# U.S. Culture -- What are its Origins?



## Outsider

Cuchuflete suggested that I start a new thread about a side issue that came up in the 'EE.UU. -- America' thread, and I thought it might lead to an interesting discussion, so here it is.

For most of its colonial history, what later became the U.S.A. were English colonies. Of course, Native Americans had got there before, but sadly I think that their culture was brushed aside, for the most part (do correct me if I'm wrong).

So here's my question: As far as the dominant culture in the U.S.A. is concerned, would you agree that it has its roots mostly in English culture? Or do you feel that other European cultures (e.g. German) have given significant, lasting contributions to American culture?

Please note that I'm talking about the dominant culture. Obviously, in a large, diverse country with a long history of immigration such as the U.S. there are important pockets of different cultural lineage (Chinese, Italian, Jewish...) and also significant subcultures (natives will be able to identify them better than I). But I'm talking about the culture of those who drive and shape the nation.

If you feel that 'NO', American culture is by no means mostly of English origin, then can you point to specific significant contributions of other nationalities to American culture?

Also, compare in your mind the U.S.A. with other former English colonies, such as Australia and Canada, and contrast them with countries with a different history (such as Mexico, for instance). Do you feel that former British colonies have common cultural traits not shared by other countries, or not really?

If you wish, you can expand the conversation to other ex-colonies of European countries (or other ex-colonies in general).


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Outsider,

I'm almost tempted to ask for 'national personality characteristics' and put these on a spreadsheet, give them weightings, and calculate a weighted average value, then try to tie that back to the cultures of the colonizers....  Just the sort of unscientific nonsense a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology might attempt.

But everything is too subjective.

I have limited experience in the U.K., but for a start, I would say that through the influences of other colonials and immigrants, US culture is less orderly and probably more dynamic than that of our English relatives.

A key difference throughout most of US history is the much lesser role of class distinctions in American culture, though this may be headed in the wrong direction at present.  

I am waiting for more ideas from other foreros, but preliminary thoughts are....

-English culture is a very major contributor
-It has been added to and tempered by other groups
-There are substantial regional variations....Louisiana is more 'latin' than anglo-saxon in style and culture, New York City and its surroundings are _sui generis_.  
-No single other cultural influence is greater than, or even as great as, that of the English, but in combination, other influences often overwhelm it.

Last night a colleague from these forums, recently arrived in the US, pointed out with appreciation the 'typical American mistrust of government'.  This goes beyond the usual handwringing that all citizens of all countries do.  I don't believe that this is an English patrimony; rather, it comes from our colonial experience, and is thus almost anti-English.  The English have far less of a writtten constitution...they depend more on tradition.  Lacking their long history, we rely on documents as the starting point in discussions of right and wrong.


-


----------



## foxfirebrand

Yes, our heritage is dominantly British.  I strongly disagree that the rebelliousness you referred to is due more to our colonial experience, though, than to the traditions we brought with us from the home isles.  The Baronial Wars before, during and after Magna Carta might not have been an exercise in democracy as sentimentalized in (pre-PC) history books, but it did show a stubborn tendency to broaden the power base and seat governmental authority locally.  So in a more attenuated sense did the War of the Roses.

There's nothing to sentimentalize about the Peasant's Revolt of the 1340s, but it showed a fractiousness in the face of bad governance, to rival anything the pre-Napoleonic anarchy produced.  And the slow rise of Parliament is the very model of which our own Congress is the obvious culmination.  By the mid-17th century, when Virginia and New England (and Nieuw Amsterdam) were not only settled but fairly densely populated, that process had given rise to a middle-class takeover of Parliament and the complete divestiture of power from the Monarchy.  We at least didn't chop off George III's head!

Even when the English restored their monarchy after 18 years of dictatorship by a revolutionary (and a commoner), Parliament reserved the prerogative of choosing whom to seat on the throne, and set statutory limits to his power-- rather severe ones, as James II found out when he was booted in 1688 and replaced by a Hollander.

The Glorious Revolution was almost 100 years before the American, and it was every bit as "popular," say what you will about pre-Reform electoral policy.  If you read John Locke you will find the language of the memorable documents that framed our own democratic republic, under English Common Law.

The colonists rebelled and fought as their ancestors had, and I don't mean as they'd done in the Peasant's Revolt.  Dont' forget that New England was founded by three massive movements by Gov Winthrop involving large fleets, two in 1630 and one in 1635, and you shouldn't be surprised that a very large proportion of these people were *not* Puritans, they were fleeing the Roundhead takeover in 1642-- people who had a stake in the old order, and who were in fact the flower of the Cavalier class, its younger generation.  Not until WWI did a generational upheaval leave the home isles so bereft of young men.  My point is, they were from family and class traditions different from the people who "stayed behind," and studies have been done that these defeated Cavaliers, who traveled in extended family and whole-village groups, were of distinctly more Norman than Saxon origin.

This I think may account for some differences you see between "colonist" and "British" mindsets, as regards rebelling against central government-- and striking out to conquer new land.  The Norman/Saxon division I alluded to also reflects patterns of westward migration among early colonials-- the people who stayed in New England and were comfortable with the mostly-Saxon middle-class rigors of conformity to Puritanism and village life, and the more restless type who struck out for more sparsely-occupied land to build on and lead their own lives.

To me the westward migration follows patterns evident in the Norman Conquest, and repeated in adventures like the Albigensian wars (13th c.) and the Crusades.  The Norman expansion from English territory into Wales and lowland Scotland was a very model for those misadventures, as well as the establishment of Norman kingdoms in Sicily, Cyprus, Greece and Palestine itself.  If gunpowder hadn't been invented in the 150 years prior to Lexington and Concord, we would have castles in New England very much like the ones that dot Wales, and of course Sicily and the other places I mentioned.

The Reconquista of Spain by Christian Kings, incidentally, is another enterprise which can be related to 17th-century North American colonization because it has a Norman subtext-- the northern tier of "Christian Kingdoms" that impelled the movement were all Norman fiefdoms set up or usurped by adventurers who'd just profiteered in the Albigensian "Crusade," who had quickly overpopulated the _comtés_ they'd appropriated (from the remnant Visigothic realms in and around Languedoc) for the Pope and the French King (and for themselves)-- and were looking for new worlds to plunder.

Bottom line, I think if you parse "British" into component classes and ethnicities you'll find a long-standing tradition of expansion, rebellion and settlement of new lands by conquest and intermarriage.  Early American history is a chapter in this much larger one, and our heritage from that history was more one of evolution than revolution.


----------



## rob.returns

*What can I say more? Foxfirebrand have said it all. Even features of Americans and British nationals are predominantly thesame. Caucasian.

But originally, It was the Native Americans who first settled in the Americas. Do you Americans (with British heritage) all feel that they need more civil rights compare to what they are getting right now?

You know, similar situation could be compared to Australia(predominantly british) but originally it was the aborigines who were the orignal settlers.

What can you say?


----------



## foxfirebrand

rob.returns said:
			
		

> But originally, It was the Native Americans who first settled in the Americas. Do you Americans (with British heritage) all feel that they need more civil rights compare to what they are getting right now?


 
It would help if you'd be specific.  Find a civil right that Indians or any other ethnic group in the United States are being denied, and we can discuss it.  If you can locate one, it would be helpful for all concerned, since remedies for disenfranchisement are built into our governmental system and can be invoked without delay.

By the way, Indian people tend to take a dim view of the expression "Native American."  When the Museum of the American Indian was opened recently in Washington D.C. the people in charge of the project wanted to use the term "Native American" in the worst way.  Concerted action by the various Tribes was adamantly opposed.  Any poll you care to cite on the subject will tell you that the numbers opposed to this "politically sensitive" crap are well over 80%.  Many such polls are taken about the attitude of Indians toward the "politically insensitive" names of sports teams, such as the Florida State Seminoles-- overwhelmingly, again in percentages well in the 80s, when you ask a real Seminole his/her opinion on the matter, they see the team names as honorific.

Groups who make political hay of such things are notorious for ignoring or not even thinking to conduct such polls.

Ironically, Indian-derived team names are evidence of the profound influence their people have had on American culture, and continue to have.  Such names are as much a part of our heritage as "the Forty-Niners," which in no way demeans Californians, or "the Sooners," which refers to pioneers who took part in a land rush staged in Oklahoma.  Most Indians would never dream of complaining about the names of sports teams, any more than I would embarrass myself whining about the Minnesota Vikings, whose iconography shows Scandinavian people as fierce pillagers and war criminals, or the NY Knickerbockers, which employs a derogatory term about what "silly names" we ethnic Netherlanders have.  

Pusillanimous nigglers like that can kiss my white Irish...uh-- and what about the Boston Celtics or the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame?  Another ethnic group who contributed to the rich mulligatawny that is American culture.  And a fine upstanding family, the Mulligatawneys, for which the dish was no doubt named.

Anyway we don't have any Aborigines, so I couldn't compare and contrast them with much authority.  What league do they play in?


----------



## rob.returns

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> It would help if you'd be specific. Find a civil right that Indians or any other ethnic group in the United States are being denied, and we can discuss it. *If you can* *locate one*, it would be helpful for all concerned, since remedies for disenfranchisement are built into our governmental system and can be invoked without delay.


 
***I dont understand. Are you pointing out that Native Americans don't have any issues? Because I have work in a project before(call center) wherein a caller calls in to donate money, christmas gifts, heater for the winter to native americans. And we do have a lot of calls, I think it was SOuthwest indians then that receives the donations. Do they also received monthly pensions? I know for a fact that majority of them are uneducated and unemployed thats why.

I ask the aborigine issue because I know that they do receive pensions but are abusive about it..like using it for gambling, drugs, drinking, and all those vices.(My aunt lives at Australia)..

Im just not sure about Native Americans if they have thesame situation...


----------



## foxfirebrand

"Have any issues" is vague, I don't understand what it means.  I would like to call up your group and arrange for money to be sent to me.  Does this mean I have issues?  Is there a living in it?

You're arguing from the consequent.  People believe there is an injustice of some sort, they are convinced sending money to alleged victims will help, they send money.  What do you mean there's no injustice?  If there were no injustice, why would people be sending money?

Why indeed.  You asked if Indians should have more civil rights than they already do.  Do you know of any they are lacking?

Being enfranchised with a civil right-- the vote, for example.  That is something specific to talk about.  You raised a general issue you seem to presume exists (that Indians may need further civil rights).  I asked for specifics.  Or rather, one specific civil right that is being withheld.  Any will do.

I'm not just being pugnatious.  Indians and black people were not given full political and social privileges, compared to whites-- but that was a long time ago.  Equality under the law is the principle our society was founded on, and the exemption of any group is illegal-- and has been for generations now.

Legally-mandated inequality in the past created economic inequality between privileged and excluded groups.  The institutional problems have been corrected, as I say, for a long time now.  Economic development takes time, and people who've been disenfranchised in their recent history could obviously benefit from additional help-- it's not unfair to give such people assistance that's not available to others.

But as that history of disenfranchisement gets more and more remote, less and less help is needed.  Of course that doesn't stop people from *wanting* the "pensions" to continue-- like I say, I wouldn't mind a monthly check myself.  If people are getting such checks for the simple reason that they were born of such-and-such an ethnic background, well, that's their good fortune.  

In the culture at large, where the disparity _under the law_ no longer exists, this is all gravy, and it wouldn't help my bottom line to start resenting my Indian brothers and sisters for receiving their allotments.  So I don't-- but subsidized lifestyles come with disadvantages.  It's pretty hard to correct the economic disparity in your past if governmental handouts leave you with no incentive to work on building a future.  It could be argued that compensatory "reparations" disadvantage the children of the recipients, in just this way.  And they come out of the pockets of people who bear no blame for the social disparities of three or four generations ago.

That's why the institutionalized welfare state was pared way back in the U.S., over a decade ago.  And the doomsayers were wrong about the result-- which has been increased prosperity across the board, not a worsening of conditions for those who used to be trapped in the welfare system.

To tie this back to the original topic-- the fact that people are receiving benefits, even if these derive from historical deprivation, is no evidence, one way or another, regarding the question of civil rights, and whether certain people have more of them than others.  Under the law, we are all equal.


----------



## cuchuflete

rob.returns said:
			
		

> *What can I say more? Foxfirebrand have said it all. *Even features of Americans and British nationals are predominantly thesame. Caucasian.
> *
> B



That's a load of nonsense.  Which Americans and which British nationals are you talking about.  There are tens of millions of Americans who don't look
Caucasian, which is a term sadly in need of a meaninful definition.

If you are saying that a majority of Americans and Brits are neither Asiatic nor Indian nor African, you have made a valid point.  But you didn't qualify your statement with a "most" or a "many" or a "preponderance".  As it stands, what you have written is simply not an accurate observation.


----------



## rob.returns

I stand corrected. But I think this is a common knowledge that "*MOST" of them are caucasians* (and need not state it specifically). But I guess I was wrong.

P.S. We dont find Chinese or Indian looking men in Marlboro commercials. Do we?



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> That's a load of nonsense. Which Americans and which British nationals are you talking about. There are tens of millions of Americans who don't look
> Caucasian, which is a term sadly in need of a meaninful definition.
> 
> If you are saying that a majority of Americans and Brits are neither Asiatic nor Indian nor African, you have made a valid point. But you didn't qualify your statement with a "most" or a "many" or a "preponderance". As it stands, what you have written is simply not an accurate observation.


----------



## rob.returns

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> "Have any issues" is vague, I don't understand what it means. I would like to call up your group and arrange for money to be sent to me. Does this mean I have issues? Is there a living in it?
> 
> *You're arguing from the consequent*. People believe there is an injustice of some sort, they are convinced sending money to alleged victims will help, they send money. What do you mean there's no injustice? If there were no injustice, why would people be sending money?


 
I would just like to correct that foxfirebrand, Im not arguing Im asking because I dont know. Im verifying.

I can see in your post that you are one intelligent guy. But you need to answer directly to a direct question. Anyway, you have considered all the factors.

And I'm glad to tell you. I was satisfied with your answers. But make it short and direct next time buddy.


----------



## foxfirebrand

rob.returns said:
			
		

> And I'm glad to tell you. I was satisfied with your answers. But make it short and direct next time buddy.


 
Not my strong suit!  But believe it or not, I do work on it.


----------



## cuchuflete

rob.returns said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. But I think this is a common knowledge that "*MOST" of them are caucasians* (and need not state it specifically). But I guess I was wrong.
> 
> P.S. We dont find Chinese or Indian looking men in Marlboro commercials. Do we?



Sorry Rob.returns,

I missed the tobacco ad as a signpost of national characteristics.  I suppose that Frenchmen are, mostly, and very generally speaking, round and rubbery as those Michelin Man billboards that greeted me at the top of every hill. 

What about the United Colors of ________ ads?  
Back to your real point...you were trying to say, I think, that most Americans and Brits sort of look similar.  Ok.  But what does that have to do with cultural heritage?  Most Argentines and most Americans look pretty similar too.  Sure, both countries are populated by lots of folks with European ancestry.  And that has not very much at all to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## fenixpollo

rob.returns said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. But I think this is a common knowledge that "*MOST" of them are caucasians* (and need not state it specifically).


 I agree with cuchu that rob.returns is confusing culture with skin color. While white people may all look the same to you, I assure you that inside, they are as different as foxes and chickens. Be very careful about making generalizations, rob., especially when you say that Native Americans are "undereducated." 

Yes, Native Americans. I can say that without pandering to political correctness. Especially in an international forum, using this term avoids confusion with people from India. 





			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> By the way, Indian people tend to take a dim view of the expression "Native American."


 Again, avoid generalization. Most Native Americans that I know use the term "Indian" amongst themselves, but they don't _dislike_ the term "Native American" when it's used respectfully and not in a way that screams "I'm trying to be politically correct!" What most of my native friends appreciate even more is when they are referred to as members of their specific tribe...rather than lumped together with global terms that tend to overgeneralize. 

Most of my Native American friends would take a dim view of making light of nearly years of inequity and mistreatment: 





			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> If people are getting such checks for the simple reason that they were born of such-and-such an ethnic background, well, that's their good fortune.


 You make valid points about the vicious circle that is created by accepting government handouts. You may be well aware of the fact that many people on the reservation have little choice but to accept handouts, since there tends to be little economic opportunity for them on the reservation.... but you failed to mention it. Under the law, we are all equal...now. But most Native groups have only begun to enjoy the fruits of this equality in the last 30 or 40 years. In reality, our society still offers Native Americans limited access to opportunities to improve their condition, and they are confronted by racism and the aftereffects of over 300 years of de facto and de jure discrimination.

Their contribution to American culture is not as deep as it could or should be, perhaps, but goes far beyond team names and affects music, food, language, fashion and even religion. Back to the original question, here is one small example of a non-British group that has influenced U.S. culture.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm not aware that any member of the cultural establishment (ha! another bogus term....) every asked any member of an indigenous tribe if they wanted to be called either Indians or Native Americans. 

I suppose indigenous and aboriginal are more accurate, but might not have any more or less appeal to the political kerrectitude squadron...whom I like to call the _________. (Not fit to display in a civil forum.)


Back to the original topic: FFB has made a strong argument that the origins of American culture are dominantly or predominantly British.
I can accept that easily.

Moving along to the aftermath of the massive immigration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, I still wonder aloud if my country's culture remains predominantly a product of UK or British culture.  It is certainly less so than it was, say, in 1870.  

Here's a thought that may shed light on the question.  [I will be generalizing here, so please don't bother pointing out specific exceptions, of which there are many.]  Americans, English speaking Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians can all feel pretty much at ease in one another's settings.   For Americans and Canadians, our two countries feel more like 'home' when we cross the border than does any part of the UK.

Working hypothesis:  US culture, with British influence being the strongest,  has evolved along with other English speaking former colonies, all with many other cultural influences, into a 'post-colonial, British derived, state'.   

This begs the question of whether US culture is predominantly British in tone or flavor.  I still don't know the anwer to that one, but am comfortable saying that British influence is still extremely strong, more so than that of any other single cultural contributor.   I would also say that the amalgam of all the other influences are not, collectively, dominant.
The question is really whether it remains useful, today, to call the US culture "British".  It once was, but has evolved quite a lot.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

Quote:
Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
_Hola Outsider,

Al leer la frase arriba, me puse a pensar. ¿Es verdad que la cultura de mi país es mayoritariamente de origen inglés? Y ¿qué importancia tiene las contribuciones de los demás primeras colonistas...holandeses, franceses y españoles?

Le invito a abrir otro hilo para discutirlo, ya que sigo incómodo e inseguro con lo que ha escrito. 

Gracias,
Cuchu


PD- Se podría preguntar si el brasil, por ejemplo, tiene una cultura mayoritariamente português, o si el uruguay la tiene español..._

.

_Buenas tardes Cuchuflete:_
_Me va a permitir que me exprese en castellano, y que sea yo quien le replique en lugar de su interlocutor Outsider.De todas las maneras este hilo comenzó en castellano, así que no importará._
_Con relación a si es cirto que la cultura de su país es mayoritariamente anglosajona, a mí no me cabe duda alguna. Si alguna cualidad ha tenido el hecho de forjar su país, ha sido el elemento aglutinador impresionante de las primitivas colonias de nueva Inglaterra, que sucesivamente ha ido adquiriendo estados o territorios fuera de su ámbito primero: La Florida, parte de Maine(cultura Acadia), territorios del Mississipi(primero franceses después españoles:Louisiana), vastos territorios del Medio Oeste deshabitados o escasamente habitados por tribus indias originarias, territorios o Estados como Texas,Nuevo México,Arizona,Nevada,California, etc. primariamente colonizados por la Corona Española, y pocos años por la República de México, para continuar con los territorios de Columbia Británica que pasaron a EEUU, Alaska, y más recientemente Puerto Rico, Guam, Islas Vírgenes,Hawaii._
_¿Cuál es la composición cultural de este vastísimo territorio?,¿Cuál es su cultura?,¿Cuál su composición étnica?._
_Sin duda alguna hay disparidades en la composición étnica, pero de las culturas originarias, o primeras holandesas, francesas, hispanas(españolas o mexicanas), y sobre todo indias, que Ud. preguntaba me temo que no queda gran cosa, bajo el influjo unificador y aglutinante del componente cultural anglosajón.Son excepciones Puerto Rico, y parte del Sur Estadounidense._
_No sé cómo lo ven Uds., pero de la cultura holandesa, india(Ud. no la menciona), y francesa cabría preguntarse qué queda:_
_Restos en la cultura culinaria, en el modo de ser interior, algo en la joie de vivre, no sé._
_Entiendo que el caso de Brasil es muy distinto, porque tiene cultura amerindia viva, y otra resultante de la mezcla._
_Luego también estarían los restos de la cultura aframericana en EEUU:¿en qué consiste dicha cultura?._
_No sé, soy muy respetuoso con la evolución de los países, y no pongo en duda el proceso evolutivo de su nación, me parece perfecto.Lo que no me parece muy exacto es decir que no tiene un componente más que fundamental angloisajón, sino ¿cómo la deniríamos?. ¿De mezcla?:quizás, pero para mí son como azucarillos que la hacen más dulce, más iluminada._

_Bueno, estos son mis humildes pensamientos, sobre la historia y cultura norteamericana a la que he dedicado muchas horas._

_Reciba un cordial saludo de este español._
_Jesús María._

*Mr./Mrs. Cuchuflete:*

*Good afternoon:*

 I agree with you to open a new thread about this matter, and close the former, it is the best decision.
  We(spanish) need to understand your own mind, and your history.
   I have read a lot about this question, and I would like to tell you my humble conclusions. I know it is difficult for english-american to translate into english my text, and I would like to do it if you prefer that, but I disagree perhaps with your last post in the previous thread.

  Hope it helps for you.

Bye.


----------



## cuchuflete

Wearing the Moderator hat, which I would rather not do in a conversation in which I am a participant...

I have deleted some seven or eight posts about Indians/Native Americans/aboriginal peoples....

These were interesting posts.  They have less than diddly squat to do with the topic of this thread.  If you would like to open another thread on that topic, please do so.
If you want your previously written words, PM me, and I'll send them to you.

Shall we return to the topic?  Please re-read post # 1 before adding anything more here.

thanks,
Cuchuflete.


----------



## fenixpollo

I could probably support your hypothesis, cuchu, about a "British-derived" state, so in this sense I agree with you and foxfirebrand.  I would then have to respond to Outsider's original question with "yes".





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Americans, English speaking Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians can all feel pretty much at ease in one another's settings. For Americans and Canadians, our two countries feel more like 'home' when we cross the border than does any part of the UK.


 I also agree with this statement, and more.  I feel very "at home" when I'm in Canada... perhaps more so, because my contact with Canadians has been nothing but positive.  However, my culture is far enough from British culture that I do not feel "at home" in Britain.  In fact, having grown up close to the Mexican border and being fluent in Spanish, I feel more "at home" in Mexico than I do in Britain.


----------



## rob.returns

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I agree with cuchu that rob.returns is confusing culture with skin color. While white people may all look the same to you, I assure you that inside, they are as different as foxes and chickens. .


 
I see your point fenixpollo, but no matter how you deny it. Americans are mostly caucasians. But through the years, I believe that theres a mix of cultures thats been happening. Im aware of that.



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Be very careful about making generalizations, rob., especially when you say that Native Americans are "undereducated."


 
In this statement, I think that you are the one who is making generalizations. I think most of them are undereducated but not all of them...its because for thesame reason that you stated in your post, Let me repeat that you said:
*"But most Native groups have only begun to enjoy the fruits of this equality in the last 30 or 40 years. "*

That's exactly why they lack education and opportunities..because of your reason.

P.S. I can see that your avatar is of "Native American" in origin. Sorry for the term, but i think its not important how you call them. But how you treat them.

Thanks!


----------



## fenixpollo

rob.returns said:
			
		

> I think that you are the one who is making generalizations. I think most of them are undereducated but not all of them...


 Yes, I was making blanket statements about a group of people without facts to back up my statments. I did not, however, present my generalizations as undeniable facts, as you did: 





			
				rob.returns said:
			
		

> I know for a fact that majority of them are uneducated and unemployed thats why.


 This is not to provoke Cuchu to bust out the Mod Hat, but to respond to issues of culture and race.





			
				rob.returns said:
			
		

> I see your point fenixpollo, but no matter how you deny it. Americans are mostly caucasians. *I'm not denying it -- I'm just wondering why you brought it up in the first place, since skin color has nothing to do with culture. *
> 
> ...i think its not important how you call them. But how you treat them. *I agree.*


Back on topic, I think Swettenham's post (edit: see below for Swettenham's post) shows a real desire that Americans have to find some kind of national identity. For a while in our history, I think that the "British-derived" Americans were keenly aware of their culture's roots, and searching to make themselves unique. Now that immigration, distance and time have made the culture unique, Americans are trying to figure out exactly what that uniqueness means. But I feel that we are no longer using Britain as a frame of reference -- we feel ourselves too far removed.


----------



## Swettenham

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Back on topic, I think Swettenham's posts show a real desire that Americans have to find some kind of national identity. For a while in our history, I think that the "British-derived" Americans were keenly aware of their culture's roots, and searching to make themselves unique. Now that immigration, distance and time have made the culture unique, Americans are trying to figure out exactly what that uniqueness means. But I feel that we are no longer using Britain as a frame of reference -- we feel ourselves too far removed.


More or less, Fenix   You may have noticed I deleted my posts— I'm putting more thought into them.  But you got the gist of it.


----------



## rob.returns

Would it be correct if I say, America is a mix of cultures...

I want to hear from Americans...

In your point of view, What composes America?(its origins, culture. I mean Chinese are from China, Japanese are from Japan, Indians are from India, they do have their Identity, uniquely, originally)

What is America then?  

tnx!


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Rob.

Let's pause for a moment and look at the words in *bold* type just below your avatar: * U.S. Culture -- What are its Origins?*

For some strange reason, many people want to ignore that question, and discuss the state of US culture today.  I am among the guilty.

FFB has given us a good basis to discuss the origins.  I would only modify that by saying "early" origins.  That includes both the colonial period and about the first hundred years in which the U.S. was a country.  The second period influencing the current culture was one that had millions of immigrants arriving in the country.
That, I believe, changed things quite a lot, but did not eradicate the initial English influence.  Rather, it was additive.

"Indians are from India" is not very instructive.  India is a most eclectic culture, with hundreds of languages and influences from many distinct cultures, including a long period of British colonial domination.  If the composition of current American culture is of interest, I suggest you begin a thread to discuss it, and let this thread attempt to deal with the subject of *origins*.


Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Rob.
> 
> Let's pause for a moment and look at the words in *bold* type just below your avatar: * U.S. Culture -- What are its Origins?*
> 
> For some strange reason, many people want to ignore that question, and discuss the state of US culture today.  I am among the guilty.
> 
> FFB has given us a good basis to discuss the origins.  I would only modify that by saying "early" origins.  That includes both the colonial period and about the first hundred years in which the U.S. was a country.  The second period influencing the current culture was one that had millions of immigrants arriving in the country.
> That, I believe, changed things quite a lot, but did not eradicate the initial English influence.  Rather, it was additive.
> 
> "Indians are from India" is not very instructive.  India is a most eclectic culture, with hundreds of languages and influences from many distinct cultures, including a long period of British colonial domination.  If the composition of current American culture is of interest, I suggest you begin a thread to discuss it, and let this thread attempt to deal with the subject of *origins*.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Cuchu


The origin of what?  Technically, the political entity known as the United States has its origin in England— this is not debatable.  But what "culture" are we speaking of if not today's?


----------



## cuchuflete

Swettenham said:
			
		

> The origin of what? Technically, the political entity known as the United States has its origin in England— this is not debatable. But what "culture" are we speaking of if not today's?



Your point about the political origin is clear..just don't forget the Dutch, French and Spanish who formed part of the colonies, and hence the original country.

Since this is, in theory at least, a language forum, I was trying to draw a distinction between a discussion of origins and one of all the myriad influences.  Most of the tens of millions of native or first generation Spanish speaking Americans contribute to our modern culture, but they are not part of the origins of American culture.  Rather, they are adding to, modifying, and in my view improving that culture.

A culture obviously doesn't come into existence at a moment in time, and then get embalmed in a block of clear epoxy.   It takes time to develop, from one or more central influences.  I suppose the question about origin, or origins, is what time frame(s) to look at.


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your point about the political origin is clear..just don't forget the Dutch, French and Spanish who formed part of the colonies, and hence the original country.
> 
> Since this is, in theory at least, a language forum, I was trying to draw a distinction between a discussion of origins and one of all the myriad influences.  Most of the tens of millions of native or first generation Spanish speaking Americans contribute to our modern culture, but they are not part of the origins of American culture.  Rather, they are adding to, modifying, and in my view improving that culture.
> 
> A culture obviously doesn't come into existence at a moment in time, and then get embalmed in a block of clear epoxy.   It takes time to develop, from one or more central influences.  I suppose the question about origin, or origins, is what time frame(s) to look at.


Point taken, and well put.  But I can only speak for my own culture, whose direct origins are in those myriad influences.  My world is filled with hip-hop (though I don't listen to much myself) and Hispanic immigrants, and those "early origins" seem distant and indirectly related.  That's my perspective, "my America," if you will. 

EDIT: Outsider did ask about the dominant culture.  I can't say that the one I experience is the dominant one, but which one is?  Probably the work culture, the culture of work.  This we all have in common: lots and lots of work.


----------



## Swettenham

Outsider said:
			
		

> If you feel that 'NO', American culture is by no means mostly of English origin, then can you point to specific significant contributions of other nationalities to American culture?


African Americans.  Were the slaves' contributions to the formation of the United States less valuable than the slave-drivers'?  The more I think about this (and I am losing sleep over it), the more I feel that we must recognize the importance of African American influences.  I'm not saying this to be politically correct.  Take an honest look at American history and culture.  As I said in a previous post, we are as much a black nation as a white one, and the collective American experience is defined largely by race relations between blacks and whites.  The whites, for many, many years, persisted in an Anglo-Saxon culture, but at the same time, there was this whole non-Anglo-Saxon culture being persecuted.  In the last century, when blacks rose and demanded their civil rights, the world took notice of this non-Anglo-Saxon culture, and realized how truly, deeply and uniquely _American_ that culture was.  By now, many Anglo-Saxons like me recognize it as part of our collective cultural heritage, not a subculture.  And blacks have continued to drive, shape, and define the United States— what is more American than Blues, Jazz and Rock & Roll?  Who could be upheld as a more exemplary American citizen than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?  This is the land of his dream.

I just can't think of America as a white country.  Sure, almost all our presidents have been Anglo-Saxon protestants, but that's just one symptom.  That's the tip of the iceberg.  Look at what's really going on. Having a whip doesn't make you more important.  Blacks may not have laid the foundations of our government, but they laid so many foundations of our culture.  It just wouldn't be America if it weren't for African Americans.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

Swettenham said:
			
		

> African Americans. Were the slaves' contributions to the formation of the United States less valuable than the slave-drivers'? The more I think about this (and I am losing sleep over it), the more I feel that we must recognize the importance of African American influences. I'm not saying this to be politically correct. Take an honest look at American history and culture. As I said in a previous post, we are as much a black nation as a white one, and the collective American experience is defined largely by race relations between blacks and whites. The whites, for many, many years, persisted in an Anglo-Saxon culture, but at the same time, there was this whole non-Anglo-Saxon culture being persecuted. In the last century, when blacks rose and demanded their civil rights, the world took notice of this non-Anglo-Saxon culture, and realized how truly, deeply and uniquely _American_ that culture was. By now, many Anglo-Saxons like me recognize it as part of our collective cultural heritage, not a subculture. And blacks have continued to drive, shape, and define the United States— what is more American than Blues, Jazz and Rock & Roll? Who could be upheld as a more exemplary American citizen than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? This is the land of his dream.
> 
> I just can't think of America as a white country. Sure, almost all our presidents have been Anglo-Saxon protestants, but that's just one symptom. That's the tip of the iceberg. Look at what's really going on. Having a whip doesn't make you more important. Blacks may not have laid the foundations of our government, but they laid so many foundations of our culture. It just wouldn't be America if it weren't for African Americans.


 
*Good afternoon:*
I have been reading carefully your kind posts about this important matter.
  Sometimes in our daily life we can´t watch our own back.Our neighbours can, they watch it.
   Usually I wonder about the History´s circunstances. USA´s opportunities were the best. Your own history travels from indian civilization; Anglo-Saxon colonization in New England; Ducht colonization in New York; French colonization in Maine and later in Louisiana and Mississipi; Spanish and short Mexican civilization in Texas, Nevada,Nuevo México, Arizona and California; black population in slaved cities mostly in South States, and the last ,your colonization or not of Alaska,Hawaii, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
  ¿Qué queda de las primitivas culturas colonizadas?.¿Han sido arrasadas?
What´s about the former cultures?.Does exist any outline from them?.
  You need ask for this question to your neighbours.How do they see to you?.
  USA´s civilization is a great civilization, and we agree, but the question you are not answering could be the next:
  Have you taken advantage of all the civilizations that you have destroyed?.
Have you destroyed completely the former civilizations?.
¿Qué queda de la cultura de los negros esclavos?, y lo más importante:¿Qué queda de la cultura india verdadera originaria de Norteamérica?.¿Está simplemente recluida en reservas con hombres alcoholizados y abandonados a su suerte?. Me gustaría pensar que no.

  This text was posted two days ago in this thread, and I would like to centre this debate.

  Hope it helps to light our minds.

Regards from Spain.


----------



## cuchuflete

Jesús has raised some excellent questions. I know what the surrounding culture feels like to me. My academic learning tells me that English influence was once dominant, and remains strong. My personal experience tells me that here, at home in Maine, it remains very strong, but when I travel south to Connecticut and New York it is far less noticeable. If I were in Hawaii I would probably find something entirely different. 

I would like to hear from those from outside the US...Does American culture seem English to you? If not, what would you associate it with?


----------



## JESUS MARIA

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Jesús has raised some excellent questions. I know what the surrounding culture feels like to me. My academic learning tells me that English influence was once dominant, and remains strong. My personal experience tells me that here, at home in Maine, it remains very strong, but when I travel south to Connecticut and New York it is far less noticeable. If I were in Hawaii I would probably find something entirely different.
> 
> I would like to hear from those from outside the US...Does American culture seem English to you? If not, what would you associate it with?


 
*Thanks Mr/Mrs Cuchuflete:*
You have understood my point of view about your own culture.
USA is a young country (Very young?), and you are getting the best from the cultures colonized for you.
That´s the matter.
  If you let the former cultures to survive ,you will be not only an Anglo-Saxon evolutioned culture, you will be a mixed or properly an American Culture.
  You need to rescue the best of those cultures.

Thanks.


----------



## asm

It is my experience to notice that many Americans enjoy having “double nationality”; while they perceive the US as their “main” country, they also look for their roots, looking for another place, mainly Europe, but also in other countries. 

When I first lived in the US 16 years ago and attended an international festival (in a big Midwest city), I came to realize this unique cultural feature. Although I was among the few who were really “international”, I saw a lot of people trying to trace their origins to “someplace else”. I remember boots of countries that does not even exist, but people coming from those places were showing their pride. Few months ago a student told me that she was “technically” German (with a French name), but I bet that her German blood is diluted more than what she realizes. In my church we have an international potluck each year; when the priest asks about the nationalities that are represented, almost everybody stands-up when the countries are mentioned.

Now it is the same with Hispanics, we always identify ourselves with labels like Latino, Hispanics, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, etc. 

Do not take me wrong with my comment, I find this feature of the American culture very fascinating (although I sometimes see people who “loose the compass”). In my case it will be even more drastic, I have two citizenships, but I am a European descendant. This is similar to those families with the father from country one, mother from country 2, and each children is born in the “nth” country.

 

 

Regarding the point of “age”, I agree that the USA is very young. However, as a *country* it’s older than any other American state, much older than many African countries, not to say that many countries in Europe are also younger (I will request to map editors to include an eraser and a pencil to re-draw the borders among European countries).

(I recognize that some cultures go beyond “countries”, and many “younger” countries have some cultural veins that transcend time and space). It is my opinion that this tendency to look for our origins in the USA is related to that “youngness. 

 

 

 



			
				JESUS MARIA said:
			
		

> *Thanks Mr/Mrs Cuchuflete:*
> You have understood my point of view about your own culture.
> USA is a young country (Very young?), and you are getting the best from the cultures colonized for you.
> That´s the matter.
> If you let the former cultures to survive ,you will be not only an Anglo-Saxon evolutioned culture, you will be a mixed or properly an American Culture.
> You need to rescue the best of those cultures.
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## tvdxer

Sorry for reviving this thread, but I think it's well worth it.  Very interesting.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Cuchuflete suggested that I start a new thread about a side issue that came up in the 'EE.UU. -- America' thread, and I thought it might lead to an interesting discussion, so here it is.
> 
> For most of its colonial history, what later became the U.S.A. were English colonies. Of course, Native Americans had got there before, but sadly I think that their culture was brushed aside, for the most part (do correct me if I'm wrong).



I think you're right.  The natives certainly had very little influence on the dominant European-origin culture.  However, most natives have been thoroughly Westernized.  



> So here's my question: As far as the dominant culture in the U.S.A. is concerned, would you agree that it has its roots mostly in English culture? Or do you feel that other European cultures (e.g. German) have given significant, lasting contributions to American culture?



I would say of all cultures, British has had the most influence over the U.S.  Later migrants contributed to the overall culture, of course, but the children or grandchildren of most became fully assimilated.  The British substratum of U.S. culture remains strong.  However, I believe that many of the traits traditionally ascribed to American culture, e.g. individualism, ingenuity, ambition, etc. are the result of our nation having traditionally been the destination of those who wanted to better their lives and were willing to leave friends, family, and familliarity in general behind at home to do so.  While we do have our fair share of refugees, most immigrants from Italy, Germany, England, Finland, etc. did not do so out of absolute necessity, but from their own personal drive to create a better future for themselves and their posterity.  I think they believed that _they_ could shape their destiny...hence the traditional American aversion to fatalistic thinking, and trust in one's own self-empowerment and hard work.

Other cultures have had great influence in certain regions of the country.  Minnesotan culture, for example, draws greatly upon the Scandinavian and German roots of most Minnesotans.  _Janteloven_ is still alive here - at least in rural areas less affected by mainstream America.  Saunas have long been popular, and the older folks in more provincial areas still talk with the lilting accent, pronouncing yes as "ja".  Perhaps the same goes for other parts of the country as well: the Mexicans and Spanish in New Mexico and Arizona, the Scottish in the South, etc.



> Please note that I'm talking about the dominant culture. Obviously, in a large, diverse country with a long history of immigration such as the U.S. there are important pockets of different cultural lineage (Chinese, Italian, Jewish...) and also significant subcultures (natives will be able to identify them better than I). But I'm talking about the culture of those who drive and shape the nation.



Many who drive and shape the nation may have been under the persuasion  of their family's cultural heritage.  Antonin Scalia comes to mind.  



> If you feel that 'NO', American culture is by no means mostly of English origin, then can you point to specific significant contributions of other nationalities to American culture?
> 
> Also, compare in your mind the U.S.A. with other former English colonies, such as Australia and Canada, and contrast them with countries with a different history (such as Mexico, for instance). Do you feel that former British colonies have common cultural traits not shared by other countries, or not really?



Yes, very much so.  I think the places where the transplanted American will be most at ease adjusting to the local culture are former British colonies - Anglo Canada (which really is the U.S.'s little sister), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, and Britain, in that order.  Of course, these countries all share a common language, but I think the similarities extend far beyond that.  Going beyond former crown lands, I would say Germany is probably the non-English culture most similar to that of the Americans, particularly Southern Germany.  Please remember this is all based on conjecture, so I would be interested to see what others, especially those who have been expats, think.


----------



## fenixpollo

Your attempt to revive the debate by posting suppositions, opinions and generalizations unencumbered by facts will surely work well, dxer. 





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> The natives certainly had very little influence on the dominant European-origin culture.  However, most natives have been thoroughly Westernized.


 Most Native Americans that I know are not thoroughly "Westernized".  Rather, they grudgingly accept aspects of American culture while fighting to retain elements of traditional culture -- especially the elements that value family and nature (two aspects in which American culture is.... _challenged_).


----------



## tvdxer

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Your attempt to revive the debate by posting suppositions, opinions and generalizations unencumbered by facts will surely work well, dxer.  Most Native Americans that I know are not thoroughly "Westernized".  Rather, they grudgingly accept aspects of American culture while fighting to retain elements of traditional culture -- especially the elements that value family and nature (two aspects in which American culture is.... _challenged_).



Many are certainly concerned about preserving their culture, and they have every right and reason to be.

However, the last time I checked, most natives lived in Western-style houses, drove Western-style cars, spoke English with either no accent or a very slight sort of intonation, wore Western-style clothing at all times except during special ceremonies, attended Western-style schools, and listened to the same exact music as any other American.   The majority seem to be Christian, perhaps with traces of their indigenous traditions, but I know few actually fully adhere to their old religious systems.  Most with Native ancestry (at least it seems to me) also have European blood, and many have all but forgotten about their culture...not all people with native heritage live on Navajo reservations, you know.


----------



## danielfranco

Does anyone need an AIM representative to pay him a visit?


----------



## fenixpollo

Again with the generalizations, dxer.  The last time you checked, how did you do the checking, exactly?  By talking to a Native American or visiting a reservation?  If indeed you have personally met an Indian, I hope your tone wasn't as condescending as the elitist attitude of your last post.

Yes, Dan, I think we may need to stage an intervention.


----------



## GenJen54

tvdxer said:
			
		

> However, the last time I checked, most natives lived in Western-style houses, drove Western-style cars, spoke English with either no accent or a very slight sort of intonation, wore Western-style clothing at all times except during special ceremonies, attended Western-style schools, and listened to the same exact music as any other American. The majority seem to be Christian, perhaps with traces of their indigenous traditions, but I know few actually fully adhere to their old religious systems. Most with Native ancestry (at least it seems to me) also have European blood, and many have all but forgotten about their culture...not all people with native heritage live on Navajo reservations, you know.


Wow!  That's quite an assumption. 

The last time I checked - living in one of two states with the highest Native American populations in the entire U.S. - most Natives still live on reservations, go to schools that are on their reservations, are governed by their own Sovereign law, and in short, still abide by many, if not most of, their community traditions.  Many still speak their native languages, although sadly, this, too, is in decline.  They might not still live in teepees, but I believe that to be a matter of practicality at this day and age, not a sign that they have "embraced" outside culture.

They may most certainly be modernized in terms of business practice and the cars the drive, but they cling to the traditions of their past, recognizing that they were heinously stolen from them from the elitist europeans who conquered this country many centuries ago. Resentments still run very, very deep, I assure you.


----------



## Fernando

From my point of view it is true that US culture is basically Anglo-Saxon though we would hardly identify a British and an American. What it surprise to me is:

- There are only minor differences (from my limited, outer point of view) among a black New Yorker and a Japanese-origin Californian. Just compare it with the difference among a person from Asturias and León (100 km away). In Europe we have many more differences among less people and less land.
- That is compatible with thinking that there are HUGE differences. You insist and insist that you are African American, Irish American, Italian American, Jew American... Which are the difference IN PRACTICE? Twenty years after arriving to US there is little difference.
It is true that foreigners perceive the similarities far better than the natives, but my comment about US is not only mine.

Maybe you are basing your culture is some myths (as any other nation):

- Sports (Specially baseball, basketball and Am. football)
- Cowboys and Wild West (though I assume less than 2% of current US citizens have cowboy ancestors).
- Greed (American dream, if you like).
- Personal independence.

Anyway, the REAL difference among U.S. and the rest of the world is:

YOU DO NOT ENJOY FOOTBALL WORLD CUP


----------



## tecate

#37, to quote Anne Morrow-Lindbergh, "Nature punishes no sin more implacably than the sin of resistance to change".  Cultures rise/fall/change - as they should.  To cling to some nostalgic notion of yesterday is to relegate peoples to mediocrity and/or failure.  Our world is constantly changing, and it sounds like you actually believe that native americans should resist that change, stay on the reservation, and reject western influence.  How very elitist of you!

Anyway, I've now taken the thread even further from the OP than it's already been taken (sorry!) I think the first two posts in this thread were most in keeping with the central theme, since our nation was officially founded by Brits.  However, we've had so many cultural infusions from so many different places that I think we should simply say that our origins are British, not our cultural origins.  I really don't feel like we can pin down our "cultural" origins.


----------



## tecate

emma42 said:
			
		

> I rely on the good sense and factual research of Americans to teach me about their country.


 
Hah!  I wouldn't rely on any internet bulletin board for that!  Certainly many of the posters here seem to be well educated and knowledgeable, but even among the well educated and knowledgeable there will be dissent!  I suppose if you can't visit a place/situation and make up your own mind about it, you'll have to rely on a majority consensus in forming your views (although that can be very dangerous, too, as we all know).  

I live in Washington DC, a fairly well integrated city, and I couldn't tell you what it's like to be a minority or how they feel, because I am not one.  I could tell you what some of my black friends say about how they feel, but then I have others who would disagree with them.  Just as I'm sure there is ambivilence amongst the native american population.
I guess it's best to just avoid generalizations.


----------



## fenixpollo

tecate said:
			
		

> Our world is constantly changing, and it sounds like you actually believe that native americans should resist that change, stay on the reservation, and reject western influence. How very elitist of you!


 It may sound like that to you, but it sounded to me like she was commending Native Americans who are embracing and trying to rescue their own culture, rather than assimilate completely into the culture of their conquerers. To me, that sounds like the _opposite_ of elitist.





			
				tecate said:
			
		

> Hah! I wouldn't rely on any internet bulletin board for that! ...I guess it's best to just avoid generalizations.


 Since you seem to be educated and knowledgeable, tecate, perhaps you should also avoid making generalizations about internet "bulletin boards" and their members.


----------



## tecate

#42 - I'm talking about the tendency of many "limousine liberals" to think that they know what's best for minorities and third world nations, when in fact it may be detrimental for a group to try to hold onto a way of life that is no longer feasible, or even desireable, given that *the entire world* _*is evolving and modernising.*_ Numerous cultures, even some great ones, that used to exist are now gone.  The maya, the aztec, to name two that jump immediately to mind.  I'm not saying that anyone should be denied their right to practice whatever culture they choose, but I'd like to know exactly what native american cultural practices will benefit them in this day and age of globalization?  

And no - I'm not that educated or knowledgeable, just opinionated, but one cannot deny that an internet bulletin board, while a great place for exchange of ideas, should not be one's primary source for forming their views about any given subject that they have not experienced first-hand.


----------



## maxiogee

tecate said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that anyone should be denied their right to practice whatever culture they choose, but I'd like to know exactly what native american cultural practices will benefit them in this day and age of globalization?




 You may not be 'saying' that such denial should take place, but you seem to be recommending it.
 One doesn't 'practice' a culture, one lives it.
 It is not 'cultural practice' which benefits people - they are but one outward manifestation of a culture - it is the culture itself, and the ways of thinking which it induces, which benefit a people.

If we only ask your question we would write off whole nations whose cultural practices would not be beneficial to them "in this day and age of globalization".


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If we only ask your question we would write off whole nations whose cultural practices would not be beneficial to them "in this day and age of globalization".


Well, I have no problem with that.

As a matter of fact, there are many people who think that Spaniards & Mexicans & Portuguese... should get rid of bullfighting which was a part of our culture. What is the problem?


----------



## tecate

No offense intended, I am indeed very new and should have practiced more restraint in my initial postings.  My primary internet forum experience has been with the Lonely Planet Thorntree; any of you familiar with that site will surely understand why my posting style assumed what may have been perceived as an arguementative or derrogatory tone.  Again, not what was intended, carry on...I'll leave you academics to your pursuits and get back to the pile of paperwork that has accumulated while I was distracted by all the engaging discussion.


----------



## GenJen54

> I'm talking about the tendency of many "limousine liberals" to think that they know what's best for minorities and third world nations, when in fact it may be detrimental for a group to try to hold onto a way of life that is no longer feasible, or even desireable, given that *the entire world* _*is evolving and modernising.*_


 
So, what do you suggest?  That they give up their culture entirely in order to bow to the deference of the suit-wearing, right-wing conservative?  "Convert to my views or get out of my country?"  How boring is that?!  I already live in a state filled with such people.  The Native Americans, as well as hispanics, asians and other cultural minorities who live here are what add flavor to what is otherwise a pretty bland place to be. 

I am proud of my state's Native American Culture.  I am proud of the Native Americans who wish to carry on their traditions, on *their *lands, under *their* governments, in *their* way.   Should something of our country's roots not be kept in tact, or should it, too, go the way of the dinosaurs, to be fossilised with time and put in museums for us to look at, not understanding its cultural value in contemporary times.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> Well, I have no problem with that.
> 
> As a matter of fact, there are many people who think that Spaniards & Mexicans & Portuguese... should get rid of bullfighting which was a part of our culture. What is the problem?



The problem would lie, I imagine, somewhere between those who wish to see the end of what they see as cruel practices and those who wish to retain what they see as their heritage. Not all parts of anyone's culture are 'valuable' (whatever way you wish to define 'value' in regard to culture), and not all opinions on cruelty are valid.


----------



## tecate

#47 - OK, this is my final post 'cause I really gotta get back to work:  I think I didn't articulate well, because believe me, the last thing I'd want to see in this country is hemogony.  I live in the city because I appreciate cultural diversity, I travel as often as possible internationally because I want to be exposed to other cultures.  My point was that I felt you indicated in your post that it's best that native americans reject, to whatever degree feasible, all things western and cling to their native culture.  But if all indigenous cultures did that, and didn't open up to new ideas and influences, they'll be doomed to stagnation.  No culture can remain untouched by progress.  Just as species evolve and change, so do cultures.  And every so often, a species reaches the point where it's being kept around for no other reason than a few well-intentioned people think it's "cute" (panda?!) when in reality it's just time to make room for the next species!


----------



## tecate

By the way...I am in NO way advocating extermination or marginalization of a people (I just realized how my last sentence could be taken very, very wrong).  I'm just saying that cultures have a life cycle just like everything else; when I'm 97 years old and on oxygen and can't walk anymore, I hope that no one tries to keep me alive by artificial means.  That's all that analogy was supposed to mean.  OK, really, I'm out of here now...


----------



## maxiogee

tecate said:
			
		

> And every so often, a species reaches the point where it's being kept around for no other reason than a few well-intentioned people think it's "cute" (panda?!) when in reality it's just time to make room for the next species!



Darwin would explain that as survivial of the fittest - if cuteness 'fits' a creature to its environment (a world where humanity can see to the wiping out of a species if it wishes) then cuteness would be a genetic trait to be desired.

It might be that a culture maintained for 'trivial' reasons could be revived if required. That cannot happen if it is allowed (and yes, we have the 'allowance' in our hands nowadays) to disappear.
The worst thing which could happen is that a culture be allowed to disappear because those growing up in it see it as valueless - as judged from other perspectives, and not as judged from its own lights. Maybe there is no point in preserving the xyz culture, but that needs to be a decision made by those living it, who decide not to pass it on to the next generations, and not a shunning of it by children attracted by the false allure of the difference in another culture.


----------



## tecate

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Maybe there is no point in preserving the xyz culture, but that needs to be a decision made by those living it, who decide not to pass it on to the next generations, and not a shunning of it by children attracted by the false allure of the difference in another culture.


 
But Maxi, isn't that precisely by whom the decision should be made...the children of that society?  Successive generations always question their forebearers values - if not, we'd still have slavery here in the US today.  And what about the more oppressive middle eastern/muslim societies?  Is it right to preserve a culture where women are denied equal rights and education just because that's the status quo?  Isn't it up to those who will inherit these societies to decide how they want their cultures to evolve?  And if they want cell phones, dang it...give 'em cell phones!!


----------



## french4beth

> Their contribution to American culture is not as deep as it could or should be, perhaps, but goes far beyond team names and affects music, food, language, fashion and even religion.


I beg to differ - the entire US government is based on Indian/Native American/aboriginal government structures & traditions ( and I believe the preferred term is _'nation'_, not tribe) in addition to the British government models.


----------



## djchak

Um, what info do you have regarding that...i'd like to see it.


----------



## maxiogee

tecate said:
			
		

> But Maxi, isn't that precisely by whom the decision should be made...the children of that society?  Successive generations always question their forebearers values - if not, we'd still have slavery here in the US today.  And what about the more oppressive middle eastern/muslim societies?  Is it right to preserve a culture where women are denied equal rights and education just because that's the status quo?  Isn't it up to those who will inherit these societies to decide how they want their cultures to evolve?  And if they want cell phones, dang it...give 'em cell phones!!



tec(?), When they are mature enough to do so, and then to implement changes. I don't believe that children could have changed slavery, or could change Islamic views on womanhood. These decisions will indeed be made by the children of the culture, but not while they are children. 

(And in all honesty, if the women in these cultures don't want the culture changed, who are we to insist that it should? That's the ultimate in condescending cultural interference!)


----------



## djchak

Fernando said:
			
		

> Anyway, the REAL difference among U.S. and the rest of the world is:
> 
> YOU DO NOT ENJOY FOOTBALL WORLD CUP


If you had our Team, and you were used to coming in last...would you?

you should read a book called: *Offside*: *Soccer* *and* *American* *Exceptionalism.

*It explains it much better then I could. Try a google.

Soccer will NEVER catch up with the other big US sports. It has already found it's niche as a wholesome kids sport, and olypmic women's sport.

It's not that we don't like playing it. It's more complicated than that.


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> It has already found it's niche as a wholesome kids sport, and *olymic* women's sport.



LOL - it seems that your drug testers have taken one urine test too many!


----------



## GenJen54

*Mod Edit:* Putting on my snarky little Mod horns, please get back to the topic at hand, which at this moment, does not include the U.S.'s involvment in the World Cup. Face it, we lost, we're out, the world will go on swimmingly without us.


----------



## fenixpollo

tecate said:
			
		

> #47


 I recommend using the "quote" button in the bottom-right corner of a post if you want to reply to a particular comment in that post. That way, if a post gets deleted, then your number will refer to the wrong post. Plus, it sounds less rude if you refer to the poster by name rather than calling her a number.


			
				tecate said:
			
		

> I think I didn't articulate well, because believe me, the last thing I'd want to see in this country is *hemogony*.


 We already have cultural and political *hegemony* of WASP culture. *Homogeneity* is also the general rule, except in certain urban areas. If you doubt me, visit any suburb and you'll see both.


			
				tecate said:
			
		

> Successive generations always question their forebearers values - if not, we'd still have slavery here in the US today.


 The children of the slaveowners didn't abolish slavery: they fought a bloody war to keep it. Slavery was abolished by forces external to slaveholding culture. The children of the slaveowners taught their children to perpetuate the beliefs and the practices that slavery was based on, which explains Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. If it were up to them, we might still have slavery in the US today. 





			
				tecate said:
			
		

> My point was that I felt you indicated in your post that it's best that native americans reject, to whatever degree feasible, all things western and cling to their native culture. But if all indigenous cultures did that, and didn't open up to new ideas and influences, they'll be doomed to stagnation. .


 She never said that they shouldn't be open. She simply said that they should cling to their native culture. It sounds like you're putting words in her mouth. 





			
				tecate said:
			
		

> And every so often, a species reaches the point where it's being kept around for no other reason than a few well-intentioned people think it's "cute" (panda?!) when in reality it's just time to make room for the next species!


 The panda is not being "kept around". It exists in the wild because it is a viable, productive species. It is endangered not because of its weaknesses, but of human destructiveness. 

If we subscribed to your utilitarian view of natural and social eugenics, what other animals and cultures besides the Panda and the Native Americans would be eliminated from the planet? And who would make that decision? According to the polls regarding the popularity of the US among people of other nations, perhaps American culture would get the ax.


			
				beth said:
			
		

> I beg to differ - the entire US government is based on Indian/Native American/aboriginal government structures & traditions ( and I believe the preferred term is _'nation'_, not tribe) in addition to the British government models.


 Beth, what you say is partly true, because the thought of the Founders was _influenced by_ the governmental structures of the Iroquois and other tribes; but the government of the US is based on European philosophies. 

chak, stop agreeing with me.


----------



## djchak

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I *Homogeneity* is also the general rule, except in certain urban areas. If you doubt me, visit any suburb and you'll see both.



That I do NOT agree with. If it was true, no suburb would have any non-white residents. While it might be "more true" in less populated areas, it is not true as a general statement.

If you mean suburbs are bland, that's a different argument.


----------



## fenixpollo

Same argument, chak. I'm not talking about racial diversity.  What tecate said, I think, is that cultural homogeneity (lack of cultural diversity) is bad. I agree, but when I look at the US, I don't see a culturally heterogeneous place.  I see a culturally homogenous culture with pockets of subcultures.  Less like a salad, and more like tapioca.  And yes, it is bland, precisely for that reason.


----------



## djchak

OK, i've never had tapioca..... but instead of using food analogies that only go so far...let me say that even in America's suburbs and exurbs there is more cultural diversity than you would think. That's the whole point.

To me, people saying America isn't a multi ethnic/multi cultural society are really saying: 

1: I don't think the US is multi ethnic/multi cultural ENOUGH.
2: I want to see more of a certain type of culture within the US.


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:
			
		

> To me, people saying America isn't a multi ethnic/multi cultural society are really saying:
> 1: I don't think the US is multi ethnic/multi cultural ENOUGH.
> 2: I want to see more of a certain type of culture within the US.


 My comments had a subtext, but it wasn't your #1 or #2.  
My subtext was:
3: I don't think that the US is as multicultural as people think it is.

I don't want to see any particular culture more represented. I also don't think the US needs to be more multicultural -- what we need is to move from _tolerating_ the cultural differences we already have to *accepting* them.


----------



## danielfranco

french4beth said:
			
		

> I beg to differ - the entire US government is based on Indian/Native American/aboriginal government structures & traditions ( and I believe the preferred term is _'nation'_, not tribe) in addition to the British government models.



Right! Wasn't "We the people..." completely and directly lifted from a council of nations' declaration? I read something about it a few years ago... Can't remember when or where, precisely. Sorry!


----------



## tvdxer

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Right! Wasn't "We the people..." completely and directly lifted from a council of nations' declaration? I read something about it a few years ago... Can't remember when or where, precisely. Sorry!



Interesting...I never heard of that.

I'm sorry, people...I've always been under the impression that most American Indians were forced off their land, fell into poverty, and abandoned much of their traditional ways for those of the "white man"...while European-American culture simply kept pressing on with little influence from them.  Sorry...nothing elitist about that, just what I've always understood.


----------



## lizzeymac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Interesting...I never heard of that.
> 
> I'm sorry, people...I've always been under the impression that most American Indians were forced off their land, fell into poverty, and abandoned much of their traditional ways for those of the "white man"...while European-American culture simply kept pressing on with little influence from them.  Sorry...nothing elitist about that, just what I've always understood.




Your understanding of the Constitution is incomplete.  
The Law Library of Congress lists these principle infuences on the United States Constitution. 
This information is also in most middle-school history textbooks.
http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/usconst.html

The Declaration of the Rights of Man, France 1789. Lafayette, with the assistance of Thomas Jefferson
The Bill of Rights of 1689, England
Magna Carta, England 1215 and 1297
The Athenian Constitution, Greece 350 BCE, Aristotle
Iroquois Constitution - The Great Binding Law, oral law dated to the 15th century,  written copies dates to the early 1700s


----------



## emma42

Thanks a lot, lizziemac, that is really useful!


----------



## danielfranco

Thanks to lizzeymac's link, I was inspired enough to conduct my own search. I found a comment on the book I read so long ago (the years after the bicentennial). But I was mistaken, and the "We the people..." line was not lifted from the Iroquois directly. However, their governmental system seems to have actually had a big influence in the direction the founding fathers took when they finally sat down to think about how to run this country.
Here's the link.


----------



## djchak

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> My comments had a subtext, but it wasn't your #1 or #2.
> My subtext was:
> 3: I don't think that the US is as multicultural as people think it is.
> 
> I don't want to see any particular culture more represented. I also don't think the US needs to be more multicultural -- what we need is to move from _tolerating_ the cultural differences we already have to *accepting* them.



Again, I disagree. I think you are looking at the glass as half empty, while I see it as 2/3rds full. 

I think we already DO accept certain *ASPECTS* of cultures within the American cultural framework..... and the point people have made about the Iriqouis as well as other cultures influencing us only proves my point.

I think SOME european models only _tolerate _cultural differences, and SOME Asian and African cultures are somewhat less tolerent, as a general rule.
I'll keep this vague as to avoid offending other nationalies.

Do we accept the WHOLE culture? No, but that would mean we would totally wipe out our existing culture. But no one stirs the pot as much as the US.

Some people might also say that "americans have no culture" becuase we seek to blend culture so much. The theory goes that "multi-culturism" of this sort (the melting pot) is doomed for failure. Opinions differ.


----------



## maxiogee

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> The Law Library of Congress lists these principle infuences on the United States Constitution.
> Iroquois Constitution - The Great Binding Law, oral law dated to the 15th century,  written copies dates to the early 1700s






			
				djchak said:
			
		

> I think we already DO accept certain *ASPECTS* of cultures within the American cultural framework.....



So that's it? The "white man" has used one of the native American's traditions (amongst other sources) when draughting the US Constitution, and you call that "accepting certain aspects of cultures" —> to judge from tvdzer's comment not many Americans even knew that the Iroquois tradition was a source of the constitution. Pardon me if I'm somewhat underwhelmed by your notion of inclusivity — I imagine that white, left-handed, vegetarian, one-legged lesbians feel more included in your society than some Iroquois do.


----------



## djchak

If you have to include the "white man" in your tirade, you should make it a bit more specific. Perhaps "white people of european descent, who wanted to form a new non-european nation". Then we can compare them to the Spanish, French, And British at the time. Do you think they were any more accepting of the Iriquois traditions? Oh i'm sure they gave them lovely blankets (with an extra suprise)


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> If you have to include the "white man" in your tirade, you should make it a bit more specific. Perhaps "white people of european descent, who wanted to form a new non-european nation". Then we can compare them to the Spanish, French, And British at the time. Do you think they were any more accepting of the Iriquois traditions? Oh i'm sure they gave them lovely blankets (with an extra suprise)




My use of "the white man" was to contrast not the draughters of the constitution (how many of them weren't white, I wonder) with the Native American, but the totality of men since then who have been in a position to accept "Native American culture", or aspects of it, into "American culture" — and was that totality not almost exclusively white? 

I wasn't referring, in the least, to Colonial Powers (which all have dreadful records of dealing with native peoples in the lands they occupy - I am an Irishman and have familial reference points for that), but to those who, being on the American continent, decided to form a new nation, and deliverately excluded those who were there before them. When this Brave New World was being founded, do you think that these words …

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*,"

… referred to the Native American, who may have been created, but were never treated equal, and who certainly never gave any consent to be governed? When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation with these words in it…

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." 

… could he have been purposely overlooking the slavery involved in forcing the various nations to love on reservations? What Native American "freedom" did the military authority of the United States recognize or maintain? Did they never thence do any act to repress "such persons"?


----------



## emma42

Superbly put, Tony.


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:
			
		

> … could he have been purposely overlooking the slavery involved in forcing the various nations to l*i*ve on reservations? What Native American "freedom" did the military authority of the United States recognize or maintain? Did they never thence do any act to repress "such persons"?


Not to diminish your brilliant point, Tony, but just to clarify the history a bit: when Lincoln wrote the EP, the reservation system had not yet been established. However, _removal_ had been in practice since the first European colonist kicked the first American off his land, some 350 years before (and in the English colonies, this began as soon as the colonists were strong enough to do any kicking).


----------



## lizzeymac

Could we all agree that colonization by the British Empire - & the countries that were formed from these colonies - has caused the genocide & oppression of most aboriginal/original/native peoples?  
Not just in America, thank you, and not just the colonies of the British Empire.
Certainly other countries are more advanced in "accepting" multi-culturalism than America is but all of us are far from where we should be in this matter.

Is this on topic?
Is there more to the origin of US culture than cultural imperialism?
is there any other aspect of "the origins of US culture" that anyone cares to discuss?

 - And I am amazed at how many US forer@s say they live in culturally bland & homogenous areas.  
I know NYC is a cultural freak show (that is a _good_ thing) but most places I have visited in America have plenty of non-"WASP" cultural influences.
And maybe we ccould be more careful when choosing to use the word "WASP" when we mean white European, many Americans (and their ancestors) are not Anglo-Saxon or Protestant.


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Not to diminish your brilliant point, Tony, but just to clarify the history a bit: when Lincoln wrote the EP, the reservation system had not yet been established. However, _removal_ had been in practice since the first European colonist kicked the first American off his land, some 350 years before (and in the English colonies, this began as soon as the colonists were strong enough to do any kicking).



from The History Place
Also in 1758, the first Indian reservation in America is founded, in New Jersey, on 3000 acres.

also from Wikipedia
In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act, which authorized the creation of Indian reservations in modern day Oklahoma.

From Wikipedia
The [Emancipation] Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect January 3, 1863, during the second year of the American Civil War.

--edit--
*Due to my lack of knowledge of the subject, I am not in a position to claim that these reservations had actually been created, or whether any which may have been, had been populated by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. Whether they were or were not is not my point. My point all along has been that using somew tenets from Iroquois tradition in one significant United States of America document does not amount to 
"accepting certain aspects of cultures" 
from non-white cultures. To reiterate the "white" point - in the 230 years since America declared independence, and the almost 220 years since the Constitution was promulgated it would appear that very few non-white, non-male or non-"establishment" minds have been involved in legislation or statecraft.


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't know if I can generalize America as a whole.  I know of several parts of it where the heritage is indeed mailnly British.  However, I also know of just as many places where the heritage is prodominantly African.

*Please correct me if I am wrong, for I have not travel all of the U.S.A.


----------



## stephyjh

Also worthy of mention is the fact that the Continental Congress considered making German the official language of the newly formed nation, because the German population rivaled the British in the colonies at that point.


----------

