Bei der Gruppe, für die Sie eine Mitteilung verfassen, handelt es sich um eine Usenet-Gruppe. Wenn Sie in dieser Gruppe Nachrichten posten, ist Ihre E-Mail-Adresse für jeden im Internet sichtbar
This is a youtube that is strictly speaking not true.
The US south was not a "third world country". It was considerably less
prosperous than the US north, but despite this was still one of the
richest countries in the world.
But factuality doesn't matter when northerners "talk about the
south". The purpose of their talk, for the most part, is not to convey
information about America, or to bring about desirable change; instead
it is to make themselves feel good about themselves.
HL
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> This is a youtube that is strictly speaking not true.
> The US south was not a "third world country". It was considerably less
> prosperous than the US north, but despite this was still one of the
> richest countries in the world.
> But factuality doesn't matter when northerners "talk about the
> south". The purpose of their talk, for the most part, is not to convey
> information about America, or to bring about desirable change; instead
> it is to make themselves feel good about themselves.
> HL
Yeah, right. The South is blameless. Next.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
Anybody can blame "the South" for whatever they like. Finding fault is
the usual way that non-southerners think about "the South". When they
don't spot something blameworthy at first, they keep looking until they
do. "Eureka!", they say, "here is the real south".
As Kris Kristofferson wrote in one of his songs, "Everybody's got to
have somebody to look down on. . . ."
HL
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> This is a youtube that is strictly speaking not true.
> The US south was not a "third world country". It was considerably less
> prosperous than the US north, but despite this was still one of the
> richest countries in the world.
> But factuality doesn't matter when northerners "talk about the
> south". The purpose of their talk, for the most part, is not to convey
> information about America, or to bring about desirable change; instead
> it is to make themselves feel good about themselves.
> HL
I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice if he could make some form of point.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice if he > could make some form of point.
HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
indirectly, by innuendo.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>Anybody can blame "the South" for whatever they like. Finding fault is
>the usual way that non-southerners think about "the South". When they
>don't spot something blameworthy at first, they keep looking until they
>do. "Eureka!", they say, "here is the real south".
>As Kris Kristofferson wrote in one of his songs, "Everybody's got to
>have somebody to look down on. . . ."
>HL
Looking down on Republicans works for me.
Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> >Anybody can blame "the South" for whatever they like. Finding fault is
> >the usual way that non-southerners think about "the South". When they
> >don't spot something blameworthy at first, they keep looking until they
> >do. "Eureka!", they say, "here is the real south".
> >As Kris Kristofferson wrote in one of his songs, "Everybody's got to
> >have somebody to look down on. . . ."
> >HL
> Looking down on Republicans works for me.
> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
Damn straight!
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
US states have all the powers they need to build social safety
nets. "The South" has no means to stop states from doing whatever they
like in this area.
HL
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
I can see that A.Lurker considers the southern population to be an
optional add-on to the American people. He easily imagines, enjoys
imagining, what things would be like if there were no southern
population, if we were "disappeared".
Well, we were present at the creation of America, white and black. We
are constituent elements of the American people. I don't take seriously
the childish notion of making us disappear.
HL
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
>> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
>> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
>US states have all the powers they need to build social safety
>nets. "The South" has no means to stop states from doing whatever they
>like in this area.
>HL
To state the obvious, Hugh, I was not talking about individual states,
whose ability to build safety nets individually is actually somewhat
limited, but the United States of America.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> > Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
> > South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
> > social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
> I can see that A.Lurker considers the southern population to be an
> optional add-on to the American people. He easily imagines, enjoys
> imagining, what things would be like if there were no southern
> population, if we were "disappeared".
> Well, we were present at the creation of America, white and black. We
> are constituent elements of the American people. I don't take seriously
> the childish notion of making us disappear.
> HL
We can dream!
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>>> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
>>> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
>>> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
>>US states have all the powers they need to build social safety
>>nets. "The South" has no means to stop states from doing whatever they
>>like in this area.
>>HL
> To state the obvious, Hugh, I was not talking about individual states,
> whose ability to build safety nets individually is actually somewhat
> limited, but the United States of America.
The point is that if states want to create social safety networks, they
have all the power the need to do this. This means that when some things
can't be done at the federal level, due to political conditions, they
can be done at the state level.
States have set up school systems, university systems, automobile
insurance requirements, hospitals for the mentally ill, and on and
on, child welfare regulations, and on and on.
You also failed to explain just how "the South", by everybody's
reckoning a minority, can stop the US from doing anything. You just made
up the accusation.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice if >> he >> could make some form of point.
> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
> indirectly, by innuendo.
Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and other places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>>> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
>>> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
>>> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
>> I can see that A.Lurker considers the southern population to be an
>> optional add-on to the American people. He easily imagines, enjoys
>> imagining, what things would be like if there were no southern
>> population, if we were "disappeared".
>> Well, we were present at the creation of America, white and black. We
>> are constituent elements of the American people. I don't take seriously
>> the childish notion of making us disappear.
>> HL
> We can dream!
That's all you do.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice if >>> he >>> could make some form of point.
>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
>> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
>> indirectly, by innuendo.
> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and other > places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I > always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief
in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's
impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,
A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
inappropriate in that context.
It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and
why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is
like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.
Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
and began to study it an think about.
HL
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice >>>> if >>>> he >>>> could make some form of point.
>>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
>>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
>>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
>>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
>>> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
>>> indirectly, by innuendo.
>> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and other >> places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I >> always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
> You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief
> in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
> hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
> Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
> empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
> the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
> The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
> southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
> very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
> States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's
> impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,
> A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
> and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
> This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
> Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
> on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
> inappropriate in that context.
> It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
> publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
> geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and
> why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
> sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is
> like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
> Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
> example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.
> Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
> Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
> and began to study it an think about.
> HL
Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy. Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long documented history of not going along.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy. > Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really > losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long > documented history of not going along.
The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. See the old standard
_Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
John Higham.
UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the
foundation of the United States. See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
South_. Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
about it under the label "internal orientalism." In a nutshell, this
way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign
country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. It's an interesting theme.
This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the
facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. But the right-wing-nuts have
found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.
My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
One-Thing.
HL
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> >>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice
> >>>> if
> >>>> he
> >>>> could make some form of point.
> >>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
> >>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
> >>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
> >>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
> >>> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
> >>> indirectly, by innuendo.
> >> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and other
> >> places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I
> >> always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
> > You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief
> > in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
> > hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
> > Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
> > empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
> > the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
> > The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
> > southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
> > very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
> > States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's
> > impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,
> > A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
> > and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
> > This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
> > Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
> > on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
> > inappropriate in that context.
> > It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
> > publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
> > geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and
> > why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
> > sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is
> > like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
> > Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
> > example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.
> > Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
> > Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
> > and began to study it an think about.
> > HL
> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy.
> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> documented history of not going along.
Would you consider an armed attack against the United States un-
American? if so, the Rebels were traitors. If not, you support Bin
Laden. Gotcha!
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the >> orthodoxy. >> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really >> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long >> documented history of not going along.
> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. See the old standard
> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
> John Higham.
> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the
> foundation of the United States. See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
> South_. Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
> about it under the label "internal orientalism." In a nutshell, this
> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign
> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. It's an interesting theme.
> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the
> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. But the right-wing-nuts have
> found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.
> My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
> One-Thing.
> HL
In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way of thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going by that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:34:03 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>> (in article <874nnaneic....@gmail.com>):
>>>>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> could make some form of point.
>>>>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
>>>>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
>>>>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
>>>>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
>>>>> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
>>>>> indirectly, by innuendo.
>>>> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and >>>> other
>>>> places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I
>>>> always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
>>> You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief
>>> in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
>>> hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
>>> Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
>>> empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
>>> the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
>>> The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
>>> southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
>>> very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
>>> States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's
>>> impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,
>>> A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
>>> and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
>>> This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
>>> Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
>>> on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
>>> inappropriate in that context.
>>> It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
>>> publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
>>> geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and
>>> why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
>>> sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is
>>> like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
>>> Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
>>> example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.
>>> Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
>>> Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
>>> and began to study it an think about.
>>> HL
>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy.
>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
>> documented history of not going along.
> Would you consider an armed attack against the United States un-
> American? if so, the Rebels were traitors. If not, you support Bin
> Laden. Gotcha!
Fail, again. The rebels were...SURPRISE: rebels. Secession wasn't exactly illegal back then. The colonists were rebels also.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> >>>>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>> he
> >>>>>> could make some form of point.
> >>>>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
> >>>>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
> >>>>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
> >>>>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
> >>>>> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
> >>>>> indirectly, by innuendo.
> >>>> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and
> >>>> other
> >>>> places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I
> >>>> always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
> >>> You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief
> >>> in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
> >>> hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
> >>> Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
> >>> empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
> >>> the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
> >>> The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
> >>> southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
> >>> very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
> >>> States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's
> >>> impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,
> >>> A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
> >>> and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
> >>> This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
> >>> Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
> >>> on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
> >>> inappropriate in that context.
> >>> It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
> >>> publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
> >>> geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and
> >>> why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
> >>> sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is
> >>> like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
> >>> Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
> >>> example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.
> >>> Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
> >>> Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
> >>> and began to study it an think about.
> >>> HL
> >> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy.
> >> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> >> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> >> documented history of not going along.
> > Would you consider an armed attack against the United States un-
> > American? if so, the Rebels were traitors. If not, you support Bin
> > Laden. Gotcha!
> Fail, again. The rebels were...SURPRISE: rebels. Secession wasn't exactly
> illegal back then. The colonists were rebels also.
Victory is a mitigating circumstance for any rebellion. The
revolutionaries won. You lost.
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
> >> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >> orthodoxy.
> >> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> >> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> >> documented history of not going along.
> > The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. See the old standard
> > _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
> > John Higham.
> > UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> > Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
> > The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the
> > foundation of the United States. See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
> > South_. Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
> > about it under the label "internal orientalism." In a nutshell, this
> > way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign
> > country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. It's an interesting theme.
> > This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
> > charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
> > founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the
> > facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. But the right-wing-nuts have
> > found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.
> > My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
> > One-Thing.
> > HL
> In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way of
> thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going by
> that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
> But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.
Obama is a foreigner? Maybe O'bama, but not Barack. He's more of a
genuine American than you'll ever be!
Sie müssen sich anmelden, bevor Sie Nachrichten veröffentlichen können.
