<p>PG,
Other than the comment about Harvard, what is frightening about expecting all Americans to embrace the ideas in the second paragraph of JHS’s post #319?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would exclude members or likely members of a political party that does not respect private property, just as I would not willingly allow a burglar into my home. Communist parties are merely the most extreme examples of such parties. Asking people if they are likely to belong to such a party is going to be ineffective, but the demographics of American voting patterns are informative.</p>
<p>Bay–JHS’s post omits capitalism, which was listed earlier (by you, I think, but possibly not.) </p>
<p>I don’t embrace that ideology, and I don’t think it’s embedded in our founding documents. Perhaps that makes me un-American by some lights, but I don’t think it does. (I can see at least one poster would kick me out, even though my folks have almost certainly been here longer.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh. Well, I’m not aware of any political parties that don’t respect private property. Do you believe there should be no such thing as taxation?</p>
<p>Garland,
I never claimed my ideas of American culture were white Protestant ideas. I am specifically referring to JHS’s enumerated ideas that he claims are certainly rooted in white Protestantism. I’m trying to understand why his ideas should not be embraced by all Americans.</p>
<p>One of those ideas is separation of church and state. That may have been a “white Protestant” idea (and way ahead of its time!) 240 years ago, but it’s rather ironic that among those who would want to blur the lines, they are overwhelmingly a subset of white Protestants.</p>
<p>PG,
I agree, if its true. Is Deist the same as Protestant?</p>
<p>Do kids still recite the Pledge of Allegiance in K-12 nowadays?</p>
<p>Ours do. It’s on the PA every morning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really, although some Deists were raised Protestant.</p>
<p>However, there were several kinds of Protestant religious communities (Puritans, Quakers, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc.), as well as Catholic and Jewish communities, in colonial America. Many such communities had their origins in fleeing religious persecution, so that may have been the reason for requiring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.</p>
<p>How did a thread about intellectual diversity turn into a thread about patriotism and religion?</p>
<p>After about 15 pages, you just never know where these threads will go.</p>
<p>I’m still in for Starbucks as our national icon. I think it is fitting, too, since it references Moby Dick and one of our great American novels.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Using taxation to redistribute wealth, as opposed to paying for public goods such as national defense and infrastructure, indicates to me a lack of respect for property rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only niche parties (e.g. the Libertarian Party) in the US would have any chance of fulfilling your criteria.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, should there be restrictions on Americans’ rights to vote for the candidates they believe fit their interests, if such candidates have an agenda that includes govt spending beyond defense and infrastructure?</p>
<p>I think there is a difference between having a Litmus test for ideology of potential citizens, and prohibiting current citizens from holding a certain ideology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Thanksgiving might qualify as the iconic American celebration, in that it crosses just about every racial, religious, or cultural line you can draw (though I do acknowledge that many Native peoples look upon it with less than enthusiasm). Fourth of July is an even more iconic American celebration that virtually all Americans appreciate, if for nothing more than an excuse for fireworks, and backyard barbeques. We’ve all been taught what it means, and we all know it marks the official birth of our nation. And this may sound Hokey, but The Superbowl is a big, showy, uniquely American clash of the titans, an enthusiastically embraced national BFD that you won’t find anywhere else in the world. </p>
<p>I vehemently disagree with the notion that identity based on race and ethnicity has only been at the forefront of our nation’s consciousness since the advent of “multi-culturalism.” I don’t know how anyone is even capable of claiming that with a straight face. To the contrary, aside from gender, race and ethnicity has historically been the first and foremost important aspect of anyone’s person in this country. The dichotomy of white/not white was the primary determinant of one’s social and legal status starting in the early 1600s. Please tell me there’s no one here who doesn’t know that. The status of whiteness was so important, that those who possessed it went to extraordinary lengths to protect its advantages and hyper-define its exclusivity. It’s why black was defined as any person who could be shown to have as little as 1/32nd African ancestry, regardless of how white they might appear. It’s why Italian didn’t equal white. Irish wasn’t even white enough for a period of time, to say nothing of being Jewish. Laws limiting the rights of Asians were among the most onerous. The only people acknowledged to be “true Americans”, meaning those unquestioningly eligible to enjoy full agency rights under our laws, were persons solely born of very narrowly defined European stock. That’s why arguments against the values of inclusiveness that define the notion of multi-culturalism ring very hollow to me. We have always been a nation fixated on the differences between people, but only relatively recently has being different (meaning, not white) been seen as possessing aspects worth celebrating. Interesting, that the loudest opponents of this sea change are almost invariably those who have historically enjoyed the assumption of superiority conferred by white status. </p>
<p>A personal anecdote: Years ago, H and I were strolling the streets of a nearby city on a summer evening with a couple we considered friends. Eventually, we began hearing music from a couple of blocks away, and once we rounded a corner, we could see that a celebration was taking place. It was called The Umoja Festival, a celebration of the food, music and culture of the African diaspora, and most of its participants were black. It was at this moment that one of our companions drew a face and asked out loud why black people feel a need to stage these in-your-face displays of racial separateness. I realized with no small shock that he was actually offended. “I don’t know, Terry,” I replied, “Probably for the same reason some whites make a big deal of St. Patrick’s day, why some cities host huge Oktoberfests, and why there’s a Greek and Helenic Festival in Newport News every year. Why don’t you see them as in-your-face displays of racial separateness?” As someone who had hosted more than one St. Patty’s Day party at his house, and invited everyone he knew, he didn’t seen capable of formulating a response to my question. The Umoja Festival, by the way, was open to all who wished to participate. But, if my friend’s reaction was in any way typical, it explained at least in part, why so few whites were present. </p>
<p>What many of those offended by multi-culturalism unknowingly display is belief in the tacit notion that “American” is narrowly defined as cultural/racial characteristics to which they can feel member-affiliated. If they feel excluded, it’s automatically anti-American, and damaging to national unity. What those who have historically actually been excluded know, those who have by and by insisted on a seat at the table realize is this: It feels good to be included. Legitimacy feels good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may also be related to why historically black schools remain mostly black to this day – few non-black people seem to be interested in them, despite many of them offering <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1348012-automatic-full-tuition-full-ride-scholarships-17.html#post15743177[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1348012-automatic-full-tuition-full-ride-scholarships-17.html#post15743177</a> .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s history. Today, claiming to be American Indian based on 1/32 ancestry can help get you a professorship at Harvard Law School. Marking black or Hispanic on the Common Application also confers a substantial boost in college admissions. If racial discrimination was wrong then, it’s wrong now, too.</p>
<p>I question how much that actually helps in admissions these days, Beliavsky.</p>
<p>I think there was a time when being a URM was a hook, but there are plenty of qualified URM candidates these days. I really don’t think it gives that much of an edge anymore.</p>
<p>Haven’t read thru this entire thread (makes my head hurt), but I just wanted to answer Bay’s question about Patriot’s Day since it looks like no one else had yet.</p>
<p>@Bay-Patriot’s Day commemorates the Battle of Lexington and Concord (“the shot heard round the world”). This is marked as being the beginning of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775. It was the night before that Paul Revere (and William Dawes) rode out to warn people (“The British are coming!”). It is only celebrated in Massachusetts and Maine (since Maine used to be part of Massachusetts)</p>
<p>On another note, it’s completely likely that I am wrong, but I thought a Deist was someone who believed in a higher power (“God”) but wasn’t a Christian or a member of another organized religion.</p>