The cowardice, it seems to me, is in not facing up to the
STATE and the LIE it insists all "
Americans" embrace in
respect to them being a single "
people", when in TRUTH
they are not.
There are Native Americans, European
Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc., all of
whom relate to and identify with very different histories,
both within America and outside of it - or would, if the state
allowed it.
European Americans, for example, look to European history,
all the way back to the ancient Greeks, as their own.
The problem, of course, and the reason people from
different ethnic groups avoid taking about it, so as not to
cause offence or embarrassment, is that the contributions of
America's different ethnic groups to what America is today are
VERY unequal. That's the TRUTH, and no amount of emphasis on "black
history", for example, is going to change that. Unless
Americans want to go on living a LIE . . .
What Americans (and the citizens of all multiethnic
democracies) need to do, I believe, is question the role and
function of the STATE. Instead of absurdly insisting that all
its citizens comprise a single people, and trying to force
them into a melting pot (for its own power-related
interests), which in America worked for individuals of shared
European descent, but obviously does not work for individuals
of completely different ethnic origins, with their own sense
of ethnic identity. Instead, the state should accept that the
population comprises a number of different peoples, and alter
its role and function accordingly.
Every adult citizen should free to choose which particular
people (community) they belong to, the main domestic role of
the state being reduced to enforcing the rule of law and
non-violence. Most, if not all, aspects of community life
(health care, education, housing, welfare, etc.) should then
be the responsibility of each particular community (people).
This is REVOLUTION, of course, but one the future of our
civilisation depends on us pulling off, peacefully and
grassroots-democratically, over the coming 2 or 3 decades . .
.
Moderator's justification for its removal:
. . . [your] statements could be viewed as possibly causing
offense to some of our readers. The points generalise a lot
about the contribution of different ethnic groups and pointing
to people choosing which group they want to live with could be
viewed as divisive.
The following was not part of my post, but I thought I'd
add it anyway.
The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of NATION:
A large aggregate of people so closely associated with
each other by factors such as common descent,
language, culture, history, and occupation of
the same territory as to be identified as a distinct people,
esp. when organized or potentially organizable as a
political state (my italics).
According to this authoritative definition, America is NOT,
and never was, a nation, and neither is multiethnic Britain.
There are Native Americans, European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc., all of whom relate to and identify with very different histories, both within America and outside of it - or would, if the state allowed it.
European Americans, for example, look to European history, all the way back to the ancient Greeks, as their own.
The problem, of course, and the reason people from different ethnic groups avoid taking about it, so as not to cause offence or embarrassment, is that the contributions of America's different ethnic groups to what America is today are VERY unequal. That's the TRUTH, and no amount of emphasis on "black history", for example, is going to change that. Unless Americans want to go on living a LIE . . .
What Americans (and the citizens of all multiethnic democracies) need to do, I believe, is question the role and function of the STATE. Instead of absurdly insisting that all its citizens comprise a single people, and trying to force them into a melting pot (for its own power-related interests), which in America worked for individuals of shared European descent, but obviously does not work for individuals of completely different ethnic origins, with their own sense of ethnic identity. Instead, the state should accept that the population comprises a number of different peoples, and alter its role and function accordingly.
Every adult citizen should free to choose which particular people (community) they belong to, the main domestic role of the state being reduced to enforcing the rule of law and non-violence. Most, if not all, aspects of community life (health care, education, housing, welfare, etc.) should then be the responsibility of each particular community (people).
This is REVOLUTION, of course, but one the future of our civilisation depends on us pulling off, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, over the coming 2 or 3 decades . . .
Moderator's justification for its removal:
. . . [your] statements could be viewed as possibly causing offense to some of our readers. The points generalise a lot about the contribution of different ethnic groups and pointing to people choosing which group they want to live with could be viewed as divisive.
The following was not part of my post, but I thought I'd add it anyway.
The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of NATION:
According to this authoritative definition, America is NOT, and never was, a nation, and neither is multiethnic Britain.