Can democracy last?

[Crcata]

It seems to me that any political system will suffer from that problem. If decisions are imposed by elites from above that much of the rank-and-file citizenry don't agree with, there will be dissatisfaction.

At least democracy gives people the hope that they might win in the future, if they can convince a majority that they are right.

And in a decentralized form of democracy, where a great deal of power is retained on the local, state or provincial level, the possibility exists that different regions might opt for different policies, as opposed to having a one-size-fits-all diktat being imposed from above on everyone. If one side in a controversy loses out in region A, they might be winners in region B. So internal diversity remains a possibility and being a loser isn't an absolute thing.



That's a different problem. In the Modern period, people used to identify with their broader community, symbolized as 'state' or 'nation' or 'people'. Patriotism was the expression of that. In medieval times, they were more apt to identify with 'Christendom' than with the feudal lord in whose territory they found themselves.

But since World Wars I and II, 'nationalism' has become a dirty word in Europe and increasingly in the United States, blamed for those conflicts and for millions of deaths. Apparently people are supposed to identify with humanity in general or something. But that's too vague and airy to really work for all but the most idealistic people. Most people need to feel identity with something closer to home, something more connected with their lives. So what we see instead is the intentional promotion of identity-politics, where people are encouraged to identify first and foremost with their own race, class and gender. (As long as they aren't whites and male.) We see people identifying with their profession, political party, or their favorite football team.

Sadly, the attempt to create a sense of peaceful community has led to the exact opposite, to people feeling stripped of any previous sense of community they might once have had, and to their grasping tightly to things that divide them from those around them. And with that change, we see the gradual loss of social cohesiveness.



We see it here in the United States. If immigration law is going to be treated as if it is merely optional, with no penalties for ignoring it, then why shouldn't everyone treat tax, environmental. labor and civil-rights laws the same way? The whole idea of obeying the law because it is the law disappears with the loss of our sense of community and social cohesion. The belief that everyone in the community is equally subject to the law and equally obligated to honor it is lost when the sense of belonging to a larger overarching community fades away and where ethnicity and national origin become the things that people most identify with.



I think that democracy can easily survive. But I'm not convinced that it will. It seems to me to be self-destructing as we speak. It's probably the greatest tragedy of our time.

Makes sense.

Hopefully we can get that sense of community back, but for more reasons than can be put on here I also doubt it.

 

[iceaura]

Not in present day. Perhaps in the past. But today any and all identities acquired are not the fault of white men.

1) Race and gender identities aren't "acquired", in the US. Class identities remain as they have been defined by white men in the US - they can be "acquired" in a sense, but not redefined in conflict with those established by white men for centuries.
2) Yes, they are. Class, race, and gender identities in the US are exactly those established, for centuries now and still, by self-described "white" men, and no one else in the US has had any say in the matter then or now.

But no, despite whats happened in the past, its not the white mans fault that certain groups identify stongly in race, and they objectively did not have it forced on them.

They objectively did have it forced on them.

Without going into the language of "fault", it is objectively true that no one in the US can "identify" their racial, gender, or class in conflict with the one assigned to them by white men. They can sometimes hide and deny it, object to it, quarrel with it, accept it and identify with it, glorify and celebrate it, but they cannot change it or choose another one. That's not a decision anyone in the US can make.

 

[Crcata]

You are so wrong.

It's not white men's fault a black person is black.

Or a Hispanic person is Hispanic.

If you are arguing that because these commonly used labels were created by gvt officials who were white men then I get what you are saying. But its also past tense, meaning its no longer the fault or doing of present day white men. And it's a very Bullshit way of portraying it. Generalizing the individuals who did X by saying white men did X is irrational.

It's also worth mentioning that non of these labels ie:white,black,asain,Hispanic, etc are derogatory so I'm really at a loss of why this would even be mentioned. And if this were truly an issue (it isnt) I'm sure there would be widespread movements to change "hispanic" to whatever they would want to be called.

You sound eager to make white men out to be villains. What else is my fault? Lol

 

[river]

For the people and the ability for Humanity to survive ; rich or poor ; Democracy is the only philosophy ; is the only way that Humanity can reach its potential.

 

[iceaura]

It's not white men's fault a black person is black.

Or a Hispanic person is Hispanic

You keep saying "fault" - why? We are just describing events, cultural circumstances.

Of course that was all white men's doing. The entire category of "white" people, as well as "black" people and now in the US "Hispanic" people, was an invention of those self-same "white" people, in particular "white" men.

Nobody else had any say in the matter.

It's also worth mentioning that non of these labels ie:white,black,asain,Hispanic, etc are derogatory so I'm really at a loss of why this would even be mentioned.

And I'm wondering exactly why you think labels would have to be derogatory to be invented and assigned by white men.

And if this were truly an issue (it isnt) I'm sure there would be widespread movements to change "hispanic" to whatever they would want to be called.

"They" have quite often complained about being "called" things like that. "They" often object to being called anything at all, or having to do work to dig out from under some label they never asked for and regard as nonsensical.

This hit the news recently - https://meng.house.gov/media-center...he-term-oriental-from-us-law-passed-by-senate

 

[Crcata]

You keep saying "fault" - why? We are just describing events, cultural circumstances.

Of course that was all white men's doing. The entire category of "white" people, as well as "black" people and now in the US "Hispanic" people, was an invention of those self-same "white" people, in particular "white" men.

Nobody else had any say in the matter.

And I'm wondering exactly why you think labels would have to be derogatory to be invented and assigned by white men.
"They" have quite often complained about being "called" things like that. "They" often object to being called anything at all, or having to do work to dig out from under some label they never asked for and regard as nonsensical.

This hit the news recently - https://meng.house.gov/media-center...he-term-oriental-from-us-law-passed-by-senate

I keep saying "fault" because why else would you bring this up in the context in which you did? Because you want to assign fault. And be racist.

It's not "white mens" doing because individuals did something. They did something that does not in any way shape or form represent "white men". Thats ridiculous and racist.

I dont think that labels invented by white men have to be deragatory. I dont think you are so stupid as to actually believe thats what I ment. Reread the statement in context, apply some critical thinking and I think you will understand (if you dont already) what I ment.

I have never met anyone whom disliked being called what they were. You are being ridiculous. You are objectively wrong in the way you are portraying events. Jsut because a black man steals something does not justify saying "black men steal things". You may argue for the sake of argument in some feeble attempt refuse being wrong, but you are.

 

[iceaura]

It's not "white mens" doing because individuals did something. They did something that does not in any way shape or form represent "white men". Thats ridiculous and racist.

It wasn't "individuals" who did that - it was a mutually supportive dominant group, a large and coherent and very long lived body or entity (it still exists) whose members chose to define and label themselves as "white men".

That group not only defined and labeled itself, but everybody else. Nobody else had any say in their labeling.

I have never met anyone whom disliked being called what they were.

I posted a link to someone who objected to it so strongly she fought a law through the current fractious and uncooperative Congress.

Meanwhile: What do you mean by "what they were? Who told you what they ->were<-? Did they have a choice in the matter?

 

[Crcata]

It wasn't "individuals" who did that - it was a mutually supportive dominant group, a large and coherent and very long lived body or entity (it still exists) whose members chose to define and label themselves as "white men".

That group not only defined and labeled itself, but everybody else. Nobody else had any say in their labeling.

I posted a link to someone who objected to it so strongly she fought a law through the current fractious and uncooperative Congress.

Meanwhile: What do you mean by "what they were? Who told you what they ->were<-? Did they have a choice in the matter?

Once again, it was not an entire group. It was individuals. To say that it is the "white men" is objectively wrong.

If you cannot comprehend this, that is not my fault. You are a fool.

And that link doesn't mean anything to me, I have 27 years of experience w/ people that states completely otherwise.

And your last question should be self explanatory. The fact I have to elaborate further on this is quite astonishing. What I mean is...I've never met a hispanic person who felt he had the label "hispanic" pushed on him unjustly, or a white person being called white that unjustly, or asian, or black...etc. This whole discussion is idiotic and brought up in an attempt to make an entire race of people seem the villain. Sooo...soo. dumb.

 

[iceaura]

Once again, it was not an entire group. It was individuals.

No, it wasn't any limited number of definable individuals. It was the group as a whole, operating as a coordinated entity, mutually reinforcing the definitions and punishing dissidents from them.

And that link doesn't mean anything to me, I have 27 years of experience w/ people that states completely otherwise.

You have 27 years of experience that says the Federal Government didn't label people "Oriental"? Or is it that you think the people the Feds called Orientals labeled themselves?

And your last question should be self explanatory. The fact I have to elaborate further on this is quite astonishing. What I mean is...I've never met a hispanic person who felt he had the label "hispanic" pushed on him unjustly, or a white person being called white that unjustly, or asian, or black...etc.

Well you might want to get out more, but essentially that's irrelevant. The point was that the only people doing the labeling - in the US - were white men, who also labeled themselves. Nobody else had any say. That's just a fact. The various and diverse collection of people called "hispanic" did not decide who was going to be called "hispanic" and who wasn't. Neither did the asian, black, or anyone else. In the US the white men made all those decisions - including, most crucially, who got to be "white". The Irish were I think the last group to get full admittance, in the mid 1800s - I can't think of anybody added to the "white" category since then.

And this was and is centrally important to the history, and now the prospects, of democratic government in the US.

 

[Crcata]

No, it wasn't any limited number of definable individuals. It was the group as a whole, operating as a coordinated entity, mutually reinforcing the definitions and punishing dissidents from them.

You have 27 years of experience that says the Federal Government didn't label people "Oriental"? Or is it that you think the people the Feds called Orientals labeled themselves?

Well you might want to get out more, but essentially that's irrelevant. The point was that the only people doing the labeling - in the US - were white men, who also labeled themselves. Nobody else had any say. That's just a fact. The various and diverse collection of people called "hispanic" did not decide who was going to be called "hispanic" and who wasn't. Neither did the asian, black, or anyone else. In the US the white men made all those decisions - including, most crucially, who got to be "white". The Irish were I think the last group to get full admittance, in the mid 1800s - I can't think of anybody added to the "white" category since then.

And this was and is centrally important to the history, and now the prospects, of democratic government in the US.

No it was not the entire group of white men that did that. It was individuals. You are objectively wrong.

I have 27 years of experience to say that people dont mind the "labels" given by the government. And the very few who are like you and do are the exception that proves the rule. Again this is a complete non issue. You are a fool.

And again, it was individuals that did the "labeling" (which needs to be done if we are to have any idea what to call each other) not "white men". Again, you are a fool to not be able to comprehend this.

Bringing race into issues where it is non existent is a problem we have here. You are objectively wrong. I will tell you as many times as it takes to get it through your idiotic skull.

Im still just baffled you even brought this up. Like we were so wrong to have our government label us. Really oppressing the people with these labels...LOL.

 

[iceaura]

No it was not the entire group of white men that did that. It was individuals. You are objectively wrong.

It was millions of individuals over hundreds of years, all of them white men. Objectively.

I have 27 years of experience to say that people dont mind the "labels" given by the government.

So? That does not change the origin of the "labels", or the classification scheme behind them.

And again, it was individuals that did the "labeling" (which needs to be done if we are to have any idea what to call each other) not "white men". Again, you are a fool to not be able to comprehend this.

All the millions of individuals who developed, established, and enforced the racial categories of the US were white men. Nobody else had any say in the matter. You are faced with a physical, historical, recorded series of events.

The white race is the only self-defined race in the US. This self-definition took a while to complete - from about 1650 until about about 1850 - but has been fixed since.

We did not need any racial labels in order to know what to call each other, in 1776. None. We had names, cultural and familial backgrounds, languages, nationalities, religions, and so forth, all perfectly adequate.

Bringing race into issues where it is non existent is a problem we have here. - - - -

Im still just baffled you even brought this up

I didn't. Other people did.

But if you think you can analyze the past and possible futures of democracy in the US without considering the history and nature of racial issues in this country - - - - good luck. As an exercise, consider the relevance of the analysis laid out in such writings as Coates's "Between the World and Me".

 

[Crcata]

I

It was millions of individuals over hundreds of years, all of them white men. Objectively.
So? That does not change the origin of the "labels", or the classification scheme behind them.
All the millions of individuals who developed, established, and enforced the racial categories of the US were white men. Nobody else had any say in the matter. You are faced with a physical, historical, recorded series of events.

The white race is the only self-defined race in the US. This self-definition took a while to complete - from about 1650 until about about 1850 - but has been fixed since.

We did not need any racial labels in order to know what to call each other, in 1776. None. We had names, cultural and familial backgrounds, languages, nationalities, religions, and so forth, all perfectly adequate.
I didn't. Other people did.

But if you think you can analyze the past and possible futures of democracy in the US without considering the history and nature of racial issues in this country - - - - good luck. As an exercise, consider the relevance of the analysis laid out in such writings as Coates's "Between the World and Me".

I didn't choose to be called white, it was a label given to me. This is objectively true. So just because an individual gave me a label doesn't mean it's justify saying "white men" gave me a label. You are objectively wrong.

And once again, it doesn't make sense as to why you would even bring this up. Race is usually only an issue when people like you bring it up. It doesn't serve to "make aware therefore improve", it does the exact opposite.

Fact stands. Individuals did that, not "white men". We don't say "black men" betrayed each other by selling each other as slaves do we? No.

And there is absolutely a good reason to have labels, it was not adequate otherwise. Another way you are objectively wrong lol. Should be self explanatory as to why but I'm sure you can't see it lolol.

 

[iceaura]

I didn't choose to be called white, it was a label given to me. This is objectively true.

Compare with this:

But no, despite whats happened in the past, its not the white mans fault that certain groups identify stongly in race, and they objectively did not have it forced on them.

So - - - -

So just because an individual gave me a label doesn't mean it's justify saying "white men" gave me a label. You are objectively wrong.

An individual gave you the label "white", and otherwise you wouldn't have it? Unusual. Who was that? What label would you have instead?

And once again, it doesn't make sense as to why you would even bring this up.

I didn't.

Race is usually only an issue when people like you bring it up

? Uh, - - - how to respond - - - You might want to reality-check that one.

And there is absolutely a good reason to have labels

Not the racial ones in the US, when they were established.

That was done by white men, as a group, over a period of centuries, for almost entirely bad reasons, and nobody else had any say in the matter.

And the future of democracy in the US depends significantly on how we deal with the aftermath of that.

 

[Crcata]

You still fail to understand individuals do not represent entire races, therefore it was not "white men".

You are objectively wrong...still.

And it was not entirely for bad reasons. You are quite brainwashed.

 

[iceaura]

You still fail to understand individuals do not represent entire races, therefore it was not "white men".

Millions of individuals defining themselves as a group to be "white men" and acting in mutually reinforcing concert over hundreds of years do not "represent" white men - they are "white men".

The racial labels in the US were established by millions of white men, acting and defining themselves as a group over hundreds of years.

Nobody else had any say in the matter, then or ever since.

And it was not entirely for bad reasons. You are quite brainwashed.

The many bad reasons are famous. Do you have any examples of good reasons?

 

[Crcata]

Once again, individuals do not represent an entire race. Your lack of being able to comprehend this fact is astonishing. It was individuals, not white men who did that.

And a good purpose is having a standard way to ID for administration purposes. Are you so ignorant you need to be told that? Should be quite obvious.

 

[Crcata]

Also, it wasn't millions of white men creating these labels lol. You are rewriting history.

 

[iceaura]

Once again, individuals do not represent an entire race.

The millions of white men who collectively and as a group invented and established the "white" race did not "represent" anything. They were the race they defined themselves to be. They didn't represent it, they constituted it.

And a good purpose is having a standard way to ID for administration purposes.

Nobody needs a racial designation for identification. We have names, locations, ID numbers, descriptions, nowdays photographs, etc, for that - formal racial designations serve no purpose in personal identification until after races have been established and the visible criteria for assigning them become part of the structure of one's society.

What administrative purposes did you have in mind, in 1776? Are they the "good reasons" you alluded to, above?

Also, it wasn't millions of white men creating these labels lol. You are rewriting history.

I'm accurately describing the population of white men who established the races of North America between 1650 and 1850. About 5 million men, roughly, with tens of thousands as official political and judicial and military "representatives" handling the formalities, were involved.

And if you are seriously interested in re-establishing "community" in the US as the basis of a stable democracy, as you assert above, the aftermath and consequences of the racial assignments they imposed on the entire American culture is of direct concern to you. It's probably your primary obstacle - its main rival would be the needs and agenda of corporate capitalism, with religious identification coming in third.

 

[Crcata]

The entire race of white men did not create the labels. You are objectively wrong. This isn't debatable. It was individuals. And by that same logic, white men had that label forced on them by the same people. Furthermore having these labels is such a non issue. It's retarded to have even been brought up.

Your logic is faulty and your entire argument is based on it, therefore faulty. You are objectively wrong, own up to it.

And we also objectively need the racial identifiers for administration purposes. For instance, when the police are looking for a criminal, it helps greatly to know what race he is. Bam, a good reason right there. We could create a new system and call it something else, but it would be the same idea. You are quite the fool to need this explained. Not everything has to be bad because a government created it.

Accept where you are wrong, and further discussion can be had. Otherwise I'll grind this into your skull page after page until you understand. I refuse to allow stupid opinions based on extreme bias and faulty logic to go unchecked.

And one of the biggest problems with creating a sense of community is bringing racial issues where they didn't exist previously. It creates problems, not avoid it. Your entire participation in this thread has been nothing more than "white men are evil" with your astounding misrepresentation of what individuals do and your lack of reasoning.

P.s. "description"...race is part of that. Omg I can't believe I have to point this out.

 

[iceaura]

The entire race of white men did not create the labels.

The "entire race of white men" did not exist prior to the creation of the race and the label, which was accomplished in North America between 1650 and 1850 by the white male population.

And by that same logic, white men had that label forced on them by the same people.

Ever since, yep. Once established, racial identity is imposed not chosen (or "acquired"). Like I said: "The white race is the only self-defined race in the US. This self-definition took a while to complete - from about 1650 until about about 1850 - but has been fixed since."

Furthermore having these labels is such a non issue.

Another reality check is in your future. I recommend the Coates book in post 51- it's popular now, easy to find, well written, and quite short.

And we also objectively need the racial identifiers for administration purposes. For instance, when the police are looking for a criminal, it helps greatly to know what race he is.

In the US, sure. Once invented, races are real, and the US ones carry a lot of implications and baggage useful to the police. This miserable situation has all kinds of consequences. Most of them are bad for community, and threaten democracy.

And one of the biggest problems with creating a sense of community is bringing racial issues where they didn't exist previously.

There is no community in the US in which racial issues did not exist "previously".

P.s. "description"...race is part of that. Omg I can't believe I have to point this out.

Not until after you have races established on some visible, physical grounds - height, say, or eye color. If you define tall people with green eyes as a "race" then you can get information about their appearance by racial designation - but that's not a good reason to define "tall with green eyes" as a race. Nobody needs a racial designation to describe height, or eye color, or any other actual physical feature. And certainly nobody needs a racial assignment to be identified as a person.

Again: this is critical to your claimed issue regarding democracy - community. If you honestly believe racial issues in the US are being dragged in where they did not exist previously, you are unlikely to succeed in re-establishing this community you claim to favor.