Have you ever asked yourself that question? What is the most important thing in your life aside from your family: your country, your religion or your race?
One way to figure that out is who do you feel more comfortable with? Do you prefer the company of your race regardless of the nation they come from or what they believe; do you feel more comfortable in the company of co-religionists rather than those of your race or nation; or, would you prefer to socialize with people of your nation regardless of their race or religion.
f you are a white American Catholic given the opportunity would you prefer to hang around with other white people even if some were Jewish from Russia; or with Catholics even if some were darker skinned from Mexico; or with Americans even if some were black Muslims.
Whatever you are write it down. Then write down whose company you would prefer to be in. Then explain why others sharing one of the items by which you identify yourself is less acceptable than others. Try to be truthful to yourself about it.
Now after doing that look at who you have for friends. I assume what you have decided you prefer will make up the major number of your friends. Then ask yourself whether you have this limitation on yourself because you have little knowledge about the other people outside your group.
One of the great things about the military draft was that it forced us into meeting those others who we would normally not encounter. Those who have stayed at home and spent most of their lives in the comfortable surroundings of where they were brought up will not have had this experience. I suspect they will have friends that most closely resemble themselves and be fearful of others outside their narrow circle.
It seems what you don’t know you tend to fear even if they have a similar identity with you. As a white Catholic American would you feel closer to a black Cathoic American or a white Jewish American or a white Catholic Irishman. As a white Jewish American would you feel closer to a black Jewish American or a white Muslim American or a white Jewish Israeli. As a black Muslim American would you feel closer to a white Muslim American or a black Protestant American or a black Muslim from Senegal.
What does it tell you after you make that choice. Does that choice mean that if you prefer one over the other that you are prejudiced against the others? If you are more comfortable with one over the others do you think you would give preference to that person when it came to giving out a benefit?
You note I have not even tossed in other factors like sexual preference or stands on hot button issues like abortion or the president. Throw those into the equation. If as a straight white Catholic American you would feel closer to a white Catholic Irishman would you feel the same way if he was gay? Or, being the same thing what about if that Irishman was a pro-choice advocate.
It is good to bring things down to the individual level. From there you can go on and wonder at the ability of the United States to take all these preferences of one over the other and mix them up in a melting pot and end up with as close as possible to everyone having a chance at the gold ring. How did it come about that it happened that way. Why did the initial founders of our country — white Anglo Saxon Protestants — create our nation so that up until now we were able to take in the stranger, somewhat welcome him even though he appeared quite alien, give him the opportunity to do something for himself and his family, and reap the benefits of what each succeeding wave of people brought to our land.
There is an old saying about their being no atheists in a foxhole. That may or may not be true. But what is true is that when you are in a foxhole in combat you have no regard for your fellow soldiers race, creed, birthplace, sexual orientation or beliefs. It seems one does not get to understand that until you are put into conditions where you have to rely on your fellow-man who many not meet the test that you prefer he meet. As I said, that is what we lost when we did away with the draft.
The Belfast, and, Dublin parades, have gay contingents marching in them, Chicago, too. What’s wrong with Boston? Has Trump green-lighted public expressions of prejudice and general spitefulness? What if the guy/gal in your fox-hole is/was gay? How about your brother, sister, son, daughter, favorite priest, or, nun, were gay? Would you still go with the hate? Down with Glorious Leader, and, all the mean-spirited nitwits he’s encouraged.
I was never in a foxhole but I was in a lot of chow lines. The Scotch Irish were definitely the worst guys to be in a chow line with, but they’d probably be my first pick to be in a fox hole with, if I was hoping to ever get out of it alive. Whatever it was I was selling, those Scotch Irish guys weren’t buying it. And yet “their” music, bluegrass. makes me feel more American than just about anything. Being American is complicated, but also a wonderful privilege, so let’s cut each other some slack, and enjoy it. Most of us, including the newcomers, do a pretty good job of it most of the time.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Note that this document compels government, not the people. Nowhere does this document compel anyone either to agree with the speech content of anyone else or to assemble peaceably with them. We are free to do so, or not.
Matt: The draft did help to introduce Americans to each other. College today serves that purpose. Plus today we are a far more diverse society than when the draft ended in 1973.
During Vietnam 25% of the 9 million in uniform were draftees; and since only men were drafted, so they represented about 12% of population and since only (1/2 to 1/3 eligible for service actually served) we’ll say they represented 5% of total population .
The draft enhanced the Melting Pot thesis, but affected a small percentage.
College affects a greater percentage. During Vietnam about 50% (or less) attended college. Today @68% attend college.
2. I’ve dated girls of every religion (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish), married a Methodist (who was part Cherokee), have a brother whose wife is also part Cherokee, have a godson whose nephews are African-American and a first cousin with African American children.
My closest friends include those who are (in whole or in part): Irish, English, Italian, German, Lithuanian, Polish, Armenian, Jewish, etc.. Friends at school and work and at the gym have included those of every race and religion. One of my nephews is married to a girl whose dad came from Lebanon and his dad was Muslim.
So, we live in a Melting Pot; let’s not stew about it!
There was mention of Dishonorable or negative conduct. What are they talking about?
Bill:
A few points on this post.
1.Colleges do not perform the same function. Most are local. Those that have the diverse population are exclusive. Plus, many do not go to college.
2. You use draft figures but forget that most of the people went in as volunteers because they were subject to the draft. If you wanted to join the Air Force, Navy, or Marines, or even the Army in a preferred military occupation specialty you did that rather than being dragged in at the lowest level.
Shall we ban the expression Founding Fathers? Most of the people I hear using that phrase haven’t a clue.
And you do, Mr. Webster?
I don’t use that phrase. Its a ploy and it doesn’t work on me.
And because you don’t get it, it should be banned. Most people do get it. It is oft effective. Are you fearful of the concept? Why do you feel the need to censor the free speech of others? Why should you be invested with this authority? Or anyone?
What are you talking about? I GET it. And I didn’t say it should be banned. I asked a question. And I am not fearful of the concept. And I don’t feel the need to censor free speech. You really put a lot of carts before the horses, don’t you? And most people DON’T get it.
The people down here in Washington use that expression to proclaim what this country is all about. “The Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns! The Founding Fathers this. The Founding Fathers that!”
People say they should be abler to carry a gun because “The Founding Fathers say I can!” Its an abused phrase. A catch all that people throw around a lot without even understanding what it means or more importantly, what they wanted for this country. I carry every time I step out of this house and believe me, the Founding Fathers have nothing to do with it.
When I moved down here to the New South 23 years ago people would hear my Boston accent and say, “Ah ha! A Kennedy Boy!” That settles that! I have a Boston accent so I’m an elitist Yankee bastid. “Has your boy Teddy drove off any bridges lately?” “Has he drowned any young girls lately?”
That is the same kind of convenience that people use the phrase Founding Fathers with. You want to justify carrying a gun? The Founding Fathers said I can. You want to keep the WOG’s out of our country? The Founding Fathers say we should. Lets not solve anything. Lets not go forward. We’ll just drop back and punt when it concerns solving a problem. We have a past and that will determine our future. Why learn from your mistakes and change something when you can stay put and let it happen again and again and again? That’s why we elected DJT. To change. To clean up the mess. To drain the swamp.
Most people I hear using that phrase do not have a clue. I know because I interview many of them about the Founding Fathers and they don’t know a thing about them. I would like to educate people about our Constitution. That way when they use the Founding Fathers as an example for something they will really know the reason they are.
This exercise leads up to an historical narrative for the promotion of open borders and amnesty for lawbreakers. That is the goal. The trick pops into the open here, ” How did it come about that it happened that way. Why did the initial founders of our country — white Anglo Saxon Protestants — create our nation so that up until now we were able to take in the stranger, somewhat welcome him even though he appeared quite alien,…” This is a rhetorical sleight of hand.
This history is a falsehood. One of the first laws enacted limited migrants to White persons of good character. Later laws specifically barred other groups. In the 1920s a quota system was established to avoid migration that would upset the ethnic balance of America.
No. America’s history is not that of a land that always took in the stranger. An open border policy is not an American tradition. Any government that does not have laws that bar entry or fails to enforce such laws is not a nation. It is an undefined land mass with an unstable kaleidoscopic people.
Step One of making America Great Again is making sure America is. That means controlling the borders and enforcing the law.
Prior to the past generation of criminal chief executives who have violated their oath of office by neglecting to enforce the law on immigration America’s history was one of limiting migration to peoples reasonably compatible with the founders of the nation. That excluded most of mankind. That was a sound policy because diversity is a weakness that leads to discord and has ever proven to destroy the societies that adopt it.
The present population of the United States, including the White Christian working class, has a right and a duty to protect its interests and its position in this nation. It is moral. Its enemies virtue signal universal value platitudes , falsify history and and call names like racist. When they do point out that anti-racism is a code word for anti-White.
Is this your work, Bill?
Some of Massachusetts’s top politicians said on Wednesday that they would not attend the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in South Boston after organizers told a group of gay and transgender military veterans that they would not be allowed to march on March 17 after two years of L.G.B.T. inclusion in the event.
The governor, Charlie Baker, and the mayor of Boston, Martin J. Walsh, both announced their decision to skip the parade over its decision to bar the group, OutVets. In a statement, the mayor encouraged the public to do the same.
Khalid:
The issue, as I understand it, is simple. The Veterans who run the parade don’t want to celebrate homosexuality, so they don’t want “gay pride” messages, so they welcome the Outvets group but asked them to remove the “rainbow-symbol” a “gay-pride” symbol from their banner.
Can’t we celebrate Veterans and the Irish (St. Patrick) without celebrating gay pride?
This issue was decided unanimously by the Supreme Court (9-0) in 1995. Parade organizers decide what’s included in their parade, not the government; parade organizers decide what messages, what banners, what symbols, what signs, what contingents,no one else. It’s all part of free speech. The parade itself and every element (every sign, symbol) of it is the parade organizers’ speech.
Of course, the Leftist Media blow a simple issue to smithereens!