over there also. Jamaica same, Finland same, Italy same. It isn't my term, everyone seems to use it but you. Watch BBC sometime, they refer to us as the Americans, the Middle eastern news -----Americans.

Not in the remainder of the American countries; you clearly need to engage in some more international travel. Short of that, at least try reading Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)).


[T]his ambiguity has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.

And that's as it should be, since America consists of two continents and the surrounding lands, and the explorer that it was named after traveled to Brazil, which is quite well-removed geographically from the U.S.

[Nukeman]

Not in the remainder of the American countries; you clearly need to engage in some more international travel. Short of that, at least try reading Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)).



And that's as it should be, since America consists of two continents and the surrounding lands, and the explorer that it was named after traveled to Brazil, which is quite well-removed geographically from the U.S.

Dude you are soo full of shit. EVERY country I have visited we are refereed to as "American". The problem with your analysis is that South American countries do not refer to themselves as "Brazil of south America", "Peru of south America", "Argentina of South America".... etc...etc.... If they did then you may have a legitimate argument otherwise your talking out your ass..

The same can be said for Central America. We don't use the term Panama of Central America or Guatemala of Central America. Do you see your mistake here. We the USA are the ONLY country in the Americas to use the term America in our name thus the rest of the world refers to us as "Americans" just like they refer to Mexicans as *gasp* Mexicans etc..etc... etc..

You may not like it or whatever but the fact remains the REST OF THE WORLD refers to us as Americans not as "United Statesians".....

[Agnapostate]

Dude you are soo full of shit. EVERY country I have visited we are refereed to as "American". The problem with your analysis is that South American countries do not refer to themselves as "Brazil of south America", "Peru of south America", "Argentina of South America".... etc...etc.... If they did then you may have a legitimate argument otherwise your talking out your ass..

The same can be said for Central America. We don't use the term Panama of Central America or Guatemala of Central America. Do you see your mistake here. We the USA are the ONLY country in the Americas to use the term America in our name thus the rest of the world refers to us as "Americans" just like they refer to Mexicans as *gasp* Mexicans etc..etc... etc..

You may not like it or whatever but the fact remains the REST OF THE WORLD refers to us as Americans not as "United Statesians".....

As usual, you're babbling about something you know nothing about. As a matter of fact, the terms used by other Americans to refer to citizens of the United States are usually the exact equivalents of "United Statesians." For example, if we consider the fact that most other American countries are Spanish speaking:


The Spanish words estadounidense (United States person), norteamericano (North American), yanqui (Yankee), and gringo are Mexican, Central American, South American and European Spanish usages denoting U.S. things and persons. In personal denotation, "gringo" means a norteamericano, in particular, and anglophones in general, and, linguistically, any speech not Spanish, i.e. "She is speaking gringo, not Spanish".[citation needed] Cognate usages may cause cultural friction between U.S. nationals and Latin Americans who object to American English's exclusionary denotations of American.

Can't you at least pretend to know what you're talking about?

[Gaffer]

As usual, you're babbling about something you know nothing about. As a matter of fact, the terms used by other Americans to refer to citizens of the United States are usually the exact equivalents of "United Statesians." For example, if we consider the fact that most other American countries are Spanish speaking:



Can't you at least pretend to know what you're talking about?

Ahhhhh. Someone knows he's been beaten and is now going into liberal attack mode.

You book knowledge is admirable, however, your knowledge of real life is truly lacking. People from the US are referred to by the rest of the world and the media as Americans. The USSR was referred to as the Russians, even though it consisted of many countries combined in the Warsaw Pact. Your arguing proper names over popular terms.

America is the country located between Canada and Mexico. It happens to be on a continent named North America. The name United States simply refers to the sovereign states That have united for mutual protection and agreement. Something the dark lord and his minions seek to destroy. If successful this country would become just America. Individual states would have no say so in government or anything else.

And for your information "gringo" was a derogatory term for whites. Like cracker or honky.

[Nukeman]

As usual, you're babbling about something you know nothing about. As a matter of fact, the terms used by other Americans to refer to citizens of the United States are usually the exact equivalents of "United Statesians." For example, if we consider the fact that most other American countries are Spanish speaking:



Can't you at least pretend to know what you're talking about?

Dude from your very own site.. wikipedia *hahahaha*


Use of the term American for U.S. nationals is common in United Nations. The Secretary General refers to people from the United States as Americans, as has the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.[15][16] The UN has referred to financial markets in the United States as "American financial markets."[17]

[Trigg]

If it was a "racist website," it would target all Native Americans rather than Mexican Indians alone, because anyone clever enough to realize that the Indians usually inaccurately described as "Hispanic" are Indians is clever enough to realize that all Native Americans are descended from a small number of common ancestors. Now, if you're not interested in discussing the topic, please leave the thread, as your legalism fetish has already been thoroughly shredded without response from you.



Not in the remainder of the American countries; you clearly need to engage in some more international travel. Short of that, at least try reading Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)).


Actually if they were complaining about Mexican culture, as you stated,

Anglo supremacists cite an incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the need for those that practice Hispanic culture (primarily Indians, at this point) to "assimilate they wouldn't be complaining about American Indians. Because, to everyone but you, those are two distinct groups of people. They also wouldn't be complaining about American Indians because they are.....and I know you hate it when I go back to this.....LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

lol, on my needing to travel, I stated where I've been, and the people I've talked to. You came back with wikipedia :laugh2::lame2: and you didn't even get that right.

[Binky]

This comment is based not on a sound analysis of socialist political economy, but is instead based on the popular misconception that the political/economic system of the USSR and related authoritarian states was in some manner "socialist" or "communist," when in fact its ideology of rule by a party elite was necessarily in conflict with the collective and participatory elements that legitimate socialism and communism necessitates. The political/economic system in question can thus best be described as state capitalist in nature, since it effectively replicated the social hierarchies present in capitalism, where the means of production are controlled by a tiny elite. The only distinction was that a corporate elite owns and manages the means of production in the capitalist economy, whereas a state elite owns and manages the means of production in a state capitalist (or coordinatorist) economy.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/StateCapitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Capitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Coordinatorism.jpg

Try that one again.



Here's how debate is supposed to work:

1. You make Claim A.

2. I issue a rebuttal to Claim A.

3. You address the rebuttal to Claim A. You do not simply repeat Claim A again. If you do that, the debate will not progress.

And thus, it will not progress here. *shrug*



Jews are an ethnoreligious group, with the term usually being applied to the ethnicity. The Navajo have retained their cultural affinity somewhat. Most Indians in Latin America have been incorporated into mainstream Hispanic cultur



Those claims are both unsound, but since I've already rebutted one of them without response from you, I won't bother with the other one. Moreover, you don't seem to be interested in discussing the topic. As long as you're here, however, it's again worth correcting your inaccurate misconception that "America" is synonymous with "the U.S." This is a U.S. term itself, and residents of other American countries do not use the term in any such way.



I'm a "pseudo intellectual" because I adopt opinions that you dislike and that can therefore not have legitimate intellectual basis. If I adopted positions that you supported, I'd of course be "brilliant." :laugh:



It's not that I disliked them. I have trouble following you. Bring it down a bit if you want myself and others to grasp what you are saying. In order for me to dislike something, I have to know what the hell it is first..... :wink2:

[Binky]

Why don't you state CLEARLY what your question is.



Yeah, and the flowery words leading up to it......:clap:

[Agnapostate]

Ahhhhh. Someone knows he's been beaten and is now going into liberal attack mode.

I am an anarchist, which is why I regard liberalism as a greater foe than your more mundane rightism.


You book knowledge is admirable, however, your knowledge of real life is truly lacking. People from the US are referred to by the rest of the world and the media as Americans. The USSR was referred to as the Russians, even though it consisted of many countries combined in the Warsaw Pact. Your arguing proper names over popular terms.

My reference was to other American countries. In those other American countries (see the Organization of American States, for example), in which the term "American" is not used to describe U.S. citizens because of their awareness that America is a pair of continents rather than a single country.


And for your information "gringo" was a derogatory term for whites. Like cracker or honky.

Clearly, you've never even been to Mexico. The term "gringo" is a word that describes those from the U.S. It's not used to describe "whites," or else it would be used to describe whites in Mexico. Yes, I realize that you're unaware that whites exist in Mexico, since you thought that Mexicans constituted a race. That doesn't matter. That's wrong.


Dude from your very own site.. wikipedia *hahahaha*

Try and adjust your bifocals next time, chap.


Actually if they were complaining about Mexican culture, as you stated, they wouldn't be complaining about American Indians. Because, to everyone but you, those are two distinct groups of people. They also wouldn't be complaining about American Indians because they are.....and I know you hate it when I go back to this.....LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Are you unable to read what you just wrote yourself? If they were racists, they would attack all Native Americans, and wouldn't see a need to distinguish between those in the U.S. and those in Mexico in terms of their inherent racial characteristics. If you cannot make any on-topic posts (your legalism fetish has already been destroyed without rebuttal from you), I'd advise you not to post.


lol, on my needing to travel, I stated where I've been, and the people I've talked to. You came back with wikipedia :laugh2::lame2: and you didn't even get that right.

So...you're actually suggesting that anecdotal experiences in countries that I wasn't even referring to actually beat an encyclopedia? :laugh: :lol:

[Gaffer]

agna, your not a anarchist, your an elitist. And you use all the liberal talking points.

And I haven't been to Mexico, unless you count Tijuana, not recommended as a tourist town. And gringo is a derogatory word for NortAmericano's. It has changed over the years but it was always a derogatory term, just like yankee was originally a derogatory term.

[Agnapostate]

agna, your not a anarchist, your an elitist. And you use all the liberal talking points.

As a socialist, liberalism is quite opposed to my agenda, as it sustains capitalism.


And I haven't been to Mexico, unless you count Tijuana, not recommended as a tourist town. And gringo is a derogatory word for NortAmericano's. It has changed over the years but it was always a derogatory term, just like yankee was originally a derogatory term.

That's right. And though Mexico is also well within North America (and Tijuana is further north than a substantial part of the southern U.S.), the term "norteamericano" describes U.S. citizens perceived as foreigners, as does the term "gringo." The term "gringo" is hardly used to describe whites, as there are a substantial number of whites in Mexico. Try having a look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Mexican_Girls.jpg

[Gaffer]

As a socialist, liberalism is quite opposed to my agenda, as it sustains capitalism.



That's right. And though Mexico is also well within North America (and Tijuana is further north than a substantial part of the southern U.S.), the term "norteamericano" describes U.S. citizens perceived as foreigners, as does the term "gringo." The term "gringo" is hardly used to describe whites, as there are a substantial number of whites in Mexico. Try having a look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Mexican_Girls.jpg

And we know these girls are Mexican because....

Your a pol pot communist and you hate white people. Got it.

[Trigg]

I
So...you're actually suggesting that anecdotal experiences in countries that I wasn't even referring to actually beat an encyclopedia? :laugh: :lol:

I mentioned Mexico, that country you continuously reference, as regarding me as American.......are you that thick skulled?????

Wikipedia..that on line "dictionary" that anyone can change....is that really a reliable source?:laugh2:

[Trigg]

Are you unable to read what you just wrote yourself? If they were racists, they would attack all Native Americans, and wouldn't see a need to distinguish between those in the U.S. and those in Mexico in terms of their inherent racial characteristics. If you cannot make any on-topic posts (your legalism fetish has already been destroyed without rebuttal from you), I'd advise you not to post.

For all of your $10 words you seem to be unable to follow your own thoughts.

you referenced a racist site and wondered why,

Anglo supremacists cite an incompatibility of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the need for those that practice Hispanic culture (primarily Indians, at this point) to "assimilate
I stated that

they wouldn't be complaining about American Indians. Because, to everyone but you, those are two distinct groups of people. They also wouldn't be complaining about American Indians because they are.....and I know you hate it when I go back to this.....LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

IMHO they are attacking Hispanic culture because THE HISPANICS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE ILLEGAL. They aren't attacking American Indians, they aren't attacking Cubans, they aren't attacking Puerto Ricans because they are LEGAL CITIZENS.


Whatever pink and lilac world you live in gringo is a derogatory word, have you ever met an actual Mexican?

[Agnapostate]

And we know these girls are Mexican because....

Because they're deep in the heart of the country in Jalisco, perhaps? Do you not understand that a substantial portion of the Mexican population is white? You're probably among those fools that believe that Mexicans are a homogenous race of dark-skinned people, despite the fact that those dark-skinned people are a racial underclass in Mexico.


Your a pol pot communist and you hate white people. Got it.

Are you on fucking crack? What motivates even the stupidest of people to regurgitate such random retarded bullshit? :laugh:


I mentioned Mexico, that country you continuously reference, as regarding me as American.......are you that thick skulled?????

Wikipedia..that on line "dictionary" that anyone can change....is that really a reliable source?:laugh2:

Are you really this stupid? You first idiotically call Wikipedia a "dictionary" despite it being an encyclopedia (good luck at the library), and then make the asinine suggestion that any articles can be edited in any way without regulation, despite the fact that all controversial claims need to be sourced. Perhaps you should dispute the sources of the articles mentioned. Why are you simply too ignorant to realize that the term "American" is not used the same way in other American countries, since they regard it as an improper misappropriation by the U.S.? :salute:


For all of your $10 words you seem to be unable to follow your own thoughts.

you referenced a racist site and wondered why

I didn't "reference a racist site" and explained precisely why that claim was fallacious; you're simply rambling on about your own moronic delusions now.


IMHO they are attacking Hispanic culture because THE HISPANICS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE ILLEGAL. They aren't attacking American Indians, they aren't attacking Cubans, they aren't attacking Puerto Ricans because they are LEGAL CITIZENS.

Why are you stupid enough to keep squealing "illegal" like a rabid little shrew despite the fact that I've already illustrated the intellectual bankruptcy of your legalism fetish? Those who cite incompatibility between Anglo-dominated and Hispanic dominated culture regardless of "legality" are at fault here...that should be evidenced by the fact that they list this incompatibility as a reason against legalization. I'm asking why that wasn't the case when Hispanic culture solely existed among Spaniards. Now that it's been planted among Native Americans, it seems to have become anathema.


Whatever pink and lilac world you live in gringo is a derogatory word, have you ever met an actual Mexican?

"Gringo" is a word that refers to U.S. citizens perceived as foreigners. It is not, as claimed by the more idiotic here, a racial term, or it would be applied to Mexican whites. It isn't.

[Said1]

I've asked very clearly why Hispanic culture and identity evidently became incompatible with Anglo culture and identity when it was adopted by Indians, while it was conflated with Anglo culture because of their common European roots before. For example, my attack on the legacy of Columbus and the Spanish occupation of America (an attack on Hispanic elements) was unsurprisingly condemned as "PC" (when you can anticipate a gut "anti-PC" reaction, it's probably safe to assume that attacks on "PC" have themselves become "PC"), while Hispanic identity became separated from "safe" European identity when it was adopted by the indigenous (through force).

It never was compatible or conflated, especially in-light of their European roots.

[HogTrash]

Does anybody know what is the point Aggy is trying to make with all this white, hispanic, native, american, mexican thingamawhatchamacallit

that he's been harpin on in two seperate threads??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????

I haven't been here all that long and would also like to know if Aggy is kinda like considered the resident nutcase here at Debatepolicy???????

[Said1]

He's asking about the results of eventual hegemonic dominance of Anglos over Hispanics and why the Indians were more willing to adopt and retain Hispanic culture than Anglos. If you ask me, I think it's rather obvious. :laugh2:

[HogTrash]

He's asking about the results of eventual hegemonic dominance of Anglos over Hispanics and why the Indians were more willing to adopt and retain Hispanic culture than Anglos. If you ask me, I think it's rather obvious. :laugh2:I would guess it has something to do with geography but if I'm wrong please tell me what you believe it is?

[Said1]

I would guess it has something to do with geography but if I'm wrong please tell me what you believe it is?
I really don't know why Anglo culture didn't penetrate into the global south on a larger scale. Like I said, the answer probably lies in the demographic make up of Hispanic and Anglo Europeans between the north and the south, or the hegemonic dominance of places. I'm really just guessing, the South American, post-colonial period isn't one of my strong points.

[HogTrash]

I really don't know why Anglo culture didn't penetrate into the global south on a larger scale. Like I said, the answer probably lies in the demographic make up of Hispanic and Anglo Europeans between the north and the south, or the hegemonic dominance of places. I'm really just guessing, the South American, post-colonial period isn't one of my strong points.Four places come to mind;

Australia

New Zealand

South Africa

Belize

Wait a minute?

Belize ain't south of the equator.

[Said1]

What are you talking about?

[HogTrash]

What are you talking about?Uhhh, Anglo culture that penetrated into the global south!?

[Said1]

I tried to correct that typo as I meant South America.

[Binky]

This comment is based not on a sound analysis of socialist political economy, but is instead based on the popular misconception that the political/economic system of the USSR and related authoritarian states was in some manner "socialist" or "communist," when in fact its ideology of rule by a party elite was necessarily in conflict with the collective and participatory elements that legitimate socialism and communism necessitates. The political/economic system in question can thus best be described as state capitalist in nature, since it effectively replicated the social hierarchies present in capitalism, where the means of production are controlled by a tiny elite. The only distinction was that a corporate elite owns and manages the means of production in the capitalist economy, whereas a state elite owns and manages the means of production in a state capitalist (or coordinatorist) economy.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/StateCapitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Capitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Coordinatorism.jpg

Try that one again.



Here's how debate is supposed to work:

1. You make Claim A.

2. I issue a rebuttal to Claim A.

3. You address the rebuttal to Claim A. You do not simply repeat Claim A again. If you do that, the debate will not progress.

And thus, it will not progress here. *shrug*



Jews are an ethnoreligious group, with the term usually being applied to the ethnicity. The Navajo have retained their cultural affinity somewhat. Most Indians in Latin America have been incorporated into mainstream Hispanic cultur



Those claims are both unsound, but since I've already rebutted one of them without response from you, I won't bother with the other one. Moreover, you don't seem to be interested in discussing the topic. As long as you're here, however, it's again worth correcting your inaccurate misconception that "America" is synonymous with "the U.S." This is a U.S. term itself, and residents of other American countries do not use the term in any such way.



I'm a "pseudo intellectual" because I adopt opinions that you dislike and that can therefore not have legitimate intellectual basis. If I adopted positions that you supported, I'd of course be "brilliant." :laugh:

Oh please, get over yourself.....it has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me or I with you....It has everything to do with the fact that your wording is elevated enough that most people don't grasp what you are trying to tell them....Now.....be a grownup and bring it on down to where the average layperson is can comprehend it.....Thanks you....

[Binky]

yeah he's real smart and half the time I have to look up his words in a dictionary, but if his post goes on too long I feel my eyes glaze over and I start daydreaming, like I used to when I was in school and the teacher was giving a lecture but it was boring, I try to find something that I can remember caught my attention and then focus on that. He always responds politely even if all I got from the post was navajo indians are hispanic. LOL:cool:

Well, I refuse to interrupt my reading by having to check up on words to find what they mean.....If one can't post in terms the rest of us can understand, then the crapola ain't worth readin' and wastin' time on....

[chloe]

Well, I refuse to interrupt my reading by having to check up on words to find what they mean.....If one can't post in terms the rest of us can understand, then the crapola ain't worth readin' and wastin' time on....

:laugh2:

[Jeff]

Well, I refuse to interrupt my reading by having to check up on words to find what they mean.....If one can't post in terms the rest of us can understand, then the crapola ain't worth readin' and wastin' time on....

Binky your kidding, I was Highly impressed, :laugh2:

[Binky]

Binky your kidding, I was Highly impressed, :laugh2:

Hey Jeff.....you impress easily don't cha?:laugh2::laugh2:

[Jeff]

Hey Jeff.....you impress easily don't cha?:laugh2::laugh2:

MY Doctor says I am easily amused , LOL

[cat slave]

I cant believe this thread is still going.

[Binky]

MY Doctor says I am easily amused , LOL

Apparently that's two of us....:laugh2::laugh2:

[Binky]

I cant believe this thread is still going.

And your post just made it longer, as has this one.....:laugh2: