Quote:Blatham: Regardless of who sits on the ascending thrones around my new home, this city is deliciously liberal. And how could it not be, with its perennial ethnic and cultural mix and with its history as the precedent example for America's New Deal notions and legislation?
It is very much more difficult to foster the authoritarian frame of mind with its demands for uniformity of beliefs and values in a place like New York.
And doesn't that tell us rather a lot about the role (indeed, the necessity) of scapegoating or demonizing "the other" in authoritarian thinking?
foxfyre: How is a statement like this not 'authoritarian thinking'?
The term refers to the demand for strict obedience to a singular authority (religious, governmental, whatever). By definition, diversity is anaethma to authoritarianism. Yes? Those who are 'different' become 'unjustifiably different' or 'the unwanted other'.
Quote: blatham: And it goes a long way to helping us understand why the large port cities aren't thought of favorably by certain folks elsewhere who tend to favor one proper language,
foxfyre: You see it as a bad thing that everybody be able to reasonably communicate in a language? It is unreasonable that a country pick a common language to communicate in whether it be English, French, German, or whatever?
There is nothing bad about people speaking the same language. And there is nothing good about it either, except in some limited sense of "efficiency". Sameness is always more "efficient". As George Bush said recently, it would be easier to be a dictator.
Except in some case such as air traffic communications where safety would be jeopardized through language diversity, demands for uniformity look either simply lazy or an aspect of that authoritarian distaste or discomfort with diversity. Obviously, European cultures not only manage facility in numerous languages but are enriched by it. Most Canadians are now at least minimally bilingual and the policies which put this bilingualism in place have worked to unite french and english speakers, to diminish that sense of "the different other".
Quote:blatham: one proper faith,
foxfyre: I'll give you this one. I don't know anybody who demands that other than some radical Atheists, but I think most Americans do agree with the First Amendment.
Yes, you do know people who consider there is but one proper faith, who hold that other faiths are false, and that the only route to salvation is through Jesus.
Quote:blatham: one proper skin color,
foxfyre: Well, in truth America (as has Canada, Europe, etc.) has been guilty of that in the past. But the operative word here is past. A handful of racial bigots remain. They have little voice, no power, and no credibility with the population as a whole in America and in most other advanced countries.
Yes. But you let your nation off the hook rather too easily. In 1982, Bob Jones university argued before the SC that "God intended segregation of the races and that the scriptures forbid interracial marriage." A year later, after losing their case, they paid a million in back taxes rather than reverse that policy. It remained in place until 2000 and there is a very great liklihood that the policy was reversed out of perceived political necessity and nothing more moral or humane (or christian) than that.
I have no problem acknowledging racism (re native inhabitants) in Canada. Your nation's failings, where it does fail, does not let Canadians off the hook.
Quote:blatham: one proper attitude towards the rest of the world.
foxfyre: I honestly tried to put a positive spin on this one, but I honestly do not know what you mean with this one and can't comment.
For a radical Muslim of the sort we need to worry about, the rest of the world is "the infidel other", the west is "satanic", and other legal/social traditions are "improper" laws or codes.
For Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if all Americans were heterosexual and conservative christians.
For John Bolton, any and all international treaties and agreements present only a temporary and delusional appearance of benefit to America. The only proper way to regard the rest of the world is that it is "the other".
I've no quibble with your statistic, while admitting I haven't recently looked it up; I simply don't care. You're talking about three million people (if you're accurate) and rather than whine and cry, I'm currently working towards becoming one of them. I was born with little, left my parents house with nothing other than the knowledge to know that regardless of my start; the only thing that stands in my way of becoming one of those 1% is my own lack of desire and/or talent and/or luck and/or effort. This is the essence of the American Dream (not that I expect you to understand). I seriously doubt I'll choose to work long enough to accomplish anything close to that goal, but have little doubt the opportunity is there. The FACT remains that every child in this Country has a fair shot at getting further than his old man got. It doesn't come easy, and the risks may not be for everyone, but the opportunity is most assuredly there. But not for the whiners who'd prefer to soak their head in the public trough... and bitch about not having what they never even tried to earn.
To all but the terminally ignorant; the CEO's you refer to are living the American Dream... frequently the hard way if they aren't founders of the Company. Success is that demonic to you? If you feel more qualified, by all means apply. I assure you there is no more such thing as a job not for hire as there is anything that isn't for sale (obviously, there's a few exception s, but few indeed).
