Why does the US suck so much?

[Dopes]

Not going to read 9 pages of this but as for why we suck so hard? Well that's easy. Ever since T.V. was invented we voted for the most entertaining candidate not the best one. We're kinda retarded like that. I know this is true yet I hope for a trump/hilary campaign because the debates would be hilarious even though both of them are terrible options.

 

Also half of us are backwoods retards that think this is a theocracy. We're pretty screwed. Just enjoy the show as we implode. I know I am.

[WISD0MTREE]

-snip-

Where did I say/imply that I disliked the South? 

 

That being said, I live in North Carolina. 

[Crust]

You're right that the music was pre-dominated by Blacks in various genres ( Blues, Jazz, etc ) and they did bring the birth of them, in the South ( You're also forgetting other areas such as Rock and Roll and several artist styles that came from the south ).  Can the South take credit for it?  Sure.  Back then it was a norm, today it is shunned.  Life's cultures changes and continues to evolve as it goes on.  During the slavery era, they were put into a direction with which was needed for the businesses of the nation.  A lot of people don't understand that the North benefited A LOT from the Southern slavery ( Or rather, just slavery in general considering they had slaves up there too ).

 

We're changing topic here though, so to end this current reply - I feel you're trying to bring sensationalism into this topic with the mentioning of Blue/Black lives into the topic.  That's for something entirely different.  It's a shame that is happening, but both sides are making their mistakes and the media certainly isn't helping the situation.

 

As for the racism tidbit, there's racism everywhere.  The South isn't any more racist than the North.  Don't kid yourself thinking that.  The racism shows itself in different ways, but it's there.

 

Rock and roll had it's roots in black music, so no I didn't forget that genre. I don't know about the history of country tho so that might be 100% part of the white south. And why I'm asking this question isn't to say "oh, the south is exceptionally racist" or divert attention from the topic. The question is rather, how can a state take credit for something that belongs to a group of people that it often shuns. That's cherry picking. If this was a thread about Bulgaria and someone tried to claim that things directly connected and originating from romani culture is a part of Bulgaria's superiority while not mentioning the horrible way in which Bulgaria treats its romani citizens I'd be inclined to ask the same questions. 

 

If black people are one of the reasons why the US prospered then why is America not doing more to treat afro-americans as full class citizens? And yes, the north shouldn't be counted off as well. I mean the riots in Balitmore, the stop and frisk policy in New York etc are all proof of discrimination and racial tensions in America as a whole.

 

I just think it was an important question to raise since you're arguing for the south not being as bad as some think, while picking a lot of things that are directly related to afro americans.

[Buorhann]

Where did I say/imply that I disliked the South? 

 

That being said, I live in North Carolina. 

 

I have no idea which reply you're replying to as I don't think I said you (specifically) disliked the South?

 

 

Rock and roll had it's roots in black music, so no I didn't forget that genre. I don't know about the history of country tho so that might be 100% part of the white south. And why I'm asking this question isn't to say "oh, the south is exceptionally racist" or divert attention from the topic. The question is rather, how can a state take credit for something that belongs to a group of people that it often shuns. That's cherry picking. If this was a thread about Bulgaria and someone tried to claim that things directly connected and originating from romani culture is a part of Bulgaria's superiority while not mentioning the horrible way in which Bulgaria treats its romani citizens I'd be inclined to ask the same questions. 

 

If black people are one of the reasons why the US prospered then why is America not doing more to treat afro-americans as full class citizens? And yes, the north shouldn't be counted off as well. I mean the riots in Balitmore, the stop and frisk policy in New York etc are all proof of discrimination and racial tensions in America as a whole.

 

I just think it was an important question to raise since you're arguing for the south not being as bad as some think, while picking a lot of things that are directly related to afro americans.

 

 

How can a state take credit?  Easy, they are a large part of the South and the nation's history.  They lived in the state.  They're Americans.  By constantly referring to them as a group of people and separating them as such, you're only furthering the cause of racism.  Does that happen?  Well, yes, and it's one the reasons why we'll continue to have a division.  That and different subcultures kind of force it.

 

I'd like to try and avoid 'what if' scenarios, but let's say there was a lot more of a opportunity for people to learn here early on than there was in... well, Africa, or rather the majority of countries that minorities immigrated from ( This includes Europeans to some extent ).  Despite the hardships that the minorities faced in America, a lot of them did prevail in achieving some wonderful discoveries and contributed greatly to America's success.  Unfortunately people don't see that overall and only look at the bad side of things when it comes to another person's culture ( Islamophobia and the continued racial tension with black Americans ).  It's real easy to look at the negative side of things instead of focusing on the positive.  It's also really easy for people to criticize an area of the world where they do not live and rely on the media to tell them what's going on there ( Which we all know the media loves to stir up drama to get those ratings/hits ).

[Crust]

How can a state take credit?  Easy, they are a large part of the South and the nation's history.  They lived in the state.  They're Americans.  By constantly referring to them as a group of people and separating them as such, you're only furthering the cause of racism.  Does that happen?  Well, yes, and it's one the reasons why we'll continue to have a division.  That and different subcultures kind of force it.

 

I'd like to try and avoid 'what if' scenarios, but let's say there was a lot more of a opportunity for people to learn here early on than there was in... well, Africa, or rather the majority of countries that minorities immigrated from ( This includes Europeans to some extent ).  Despite the hardships that the minorities faced in America, a lot of them did prevail in achieving some wonderful discoveries and contributed greatly to America's success.  Unfortunately people don't see that overall and only look at the bad side of things when it comes to another person's culture ( Islamophobia and the continued racial tension with black Americans ).  It's real easy to look at the negative side of things instead of focusing on the positive.  It's also really easy for people to criticize an area of the world where they do not live and rely on the media to tell them what's going on there ( Which we all know the media loves to stir up drama to get those ratings/hits ).

Would the strong and beautiful cultural expressions in America have been able to grow if it wasn't for the thorny racial history? I don't think anyone can say anything but no. The thing I have an issue with is that a nation that doesn't try to actively embrace and foster a growing subculture comes in later on and claims it as a mark of said nations superiority, for its own gain. That's hypocrisy to me.

 

Let me give you an example. Sweden has a strong growing video and computer game culture, in some way thanks to the government's involvements with fostering said culture for the past decades. In comparisons graffiti is pretty shunned here. If we as a nation were to claim that as our own if it suddenly became globally popular and influential that would be a shitty thing to do. Get my gist?

 

A lot of the time subcultures are made despite the state it's born in, not thanks to it. Sure, the wounds of that struggle might give it it's distinctness but it's in my view kinda hypocritical of the US to claim jazz, blues, rock and hiphop as American conceptions when it was seen as barbaric, thuggish, animal music at the time.

 

I'm not bringing this up to show America's everlasting shame or anything. What I think is important is to acknowledge it so as to learn from it. There's a lot of different groups of people in your country, which can sometimes be a great thing and at times cause fractions. But ignoring the differences between groups does not help, it only makes it so the ways in which those groups are being treated goes unnoticed.

 

I'm kinda ranting rn. What I mean as a whole is that maybe it's best to think about the dynamics of claiming certain parts of a culture while still shunning other parts of that culture. AAVE is still shunned or not seen as proper English by a lot of people just as an example.

 

And I'm mostly talking about the US because that's what the thread is about. If this was a thread about Sweden I'd be way harsher.

[Buorhann]

 

Would the strong and beautiful cultural expressions in America have been able to grow if it wasn't for the thorny racial history? I don't think anyone can say anything but no. The thing I have an issue with is that a nation that doesn't try to actively embrace and foster a growing subculture comes in later on and claims it as a mark of said nations superiority, for its own gain. That's hypocrisy to me.

 

Let me give you an example. Sweden has a strong growing video and computer game culture, in some way thanks to the government's involvements with fostering said culture for the past decades. In comparisons graffiti is pretty shunned here. If we as a nation were to claim that as our own if it suddenly became globally popular and influential that would be a shitty thing to do. Get my gist?

 

A lot of the time subcultures are made despite the state it's born in, not thanks to it. Sure, the wounds of that struggle might give it it's distinctness but it's in my view kinda hypocritical of the US to claim jazz, blues, rock and hiphop as American conceptions when it was seen as barbaric, thuggish, animal music at the time.

 

I'm not bringing this up to show America's everlasting shame or anything. What I think is important is to acknowledge it so as to learn from it. There's a lot of different groups of people in your country, which can sometimes be a great thing and at times cause fractions. But ignoring the differences between groups does not help, it only makes it so the ways in which those groups are being treated goes unnoticed.

 

I'm kinda ranting rn. What I mean as a whole is that maybe it's best to think about the dynamics of claiming certain parts of a culture while still shunning other parts of that culture. AAVE is still shunned or not seen as proper English by a lot of people just as an example.

 

And I'm mostly talking about the US because that's what the thread is about. If this was a thread about Sweden I'd be way harsher.

 

 

 

You're stuck thinking that America doesn't want to foster our minorities, or that we literally hate them.  We don't.  Everybody in America has been fostered to various degrees.  To say we don't actively embrace and foster growing subcultures shows that you're not really looking at our nation.  In fact, I can point out arguably the most important person on the planet and prove you wrong with that perspective - our President.  He's a black American.

 

And wait, when was our artistic/musical contributions seen as barbaric again? They stuck around and became popular for a reason. Pretty sure if the perspective was that those creations were barbaric and thuggish, they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have - and continue to do so.

 

In my business culture class, we got on the topic of diverse groups compared to focus groups. There is no black/white answer to which one is better, it's all how you use them. Such as America being more of a very diverse nation, whereas some nations out there are very culturally focused ( Japan, Scandinavia nations, etc ). It's easy to attribute that America became arguably the most powerful nation in the world due to it's very diverse nature. I mean there's other various factors involved with that, such as being a brain drain early on around the World Wars for example.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Buorhann

[Darkusius]

I have to ask as I am an inquisitive !@#$:

 

Where do you get the idea we are not functioning politically or culturally at this moment in time?

People disagree- whether politically, economically, culturally, socially, religiously, ethically, etc. but the one factor that has separated us from the rest of the World and in time is the fact that we can disagree without having the State persecute and punish us. We have struggled to maintain this at times, even from our onset with Slavery, but as time has progressed we have developed into a nation of personal freedom. Sadly, many who claim to represent freedom are actually limiting others of their freedoms, via politics.

 

Maybe you didn't understand me. We've had cultural and social divides since the writing of the Constitution, hence why (in my opinion) should have divided so this wasn't the case.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Maybe you didn't understand me. We've had cultural and social divides since the writing of the Constitution, hence why (in my opinion) should have divided so this wasn't the case.

Then, as my question asked, could you expand on these "cultural and social divides" you speak of?

[Darkusius]

Then, as my question asked, could you expand on these "cultural and social divides" you speak of?

 

This can be expressed in the "Conservative v. Liberal" where most Southern States have leaned Conservative and the North States have leaned Liberal. That generalises my answer to your question.

 

If you need more clarification, I'd be glad to go in depth.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Darkusius

[Doktor Avalanche]

This can be expressed in the "Conservative v. Liberal" where most Southern States have leaned Conservative and the North States have leaned Liberal. That generalises my answer to your question.

 

If you need more clarification, I'd be glad to go in depth.

Reality is, the entire country is cyclic and sways with each generation. Even from the time of the Forefathers we have had a mish-mash of ideologies come from every region in this country. The South has never been fully Conservative nor the North been fully Liberal. it was less than 32 years ago that a Republican President won every single State vote except one in the Elections. And now, like the cycle I speak of the cycle is heading in the opposite directions more than before. The only difference today is we have multimedia which is probably going to be the largest game-changer in history. We are breaking new ground.

 

As has been said before about the United States- we are the "Great Experiment"

Nothing like us has been here before and the experiences are new every generation.

[kalev60]

The main reason why I think most of developed world "sucks" is look at their avg. number of children per woman rates, anything under 2 children per couple is a culture in decline, no culture ever has recovered from birthrate under 1.3 and there is no economic model a culture could adopt at that point to recover.   Some "first world" countries come close to it already. Mass immigration while boosting the population will only serve to fasten the decline of "native" culture. 

So in a hundred years a nationalist Christian  state as US will not exist anymore, if that ain't sucking I don't know what is?

[Solomon]

... Mass immigration while boosting the population will only serve to fasten the decline of "native" culture. 

"Native culture" diminishes in importance when the social and cultural barriers separating the nation from others come down. Changes in communication (especially from the internet) and attitudes (it's not easy to resist multiculturalism once you've experienced it) lessen the importance and the appeal of an insular cultural view. The developed countries that have adapted to this will be the ones that are most successful in the future.

[WISD0MTREE]

I have no idea which reply you're replying to as I don't think I said you (specifically) disliked the South?

You ranted about how I should visit the South. 

 

 

I live in the South.

 

[Crust]

 

 

You're stuck thinking that America doesn't want to foster our minorities, or that we literally hate them.  We don't.  Everybody in America has been fostered to various degrees.  To say we don't actively embrace and foster growing subcultures shows that you're not really looking at our nation.  In fact, I can point out arguably the most important person on the planet and prove you wrong with that perspective - our President.  He's a black American.

 

And wait, when was our artistic/musical contributions seen as barbaric again? They stuck around and became popular for a reason. Pretty sure if the perspective was that those creations were barbaric and thuggish, they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have - and continue to do so.

 

In my business culture class, we got on the topic of diverse groups compared to focus groups. There is no black/white answer to which one is better, it's all how you use them. Such as America being more of a very diverse nation, whereas some nations out there are very culturally focused ( Japan, Scandinavia nations, etc ). It's easy to attribute that America became arguably the most powerful nation in the world due to it's very diverse nature. I mean there's other various factors involved with that, such as being a brain drain early on around the World Wars for example.

 

I think you're missing the point of my posts. I guess it's partly my fault for wording myself weirdly, but maybe also because you've talked to a lot of people who have the opinions you presume I have.

 

The US appointing a black president is definitely a historically important thing to have in mind. It's proof that America has come a long way, given its past. And I mean, it's not like Sweden has ever elected a black prime minister.

 

But I do object to your claim that afro american music wasn't seen as barbaric. Jazz was nationwide and internationally seen as black and therefore "animal music" that no upstanding white person should ever be seen listening to. Same thing with rock and roll when it was first birthed. Same with rap and hiphop. It's just in these past decades that hiphop has been embraced as anything but "thug music" and most studies made on the issue links it directly to the fact that it was/is made by black people and therefore looked down upon.

 

The fact that hiphop is seen as a true artform these days is great. But what happens when afro-americans come up with a new music style? What will america and the world do to stop the racial prejudice from labelling that music as "thug music" as well?

 

I could also talk about how black vs. white riots are talked about, how american police officers treat people of color (native americans, black, asian, latino, arabic etc) and so forth to prove that it's not as if America is this great place where everyone, no matter their skin color, are holding hands and singing kumbaya. Because no nation in the world lives in a post-racism state of being.

[kalev60]

"Native culture" diminishes in importance when the social and cultural barriers separating the nation from others come down. Changes in communication (especially from the internet) and attitudes (it's not easy to resist multiculturalism once you've experienced it) lessen the importance and the appeal of an insular cultural view. The developed countries that have adapted to this will be the ones that are most successful in the future.

 

Sure, sure,  "Native culture" diminishes in importance when the social and cultural barriers separating the nation from others come down- we all know what happened to the original culture of America in last millennium, my point was that it is happening again because the ultra-liberal terrorists in the Gov are blindly letting it happen again and i'm not even talking about only US here. 

You talk about multiculturalism as it is a good thing as it will actually stay multi cultural, it would be naive to think it will though, through out history examples of many cultures living in harmony and equality  without assimilating or destroying one another are far apart and few in number. Dominant culture with a higher birthrate will eventually win and completely destroy or covert the "native" one.

How is losing touch with your roots hard to resist, how is it so easy to discard centuries of your people history and ancestral legacy in your opinion?

I'd go as far as to say that developed countries that have adapted to this will not be the ones that are most successful in the future just because as we know them today they will not exist anymore and i surely doubt they will stay developed and well-fare states for long either if they let everybody in and pay their way for doing next to nothing.

[Buck Turgidson]

Well, Cuba just came out of embargo which means it might stumble for a few years, but has a huge potential of growth. America has a 7.4 unemployment rate and Cuba has a 3.2 percentage. Cuba also isn't in as much debt as America. And based in my knowledge of American children, (Dimitri and I are American children) most are extremely stupid and have almost no common sense.

Cuba has 3.2% unemployment because they are Communist. Read Marx to understand why this explains the difference.

[Solomon]

... Dominant culture with a higher birthrate will eventually win and completely destroy or covert the "native" one.

You have it the wrong way round. Birthrate doesn't alter the environment; it responds to it.

 

Creating offspring involves the use of resources (proteins, minerals, etc.) so there has to be a reason for it to be worth producing multiple offspring. In the case of creatures whose offspring have a low risk of dying before they reproduce (e.g. elephants), only one or occasionally two offspring are produced, whereas frogs lay thousands of eggs because there is a high probability of the eggs and tadpoles being eaten before the offspring reach sexual maturity.

 

Humans are no different in that respect. Compare Italy - a predominantly Catholic country with one of the lowest birthrates - against Bolivia - a predominantly Catholic country with a high birthrate. What differs between them is the sense of security - the perceived risk of infant death from disease, starvation, or violence. Create a safer environment and the birthrate will come down.

[Crust]

Humans are no different in that respect. Compare Italy - a predominantly Catholic country with one of the lowest birthrates - against Bolivia - a predominantly Catholic country with a high birthrate. What differs between them is the sense of security - the perceived risk of infant death from disease, starvation, or violence. Create a safer environment and the birthrate will come down.

 

Not only that, but the social safety net in said environment. In countries with a weak safety net provided by the state people create their own safety nets by producing children. The children then grow up to take care of their parents, the more children you got, the stronger net get. Where as a country with a strong safety net means you don't need children to provide for you. That's why the rate of childbirth goes down when a country becomes richer and have social security resources for its citizens.

[Xenodolf]

Not only that, but the social safety net in said environment. In countries with a weak safety net provided by the state people create their own safety nets by producing children. The children then grow up to take care of their parents, the more children you got, the stronger net get. Where as a country with a strong safety net means you don't need children to provide for you. That's why the rate of childbirth goes down when a country becomes richer and have social security resources for its citizens.

I dunno, in the us there are pretty decent social security resources for the people, but in still parents are having more children

[Big Brother]

If I told you I am from and live in the South ( Mississippi to be exact ), would you still agree with them?  

 

Well, I don't believe that the people of any place are all bad or all good. It's probably for the best if you stick together as a nation, although I wish the South would progress on certain social issues.

[WISD0MTREE]

although I wish the South would progress on certain social issues.

Care to elaborate? 

[Darkusius]

Care to elaborate? 

 

Marijuana legalization. Stop trying to go against the Supreme Court case on homosexual marriage. Those are the main ones.

[WISD0MTREE]

Marijuana legalization. Stop trying to go against the Supreme Court case on homosexual marriage. Those are the main ones.

There is actually a pretty fair amount of Libertarians here. 

[Geronimo]

More than two hundred years after George Washington warned of America’s involvement in foreign entanglements, the U.S. finds itself all over the world in a myriad of military commitments with various countries. America’s global military presence is justified on the grounds that the U.S. is “exceptional,†a steward of world peace. In reality, it is behaving much like every other world power in history, attempting to maximize its power and influence around the world, while its domestic situation deteriorates.

[Darkusius]

There is actually a pretty fair amount of Libertarians here. 

 

They don't outweigh the people who don't want the aforementioned things.