whats wrong with America?

I really can't find any information about this and if it was true then surely it would be big news? Where did you hear it? How could they tie skeletal remains to a certain region? And also wouldn't this have required marine technology far beyond what was available 20,000 years ago?


I take it you don't mean the discussion that the original settlers of the America's were Gauls as I'm pretty sure that kind of idea would have been very popular 100 years ago.

If you mean discussing the unfair advantages given to minorities... I don't think it would have been an issue 100 or 50 years ago since they weren't really given advantages and criticising them would have been par for the course?

I am probably missing what discussion your referring to though could you clarify? Is it the discussion about debt or do you just mean general discussion of government policies?

Also I would add again that I'm not really noticing that accusations of racism are getting flung around very much.
 
Im not one to claim that immigrants get special handouts from welfare here in the UK, however one thing does get on my wick.

Its when they get given vouchers to use on the Bus, if i was flat broke (which i am often ) i bet id have a hard time getting a hold of some of them.
 
I watched a documentary on the NatGeo. That's where I got my info from.
I'm not an archeologist, so I wouldn't know where to tell you to find the info now unless you want to sit through the last 10+ years of NatGeo reruns.
(if you do,I'll bring the beer )
As for knowing the region; the make up of the remains can give ideas and clues of what was consumed for food and some other ...archeological type info.
They would have made to the southwest at a time when you could pretty much walk across the Bearing Strait(I am not sure of the spelling right now.That part of my brain is just recieving the coffee fix)
Besides; the "native americans" had to come from somewhere; didn't they?


As far as the rest of the questions,you'll have to excuse me,I am halfway through my first coffee of the morning

BUT; I know someone will swear I am talking out my rear-end for this;
I was refering to political correctness and certain areas it involves.
If you read back a few pages, you will see where I used race as an EXAMPLE.
I got accussed of using the "poor white boy syndrome". Which I take great offence to on a kneejerk reaction because all the important bits I wrote to clarify that it was NOT a race issue were to be totally ignored.
But either way; my point being, whatever the reason, the arguements have always been there,regardless of what side you are on and they have just changed titles over the years.
I was quoting one of my students who studies social and econimic evolutions at uni. If I am wrong,then he is wrong and that makes the university of central london completely screwed,if you know where I am comming from.

From a personal point of view,the term "PC" should be stricken from all language itself and replaced with "EQUALITY correctness" instead.
Considering that was the suppossed idea behind it in the first place.

"poli"-meaning many.
"tics"-blood sucking insects.

what is correct about ANYTHING to do with that?


SB:
I will be the first to admit that I may not be a qualified expert on any of these subjects at hand.
But then again, other than NatGeo, the only thing I am qualified to be an expert on is my personal experiences and opinions and no university is going to give me a degree in what I think.

No; I'm not having a dig at anyone.
I am just saying when people ask for personal opinions,no one has the right to accuse them of anything just because there is no written documentation from a 3rd party to "make it so".

2nd shot of coffee commin up!
 
Dude!
My train dumped me about 5 miles from my house 2 weeks ago.
It was in an area I had never been in before.
The only way I could get home was by bus.
Except I was broke. I spent my money on a train ticket.
It wasn't my fault a rail signal went down.
Did I get any compensation for my troubles?
No.
How did I get home....
by FOLLOWING a bus on foot for 5 miles!
 
Well I appreciate you clarifying but I still have some issues. A small one is the fact that say we found skeletal remains in America from 20,000 years ago (which I don't think anyone has) and we had enough of the skeletal remains to infer diet. The suggestion that we would be able to identify from their diet that they came from a specific region in Western Europe which seems very dubious to me. For instance it implies that the 'settlers' would have been able to maintain a 'Gaul' diet in America which seems unlikely given the difference in climate.

The only plausible way I can see them identifying the origin of skeletal remains from back then is via bone structure/morphological differences and with assorted burial artificats/materials.

However setting that aside the major issue is I can't find ANY evidence that anyone is promoting the theory that it was people from the region of 'Gaul' who first settled America. Which suggests its either an entirely fringe theory or that you're remembering it wrong.

I can find discussion on the National Geographic website about studies and a documentary about early human migration to America but it makes no mention of Gauls and in fact discusses entirely different models and debates with which I am familiar, for example:

"From there, around 20,000 years ago, another small group of Central Asians moved farther north, into Siberia and the Arctic Circle. To minimize physical exposure to the extreme cold they developed, over many generations, stout trunks, stubby fingers, and short arms and legs.

Finally, around 15,000 years ago, as another Ice Age began to wane, one small clan of Arctic dwellers followed the reindeer herd over the Bering Strait land bridge into North America."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman_2.html

The only thing which I can find that sounds in any way similiar are the articles relating to skulls found which suggest that there may have been earlier settlers than the ancestors of 'native americans' but there is no suggestion in those articles that the skulls are from Gaul and in fact:

"A study of skulls excavated from the tip of Baja California in Mexico suggests that the first Americans may not have been the ancestors of today's Amerindians, but another people who came from Southeast Asia and the southern Pacific area."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html

"Traditionally, American Indians were thought to have been the first to arrive on the continent, crossing from Asia on a land bridge.

Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that the older race may have come from what is now Japan, via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3086777.stm

I realise this may all seem pedantic but the point is that making strong assertions based of dubious examples calls the validity of the points being made into question. And the assertion you made (see below) was not exactly equivocal on the matter though this could well be a matter of personality .




I don't think it quite works like that! As I think you know I study anthropology at a central london university but that doesn't mean that if you disagree with my opinions on the topic that you disagree with the entire weight of my academic subject or the institution I attend. There are lots of people studying in universities whose opinions on various topics are not well argued or well informed even if the subject they are studying relates to such topics. And even if your student was making a valid point it doesn't necessarily mean your interpretation or representation of what they said is valid. This is also not to say I disagree with the point that political correctness is related to many older concepts of different names... it definitely is, just that the appeal to authority that the above comment makes isn't a good argument.


The point I would again make is that it's not like tonnes of people are jumping in and accusing you of being racist but at the same time it's clear that just because someone says 'it's nothing to do with race' or 'I don't have poor white boy syndrome' doesn't make it true. I don't think anyone who makes such arguments would ever agree that they are engaging in unrealistic 'poor discriminated whites' type arguments.

Consider for instance that I could say "it's nothing to do with race but Jewish culture clearly produces a larger amount of greedy individuals than other cultures". I've said it's nothing to do with race but I am clearly still talking about race even though I've redefined it as 'culture'. Anyone who points that out I could then argue 'I said I'm not making this about race, why does someone telling the truth always have to be persecuted as a racist' but again how valid is that defence? Personally I don't give it much credence due to the fact that it's essentially the same tactic employed by groups like the BNP who try to frame their arguments as being about the 'facts' when their supposed 'facts' are when examined clearly marshalled and related to a racial ideology.

Just to be clear at this point I'm not saying your in the BNP or anything like that. Just in case I get interpreted wrong I want to make it clear that I'm quite certain you are not and also would I imagine strongly disagree with their ideas and also disagree with someone who was arguing for Jews being greedy. My point is however that simply saying an argument has nothing to do with 'race' doesn't make it so and that some of your previous arguments do seem quite hard to disentangle from the same kind of arguments made by those who argue that white people are discriminated against unfairly in modern multi-cultural America. In fact isn't that essentially your point?
 
Oh, it isn't written down, but you're saying claims reps in state and federal offices are intentionally breaking the law, risking their jobs/careers so that some poor white guy doesn't get as much money as some poor black guy? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

I would really like for yohan to give me a little more information about this "father of 5 who got $40 because he was white." Just point out the program we're talking about... was it State or Federal? Are we talking general assistance, food stamps, medicaid or maybe something federal... SSI?

Or was it a private program? This is the only scenario where I can even begin to believe this might have happened. Many private agencies, advocacy groups and churches have charitable programs, and they can, within certain guidelines, choose to give their assistance to anyone they want... or choose not to.

Edit to add: I do want to make it clear that there is definitely a real issue in America dealing with the working poor. I can definitely believe that there is a guy who makes $12/hr and is having a rough time of it. There is an entire subsection of our population who is uninsured and scraping by, usually carrying obscene amounts of debt because they make too much to qualify for assistance, but barely enough to scrape by. My point is that race is irrelevant.
 
Canuck, I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that your son/daughter is a better student than XT18.
 
dude. you know what?

you picked the wrong guy have this debate with and I mean that in the sincerest of terms. Not in "picking a fight" kind of way.
I am not,nor have ever been a university student or a scholar of any type.
I am not,nor do I have the inclination to run to the library to try and explain little tidbits I have picked up through my travels in life.
In fact; it's rather boring and annoying.
I make my living with my mind and my body by relying on the fact that I am a student of human nature.
Period.
You have me beat on the academic side. I freely admit that.
I am not a forensic archeologist. I am not an academic sociologist.
I teach FMA at UCL. Since you are in london,why don't you come see me in person? Not to fight. Just to talk.
And as you know; I had no idea you study anthropology!
I can't read minds!
So I made a mistake on how a skeleton from 20,000 years ago was identified as to what region it came from. Sue NatGeo! That is not my problem.


And to be even more fair to those who are reading this;
The internet is not a place for me or others like me,to have these debates.
I may be out of my league and I have no desire to be IN that league.
I would rather have my debates in person,face to face.
It's just the way I am.

I have tried to hang in this long just to see what would happen.

At the end of the day; I recite what *I* know.
I will not run out and get a degree to prove anything.NO, I never said that would have to be done, I am just stating a fact in my life.

I am not having a go at anyone, I am just freely stating the fact that I freely concede that I am out of my league.
I am not wrong in any shape or form, I am just out of my league a bit.

Also, greed is not based in any religion,greed is based in greed.
 
For what it's worth I wasn't aiming to 'beat you' I was just disagreeing with some of your points. I do however think it's a genuine person who can in the face of evidence admit when they got something wrong and so I respect your honesty. I hope that doesn't come across patronisingly either it's just suprisingly rare for people to admit they may have been wrong about something. So yeah...

I also respect that debates like the one above are not for everyone and while I actually do enjoy researching such things, I realise thats not for everyone! I would add though that it's not an either/or thing for everyone, I myself do value my own experience as well but I also know all too well my own fallibilty so on most issues I only really feel confident about my ideas after putting some research in. Most people including myself have a plethora of stories, beliefs and facts that when investigated turn out to be false. For me while it can be initially irritating afterwards I have to say I get genuine enjoyment when someone forces me to recognise that an argument or a belief/fact I held was wrong or didn't take account of something. Mileage on this may vary however...

Oh and lastly I presumed you recognised who I was and therefore may have knew what I was studying because we have already met in person many times(!) if you are who I'm pretty sure you are. You even lived in the same house as me at one point . Got any ideas yet?
 
I got into this thread a bit late, but I was just going to mention that if XT's numbers as correct, per capita, our debt is about the same as Canada's.

Canada: Population 33 million, debt 700 million, according to XT, right?
US: Population 300 million, debt 9 trillion, according to XT, right?

so

Canada has 3.3x10^7 people and is about $7x10^8 in debt
the US has about 3x10^8 people and is about $9x10^9 in debt

So, per capita, Canada is $(70/3.3) in debt = $21.21
the US, per capita, is $(90/3) in debt = $30
 
I just wanted to add one last thing...


Political Correctness HAS messed up america.
I don't care if you want to call it "the poor white boy syndrome" or not.
It IS a fact that it has happened!

Political correctness was,in THEORY, created to bring equality; instead, it has created a lame a$$ "superiority complex" for non deserving,lazy people.
REGARDLESS OF COLOR.

Hence the reason someone said "being pressured to hire DIVERSE applicants" for particular jobs.
Because of "PC",QUALIFIED has been replaced with DIVERSE.

Like it or not; that is just the way it is.
 
Well I'm still going to have to argue against that... if there is an inherent bias within a society that results in the discrimination of certain groups then the setting up of regulations to try and combat such discrimination seems justified to me. Even if it does at times lead to more difficulties for those from the dominant group.

To give two illustrations:

In Northern Ireland the police force being under the control of the British government was throughout the troubles almost universally regarded as being at best heavily biased against Catholics and at worst to be actively colluding with Unionist paramilitaries. When the troubles died down the problem remained that despite no official restrictions being in place the percentage of people from the Catholic community in the police force was remarkably small and the police force was thus still regarded as being a hevily prejudiced and biased organisation. The solution was among other things to impose quotas for the hiring of people from the Catholic communities. Now from the POV your expressing Damien it would seem that such quotas are discriminatory because they would inevitably force the police force to hire more Catholics in order to iron out the inbalance. However, it really was a sensible solution and indeed as far as I can tell it seems to have worked quite well in that the police force is regarded with less suspicion than previously and indeed the percentages are evening out. If something was extremely discriminatory for a long period of time it makes sense that regulations trying to reverse the effects of such discrimination will be required. Imagine for instance if no quotas or requirements had been placed on the police force do you think anything would have changed or that the Catholic community would trust the police force to now start acting fairly?

The second example comes from a book I read recently called blink in it there was a discussion of a study done in the 90's by a law professor in Chicago were he sent a variety of white men, white women, black men and black women to 242 car dealerships in Chicago. All dressed the same and were given the same background story (income, education) and were to follow the same script involving bargaining for 40 minutes. The result? Without fail the groups quoted the highest initial offer were black males being offered $1,687 above invoice, black women did slightly better with $1,195, white women $935 and lastly white men got initial offers of $725 above invoice. These are for the same cars, giving the same back story, doing the same bargaining and visiting the same dealerships. Even after bargaining the best price on average that black men were offered was £1,551 which is double the INITIAL offer given to white males. The point of the study however was not that car dealers are racist and sexist but that prejudice can be unconscious and automatic.

There are many, many more examples that could be cited but those are just the first two of the top of my head and again I think that when you consider such examples you have to start thinking what is the realistic way to solve the issue? And I think personally that the first step will inevitably have to be putting in quotas and regulations that force companies/institutions to address imbalances. I do think this can be taken too far and I like everyone else know of many positive discrimination 'horror stories' but I really don't think these are enough reason to abandon the system since every good system will inevitably have horror stories of it being abused or overused.
 
“PC” by my definition is when you suppress speech or actions because it might hurt someone’s feelings. Now respect for others is fine but freedom comes with the price that someone just might say or do something that hurts your feelings. Here a little something to bring a little smile.

http://www.pcphrases.com/
 
I particularly like "enemy combatant" rather than "prisoner of war" and "Prison Abuse" instead of "torture." Ahh... political euphimisms. Gotta love em.

I do see your point, oldshadow. Could you give some examples of how free speech is suppressed now more than has already been deemed socially acceptable? What I mean is, I think we can agree that there is such a thing as contextually appropriate language. I don't generally swear at work. I use more professional language with a client than I would with my buddy over a beer. That sort of thing. Don't swear at church... yada, yada. So, if we can agree on that, could you please give some examples of PC that you think are unnacceptably prohibitive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Shell smashes expectations with $7.7 bln Q1 profit
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
A
It's the Summer of Swim Shorts According to With Jean's New Drop
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
A
Carlos Mendoza enraged over ‘BS’ at home plate to end Mets-Cubs: ‘Think they got the wrong call’
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
G
Sure, why not: China built a chatbot based on Xi Jinping
Replies
0
Views
36
Geek
G
A
‘A unicorn of a dog’: Bella the shelter dog has 5 legs and a lot of heart
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
Back
Top