Understanding the U.S.

You and others are here skirting around the key issue, which is race. When Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights act Georgia's senator Richard Russell, previously a Johnson supporter, told him he would 'lose the South for two generations'.

Russell was right.

The white south overwhelmingly votes Republican and the black south votes Democrat. Except to some extent in a few major urban centres like Atlanta and Charlotte with a large number of immigrants from the North.

None of us can speak for 280,000,000 Americans, but it is probably fair to say that Americans feel they belong to "Western" civilization.  By that, I mean European backgrounds; Graeco-Roman foundations and Judeo-Christian religious and ethical beliefs.  Of course all these have been screwed with by human beings for the last 2,500 years or so, but that applies everywhere else too.

There are other influences.  There are small but widespread communities of peoples from the other major civilizations...Chinese and other East Asian; Muslim and Indian, etc. 

The character of many cities (and of older towns in the industrial north and east) has been changed by immigration from the Caribbean, Central America and of course Mexico, and that invigorates both the population as well as local cultural aspects, but this immigration is still part of the West, Latin America also being a strong part of that. 

I don't think one can speak of an "American" civilization.  It is part of Western civilization, and draws it's character from all that historical background.

In regard to Native American Indians, although there are aspects of numerous older cultures still maintained, I think they too are substantially acculturated into the West over the last century or so.

It might annoy some of our Canadian forumers, but I feel all the above applies to Canada as well.      

While Americans never take me for American, quite a lot of English people ask me if I'm American when they hear me talk. (That is of course foreigners from places in the far north like Oxford or the far east like London and Kent.)

[QUOTE]

Amazing I never knew carrot crunching could have such disasterous effects on the vocal chords.

No, democracy is far from perfect.  It does, however, tend to diffuse power away from authority (high office, the military and the super wealthy).  Do all these have influence?  Of course.  Are they able to destroy the liberties of others, no.  The free press, and now the electronic media have been able to focus attention on issues that force power elites to respond to grievances or modify behavior much more often and effectively than under authoritarian governance.

A free press sounds like it could be pretty fragile, but is has worked for a long time. 

Not to say I am a fan of the current media...24/7 competition among too many news outlets; no time to verify info, reliance on very questionable sources to meet editorial deadlines, etc. (see the Katrina thread about all the rumor and false news stories)  Still, as mismanaged and frustrating as it is, the media works and is valuable to our system.

And there has been sensationalist journalism for a long time.  Still better than government censorship.

Before the Civil War, 1861-1865, the major dilemma of democracy was reconciling free government with slavery.  However it was styled (economy; states' rights; representation in new western territories) that is what it was about...when politics failed, we shot it out for four years, wrecked the South, and over 600,000 soldiers were dead.  It was a high price, but it better defined what kind of a people we would be.

After the Civil War, the biggest democratic dilemma was a concentration of wealth as the country got rich.  Entrepreneurs, bankers, industrialists and the railroads tended to monopolize resources and access to politicians (which still happens) but one thing they could not control was the population.

There was such a labor shortage here 1870 to the 1910s, that they could never control wages.  Immigrants were needed and they came here in many millions.  Especially in big cities, political organizations that ran the city governments wanted the votes of new citizens, and helped them with jobs, access to loans and hospitals, etc.  Then they had to pay some attention to constituencies.

As industrialization developed, problems arose in working conditions.  Wages were not bad, but conditions were unhealthy and dangerous.  Profit did not encourage change there, but by about 1905 when the big industrial "trusts" were broken up, politicians were taking note of the voting power of the work force.  Industrialists and Capital still had their ear, but so did the voters.

Labor unions and the movement of population south and west in the twentieth century pretty much defined American democracy from the 1930s to the current era of "neo-conservatives" (1980s neo-classical economics/dismantling government [yeah, right]).

With the labor movement, the working class became a middle class with good incomes, better education and clout at the ballot box.  The political center of gravity moved away from the Northeast to the South and West...most of the presidents in the last 40 years were from the South and California.  Now, democracy here is faced with new challenges.

Globalization is altering employment, entitlements and personal security.  Technology being more equal, jobs flow to where the labor is cheaper.  How this will resolve itself is not clear, but remember that the last two national elections were VERY close, and the incumbent majority party tends to lose ground in interim elections.  Both parties must nominate candidates for president, and much leadership and initiative must come from the office.  There seem to be no clear contenders yet.  It will be interesting.  (And yes we can call the president any names we want if we choose)

The biggest issue for me now is the role of media in elections and how expensive it is.  Politicians are full time fund raisers now, and have less time for issues and public policy.  A dilemma in a more complicated world.

We argue with each other, news people yell at each other on TV, special prosecutors always find some dirt behind the 'veil of power,' but we still vote on something twice a year...there is always an election...and we have not had a war between the states for 140 years.

Hope this helps, and sorry it is so long.

US has invaded our neighbour claiming that they have illegal WMDs. Which never materialised. My question is perfectly valid, if a tad rhetorical. I am not interested in a flame war, if you don't want one, don't flame anyone. 'If you can't take the heat, leave the kitchen'  

More questions,

- What percentage of Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs at the beginning of the war, but hid them or gave them to someone?

- Why does the US spend more than the rest of the world put together on weapons?

- Why does the US does not allow poor African countries to produce cheap AIDS drugs?

- Nuclear non-proliferation treaty says 'non-nuclear states should not develop nukes, and nuclear states should not develop new nukes, and the latter should work towards nuclear disarmament'. Why does the US accuse states such as Iran and N Korea whereas it does not comply with the agreement itself? Can this be called hypocracy?

- Why is the US, other than Israel (a.k.a. his master's voice), only state in the world which wants to overturn the current international agreement which bans militarisation of space?

- Before past elections in Lebanon (just after elections in Iraq), Dubya said 'Syria should end occupation of Lebanon, because it is impossible to have fair elections when a country is under foreign occupation'. Do you agree?

I'm sure thegeneral will have a answer for this.

It's also research on protection. I also believe we are one of the few countries trying to produce less-lethal weapons for wide military use. The objective in some of the research is to one day just incapacitate the enemy instead of killing him.

But we spend so much to keep us on top. We continuely update our equipment and come up with new developments, like recently we changed the training alittle to fit in with the kind of warfare we are facing in Iraq.

Lobbist, I can't stand the idea of them. The governor in my state wants to get rid of them in my state so no politician can be influenced by them.

You honestly have to ask, the answer is simple, because we can. But I'll agree with you, it's wrong.

You really hate us Americans don't you, I don't believe we put down your country. Anyways we give money to Israel and many of us Americans don't like it, but they have no control over us. They do have influence from lobbist, if you don't like it come over here with money and lobby yourself. It's alittle expensive and if you don't have enough money they will basicly brush you off.

You'll have to ask someone else about it, I followed the story alittle but not enough to give you a answer on how I feel about it. But the people of Lebanon were happy, and they don't seem like the radical type of people, so that's good right? Then again I don't know much about the situation.