Jump to content
TroyinEwa/Perv

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the Republican president who appoints the FBI director, also a Republican, names the Proud Boys, a domestic terrorist group based on actions, words, etc. They have a Cuban American leader, who in a prior arrest lists his race as white. Because as we should know 'hispanic' is not a race. Just like 'American' is not a race, Hispanics come in all shades from blonde blue eyes, to jet black. But because he is latino/hispanic, they can't be a white supremacist group. His leadership nullifies the fact I guess that the original founder, a cofounder of the media company VIce, specifically started the group for white men. I guess it also nullifies that the FBI has infiltrated the group and because of what they hear, seen, etc, labels the group as such. Even though the group are zealous Republican supporters, the Republican led FBI still names them a white supremacist group. 

Using that line of reasoning the NAACP, the nations oldest black civil rights group, shouldn't be named as such since its founding member was a white Jew who is also who they named their highest honor, Spingarn medal. 

One has to also find it curious why anyone would want to remove that label from the Proud Boys? Why would they care to? I'd love to know the personal reasons. The FBI has named ISIS a terrorist group. If someone argues that 'well, one of their leaders is a non moslem european' (for argument's sake), one would want to know why? 

One a side note, Cuban Americans are largely Republican and have been involved in nationalist groups for a few years now. Cubans of various hues, identify themselves as 'caucasian' on various official documents like driver's licences, etc, I personally don't care. Just that its not uncommon. SInce latino is not a race, the government allows them to state a race on documents. Even the darker ones rarely put 'black' as their race. It's a cultural thing with them. Cuba had long standing colorism / caste system going back centuries. Castro's biggest support came from the black and dark brown Cubans who saw him as fighting for their social inclusion. 

Anyway, just interesting. Traveling overseas, I've met a number of non Americans who say that Americans seem to find it important to place people in an ethnic/racial category. Some believe its a form of applying how much worth to apply to them. The common refrain is "What are you?". I dated a British Persian woman about 5 years ago for several months. She spent a year abroad at UC Santa Barbara. She is one of those 'ethnically ambiguous' types. Fair skinned, but curly black hair and black eyes. She was confused for Armenian, Turkish, Greek, Israeli, basically any peoples that are on or near the Mediterranean. She said in America she was constantly asked 'So, what are you?" as a way she felt to place her in a social class of acceptance. She liked me because when we met among friends, I never asked. I was the first American she met not to. She asked why and I said "You're  cute, cuteness doesn't need to be classified"  (Yes, CS still has the smooth lines).

Inclusion into an ethnic/racial group in American history has always been fluid. 150 years ago, Irish Catholics, Slavs, Sicilians, Turks, stereotypical Jewish features, , , Serb, Hungarians, Lebanese, Portuguese , were not regarded as 'fully' white. They were heavily discriminated against.  These days, for the most part with some exceptions in certain regions, they are regarded no different than German Americans, Scots Irish, etc. 

It's in our DNA. It will never go away I think (and fear). We have that history and its legacy is passed down. On an individual level it can. I've experienced it. I grew up at an area of town that was a crossroads of 3 different ethnic neighborhoods and we all played on the same little league, pop warner football teams, etc, since we were 7 years old. All 3 poor or working poor areas. The series The Little Rascals comes closest to it. To this day we see each other as family. I can go to any of those guys home and be welcomed with hugs and insistence on staying their the night. The same for me. We know each other's parents, kids, etc, and genuinely ask how they are doing and their kids hear our stories of our childhood. In some ways we grew up in the America that we claim we are, we want to be but never quite achieved universally. I know Sicilian curse words, rudimentary yiddish/hebrew, Jamaican patois and spanglish *Spanish / English hybrid)from those days. Those days are possibly the only thing that helps retain any hope for America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wot you said...

and

if the story is just peeking out from under the blanket, here in NZ, it'll be news soon.

It's covered in a Docco, that it seems, has yet to be widely released but:

If you were to take the following names and, put them in a sack and shake them all about, then empty the sack on a kitchen table, you'll see that the term "big brother" does not come close, to what could be better termed "evil step siblings".

The names - (Cambridge Analytica)(handfuls of organisations whose names are not Cambridge Analytica but are in their bed)(NRA)(Big Oil USA)(Most Evangelical Organisations USA)(Koch Brothers)(Pence)(and so on)

Curiously not Trump, he really is turning out to be the 'useful idiot'.

One, but by no means the only, message in the Docco is that, if the GOP were to get enough local support, over the last decade and the coming decades, that their aim, would be to move to a rewriting of the Constitution. Which makes Trump's performance, whilst ineffective, useful in this regard.

See it's so terrible, we can do better...

I'm looking forward to finding this Docco and viewing.

 

all I can find so far - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12606876/

and https://thesavvyscreener.com/2020/09/28/watch-people-you-may-know/

 

And the reason I give the above credence?  let's just say there are journos in my family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will touch on the race thing with 2 things that America and certain European countries seem completely divergent on. As complicated and conflicted America's history with race and ethnicity is, we did elect a Black president and have had Blacks (also Latinos, Jews) in the highest levels of government. Supreme Court, Senators, Joint Chiefs of Staff, heads of major departments: Secretary of State, Attorney General, Departments of Commerce, Labour, etc. 

That said,  America has just started to have women in high levels of power. We didn't have our first female justice till the '80s, a bit of the norm now. Our first female Sec State till the '90s. First major candidate for President only 4 years ago. 

That said, Europe were and are far, far more progressive with women in leadership. The UK, Germany and others with female leaders. As well as high levels of government much sooner than America. Even India had a female leader before almost anyone else. However, countries such as France, Holland, the UK with sizeable black populations or other people of color (I'm actually not a fan of that term..lol) are no where close to having anyone Black as president or prime minister and have very few blacks in high levels of power. Which is interesting because Europeans generally, at least to Black Americans, are viewed as far more progressive and accepting. 

I'm NOT criticizing. Just a notable observation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  first  debate was moderated by a Fox News pundit. Fox News obviously a pro Trump channel. BOTH parties negotiate and agree to the moderator, platform and venue. Neither side then can say it's unfair. 

Second, the Republican party seems a bit hypocritical. More than the Dems, they celebrate the American dream. The story of a person who through their own hard work became wealthy. It is celebrated. Unless its a Democrat it seems. If Obama or Clinton's wealth was not obtained illegally, what's the problem? Trump's net worth going down isn't because he sacrificed his wealth for altruistic reasons such as serving the country as President. He's a shit businessman, who has gone broke on a number of occasions. He inherited 400 million and ended up 400 million in debt. It takes some kind of stupid to do that. Especially in a business where his contemporaries became exceptionally wealthy. 

You or I not may not see getting speaking fees, totaling in the millions for writing memoirs and such as an honourable way to become rich, but its not illegal. And BOTH parties have done it. Both Bushes made millions from it. The insinuation is that they entered politics to become rich. LOL...The Obamas and Clintons could have made millions at a far younger age had they gone into private practice. Obama was editor of Harvard Law Review. Arguably the most prestigious university honour in the country. He didn't have to look for a job. The best jobs in America come to you. Every Supreme Court justice fights to have the most number of Harvard Law Review editors, every top legal firm as well. He would have been a multimillionaire in his 20s. To think he waited till his 50s to do this when it could have happened in his 20s is laughable. Same with Bill. A Rhodes Scholar. Hillary, also an Ivy league educated lawyer. Both would have been immensely wealthy by the time they finished their 20s. 

People enter politics for a few reasons generally. Power, a need to serve, etc. Money is not one of them. If you have the wherewithal to be a Senator, you can certainly use that skill to be a CEO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...