continuing proofs America is wacko

I am not sure it is a personnal view. Where you are born in what country and into what society you can no more change than what sex you were born. I am Scottish, not because I think I am Scottish, not for all the things I consider as epitomising Scotland (I know enough history to know that transport me back even a hundred years and my views would be significiantly at odds with the populace of the time, and the less like them I would become and the less I would agree with what being Scottish means on an individual level the further back in time you put me- the idea of what it is has always differed and evolved). But I am not Scottish for those ideas- I am Scottish by birth, I was born here. I see it as that simple. As it happened both my parents were of Scots stalk but had they been from India say I would still be Scottish by birth. My parents however would be Indian. And I don't think it should be any more than that. Citizenship and nationality are two seperate entities in my view. If you make being one a condition of the other you muddle them. And as what society thinks is a transient property the two would inevitably come into conflict.

For me America does not sell it citizenship on being an American in the sense of being born one, but rather on an idea of America. I think thats shaker ground in the long term for cohesion as ideas will always differ in a large enough population, and inevitably that will include the idea of what being an American is (is it also being a captialist for example?)

I am thinking about what you said. I think you are highlighting some interesting points. And it does go back to something I earlier said about there being much turbulence in our (USA) society.

But let me also toss out that some of the things you base your constuction on are on shifting sands at the moment. Things like you cannot change the fact that you were born a male, or simply being born somewhere is just a geographical fact and does not rule what you are or choose to be. As an example I know a Chinese person born and living in Hong Kong, that considers themselves English. They felt betrayed when they were not allowed to move to England when China reposseded Hong Kong.

wow, I never thought about that. What a sad sick feeling to find your country basically disowned you without so much as asking your opinion on the matter.

Citizenship is strange like that. One of our ag scientists had been studying in the US during 1940's on a Transjordanian passport when Transjordan disappeared and Israel popped up where his home had been. He was left without any citizenship at all.

The UK is probably not the most straight forward example of this sort of thing of course- what with reminants of Empire still dotted about confusing the issue. Combined with its existing levels of ways to describe oneself- I am Scottish, British and a UK citizen. And thats quite straightforward comparitively because I live and was born here- if I was living on British soil but on the other side of the world what would I be then? I have honestly no idea (apart from hopelessly lost!)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am not sure it is a personnal view. Where you are born in what country and into what society you can no more change than what sex you were born. I am Scottish, not because I think I am Scottish, not for all the things I consider as epitomising Scotland (I know enough history to know that transport me back even a hundred years and my views would be significiantly at odds with the populace of the time, and the less like them I would become and the less I would agree with what being Scottish means on an individual level the further back in time you put me- the idea of what it is has always differed and evolved). But I am not Scottish for those ideas- I am Scottish by birth, I was born here. I see it as that simple. As it happened both my parents were of Scots stalk but had they been from India say I would still be Scottish by birth. My parents however would be Indian. And I don't think it should be any more than that. Citizenship and nationality are two seperate entities in my view. If you make being one a condition of the other you muddle them. And as what society thinks is a transient property the two would inevitably come into conflict.

For me America does not sell it citizenship on being an American in the sense of being born one, but rather on an idea of America. I think thats shaker ground in the long term for cohesion as ideas will always differ in a large enough population, and inevitably that will include the idea of what being an American is (is it also being a captialist for example?)

What if you were born in Scotland to Indian parents, who then went home but left you at birth with a MacDonald or - wosre still - a Campbell, but in France---? Sorry, no-one in their right mind would do that! Um.... in Portugal?

You would still be Scottish as that was where you were born, but admitedly you'd probably also be confused.

And so if a Scottish engineer took a one year contract job in Dubai and didn't want to leave his pregnant Scottish wife behind, their child born in the UAE would never be truly Scottish, no matter how hard he worked at it for the rest of his life, would he? Sad really.

You mention the confusion left from the Empire, but these things happen more and more often in our increasingly global economy.

Its not an actual written law more a collective idea in society so common sense tends to play a role. In the case you mention David folk would consider and treat the person as a Scot- however the real deciding factor is the person themselves, being Scottish is something you feel, not an idea to be achieved, which being American seems more like to me, more a constructed thing.
The Scottish example is vaguer and yet solid at the same time. It can last through generations of changing ideas and social norms, but it can't so easily be defined as say American ideals can.
There is no Scottish equivelent to a Pledge of Allegiance- the very idea is unScottish. You don't swear allegiance to a country called Scotland to be a Scot you ARE a Scot. And no government or individual can alter that either by trying to take it away or grant it. And there would be serious trouble if anyone tried.
Inn fact defining what it means to be a national of anywhere, and then defining what that is in order to have a set of rules to seperate out those who are citizens and those who are merely nationals- seems doomed to disaster to me.

I certainly have no doubt about what you say about being a Scot. And there are undoubtedly certain characteristics unique to Scots (besides extreme drinking ). There are of course still many cultures with strong senses of identity. As far as natural/homogonous groups being better foundations of political entities, I can see both advantages and disadvantages. But to take a single line of thought... I would say if you like that system, that you should enjoy it while you can, for it's days are probably numbered.

We have long known politics (and allowing war to be form of it) is a major shaper of changes. There are also physical factors that can accellerate or delay change (ie. location & resources). Once in a great while great natural events too have been known to set changes in motion.

As far as seeing ahead as to what will come, two areas of increased study, with improving tools (archeology & environmental science) are illuminating that environmental changes have been more frequent then thought and when they occur nearly always result in dramatic changes for humans.

It is practically established that we are in warming period, and increasingly signs show a more acelerated pace then at first predicted. If it continues, the current best models show a large part of the equatorial midsection on the planet will become increasingly non-productive and less able to support life. Since this area also encompasses the majority of humans, a whole gaggle of ills are predicted including eventually huge displacements.

You might attempt to close your borders, and I don't know what would come of that. But I would consider it more likely that you will instead find a large number of foreigners resettled in your land, if your land remains fertile and has water sources. Its not impossible they will outnumber the original Scots.

England is already a popular destination for political relocation or displacements of choice and you can see in your south a situation not unlike that in the USA. And yes it does make for frictions and some pretty wild situations. One that struck me most was last year when rioters had stopped and surrounded the car of some of your Royalty and the cry 'Off with their heads' was heard.

The film I thought most prescient in recent years was an English film, 'Children of Men'. Although the basic premise as for the cause of catastropic change is unlikely (at least in total form), nevertheless I thought it was a very plausible prediction of what a post catastropic landscape will look like. You probably have seen it, but i posted a short clip below with Gary Jule's intriguing reinterpretation of Tears for Fears 'Mad World'.

Please forgive my tendency to drift topic-wise, as one thought brings another to mind. And well might Mr. Spock (the new one) say 'And what is your point?'. To which I would reply, that change and mixing of populations is coming whether you want it or not.

Mixing of populations is fine. Scots are immigrants- the place was under 20miles of ice till about 10,000 bc - everyone who is here now came in one wave of immigration or another- we are a proudly mongrel nation- and we are trying to increase immigration- we have room to spare at the moment at least. And those who come here, live here and are born here will be Scots- what colour, what religion (or none) makes no odds, those things are not what being Scots is. Its a feeling, a certainty a knowledge. Its not nationalism in the narrow sense but in the grand broad sense.

As to global warming versus global cooling- I am of the 'we are probably completely wrong or nature will do something even more dramamtic making it inconsequentaial' point of view. Frankly this planet is unstable, its often either mainly frozen solid, or to hot. Humans however are the first thing we know of on it who can alter their own environment by artificial means to make inhospitable hospitable (at least enough to surive). So all bets are off. But then we could get whacked by a metorite/comet, the sun might go wibbly on us, a super volcano may blow and all the climate models and projections so far would be right out the window in a moment.

I hope you are right about global environmental change, but my mind tells me otherwise. New data is coming out almost daily as it has become an item of great interest. Collaspe of the Ice sheet alone has brought new warnings. Archeologists and scientists have found evidence of the collaspe of a great Ice sheet in the distance past, they they say created a 20-40 foot surge worldwide, that did not recede. A lot of the polar Ice is elevated above sea water. If a large section drops into the water, it causes a permanent displacement.

I have an asteroid for you. It is named 2011 AG5. It is the next known object with a relatively close projected path near earth. It currently is calculated to have about a 1:625 chance of hitting earth. It is newly discovered and only half a orbit has been observed, so they say they will have a better idea in about 2 years. It is scheduled to pass closest to us in 2040. The Scientific world is taking it seriously and discussions are already starting on how to possibly deflect it, if it proves necessary.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:everyone who is here now came in one wave of immigration or another- we are a proudly mongrel nation- ......And those who come here, live here and are born here will be Scots- what colour, what religion (or none) makes no odds, those things are not what being Scots is. Its a feeling, a certainty a knowledge. Its not nationalism in the narrow sense but in the grand broad sense.

That's really a very good description of how USA sees itself.

With the exception of Native Americans, everybody was an immigrant within just a few generations of ancestry, and many families retain some of that heritage in food, names etc. We have representative communities from virtually every ethnic community in the world, and the world's conflicts are regularly argued here in microcosm.

With all the diversity and not much common history there's sometimes a perceived need to try to find symbols that unite us. That's where the flag ritual and pledge of allegiance comes from, though some people take it to an extreme (the pledge was written by a rampant socialist, by the way. It's always fun to remind conservatives of that )

I think the difference David is Americans seem to need an idea of America laid out for them, pledges of allegiance, july the 4th etc- Scotland doesn't even have an official national anthem- we don't rally round any symbols or ideas- there is no Scotland Day in Scotland that speaks to what it is to be a Scot- we have none of that- you don't celebrate being Scots- thats like celebrating breathing- its just something which is. There are no expectations come with it. You are a Scot, you know if you are, and no one grants it, reaffirms it, endorses it or can take it away.

Further confusing it all I have 3 governemnts all of whom can enact laws at different levels- I have the Scottish Parliament, the Westminister Parliament and the European Parliament. So I am a Scot, a British citizen and a citizen of the European Union. I don't think therefore in the future the idea of being a particular nationality will fade it will just become more complicated and layered.
Now to tie this in with the original post about citizenship (I havent forgotten- this is all tangential to that point honest!)- how on earth could having some standard or test for citenzenship apply with 3 seperate governments? Would I be a Euro citizen if I qualified as a UK one? Would Europe and individual members have different standards for what qualifies as a citizen? What if criteria were in conflict between one government level and another? Still, be like all their xmas' rolled into one for the beurocrats!

Reviving an old thread:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its more the process and the legality of it I am having a hard time understanding. If that happened here, even if guns were legal, they would be arrested (probably as much for their own safety from the mob as anything else) and held in custody until trial. This guy doesn't seem to have been arrested. He told the police his version of events, they seem to have accepted it as fine and sent him on his merry way- given he shot a teenage kid dead that just seems mad to me.

It turns out the phrase "questioned and released" actually means "handcuffed, brought into the police station, questioned and released." Somewhat more involved than is sometimes portrayed.

I assumed that was pretty much the procedure Halfwise- its nothing- I've had that treatment (including being arrested in the middle of the towns main highstreet on a Saturday afternnon, slammed against a wall and eventually strip searched-though not in the main street, rather in the station but where they delibretly left the door open to the secretaries, I think they were hoping it would humilate me, at least now they know, never give a Tyrant a chance to show off in front of a captive audience!- and that arrest was just for suspicion of having had a good time, I hadn't just shot some kid - I just can't believe they just let him go without a charge- given someone is dead surely exactly what happened and whether the act was lawful or not is for a Court of Law to decide- not the Police? Thats the bit I don't understand- the Police seem to be arresters, jury and judge here, and to have decided no crime was committed and let him go- with a dead teenage kid they must surely have foreseen this might cause some trouble.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think the difference David is Americans seem to need an idea of America laid out for them, pledges of allegiance, july the 4th etc- Scotland doesn't even have an official national anthem- we don't rally round any symbols or ideas-

I've read some interesting discussions of this fact, and I think the most convincing one to me is that because America is such a young country (and because most Americans' ancestors came over here even more recently than independence) that a lot of Americans feel/felt the need to go out of their way to create their own national identity. After the Revolutionary War the various ex-colonies were very different in both culture and politics. They were actually sovereign states early on, which is why it's the United States and not the United Provinces. Back in the 18th century, the situation between the different States was actually not dissimilar to the modern situation between the various countries in the EU, with all the cultural disconnects that implies.

For the next hundred years or so (till after the Civil War and Reconstruction) you had people going out of their way to try to bind everyone together with different symbols and traditions beliefs so that there would be a single, coherent nation. Even today, when most people (I would think) consider themselves American first and a resident of their specific state second, you still have a lot those invented traditions being perpetuated. I think that's part of the reason why so many people elevate the Founding Fathers to demigod levels: America doesn't have any older legends or mythic histories, so people invented them, in some cases before the Founders even passed away. George Washington in particular really disliked some of the stories people invented about him to portray him as some sort of semi-divine hero.

Maybe I'm just rambling here but I think you touched upon an interesting topic so I figured I'd talk about it.

Actually Eldo, you are making a lot of sense. Kind of modern myth-making.

I think there probably is something in that Eldo, but there is someting about it I don't understand- its hard with a long history (and long memories) to build that sort of mythos here- but I do find it curious in the US they have done so for the Founding Fathers in spite of good histroical evidence telling a truer version of events- Mel Gibson made William Wallace into an American style hero- in Scotland even today you will find as many people who think he was just an annoying pest as you will people who think he was a freedom fighter and that was hundreds of years ago on dubious sources often- how do you maintian a modern myth when there is the historical evidence which is contary? I mean at school in the US what do you get- the myth or the history taught to you?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Thats the bit I don't understand- the Police seem to be arresters, jury and judge here, and to have decided no crime was committed and let him go- with a dead teenage kid they must surely have foreseen this might cause some trouble.

Actually it's the Prosecutor who decides which cases go forward. In this case I understand that the police recommended charging Zimmerman, but the prosecutor didn't feel there was a good enough case

We have this problem where I live as well. Because of all the protections in the law, a case can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring to court. Because budgets are limited, the prosecutor's office tries to select only the cases with the best chance of conviction. Then there's the issue of limited jail space....

And so the well-intended legal protections have often had the unintended effect of putting law enforcement back into the hands of vigilantes

Pettytyrant101 wrote: that arrest was just for suspicion of having had a good time,

I hope you were guilty.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I mean at school in the US what do you get- the myth or the history taught to you?

Not much of either, but remember the education is a State's right, so there is no standardization. Massachusetts students will learn a lot of Massachusetts history, Texas students will learn a lot of Texas history. Hawaii, Florida, Alaska, their all so different with different indigenous and ethnic make-ups that you could never even superficially cover it all.

And yes, some states do emphasize their myths.

The sytem is not disimilar here David. The police refer an arrest to the Office of the Proculator Fiscal- whose job it is is to decide if it goes to court base solely on whether in their legal opinion the evidence is suffient to be worth the time. But I can safely say if a similar thing happened here- a neighbourhoodwatch person saw someone they thought was suspicous, a scuffle ensued and a person killed- it would need some exceptional circumstances for it not to automatically be green lighted to the Court sytem- as its quite clear the only way to hope to know what happened is for it to be properly looked at by the Courts.
Its why this was not also fast tracked to Court I dont understand. A teenage boy is dead having committed no visible crimes at all, his killer claims self defense- it seems an obviious case to go to a Court for resolution.
When you add in Americas troubled race history it seems even more of a no-brainer that doing nothing would only risk social unrest-which is exactly what has happened.

David- sadly and by a strange chance I was completely innocent the time- I had just finished work, stepped of the bus went to go into a newagent, cop car screeched up, parked sideways and BANG- was being slapped against the shop wall by two coppers. (And thing about a small Scottish town is by the time I had got to the station my parents had already heard I'd been arrested) . I think the cops had been bored and been spending all day in the station watching reruns of Starsky and Hutch.

Also bear in mind as we're comparing Scotland to the USA, that there are 21 states with populations greater than Scotland's. The comparison of USA to EU is in some ways closer.

There are some states where the citizens' loyalty to their state is stronger than to the nation. (I was in Alaska in the early 80's when a secessionist movement was voted on. Hawaii was once a monarchy and some would like to go back to that. Texas and California regularly tell us how they could stand alone.... )

I think scale must play a bit factor- greater the scale more difficul to create homegeny across the whole. Europe is at the moment an intresting study in this as each country is very distinct and some of them trace their histories in the thousands of years not the hundreds- and most of that time was spent fighting or trying to get one up on each other. In my lifetime at least, even if politically there emerges a single United Countries of Europe- I do not think I will see a time when Europes seperate nations view themselves as the same. I can forsee a Union of equals- which is more or less how it is now- I am a Scot, but like someone in France, or Italy, I am also a European- I see duel nationailty, coexising as seperate equals a more solid base that trying to create a US style one size fits all national myhtos. And I also think European history is too long to get away with one.