Class implies semi- to actual-permanence. Which of course is inapplicable to the home of the American Dream.
Yes, “there’s no such thing as class in America” is a common claim. Also, the term has gotten smeared with the idea that caring about class is automatically Communistic. Most of America is in deep denial about the existence of class, even while the upper class systematically exploits everyone else - they clearly are aware of themselves as being a separate class and act on their collective interests as a class. And they have the great advantage that most Americans absolutely refuse to admit that’s possible.
Exactly what evidence is there that any white man is, by default, the recipient of some sort of benefit from a wrong?
So now it’s a conspiracy? And doesn’t a group of people collectively determining that they are not part of the “upper class,” then deciding who should get what jobs, education, and benefits become a separate class which is “act[ing] on [its] own collective interests as a class?” In other words, you believe that the “upper class” is an evil conspiratorial group because you are not a member of that class.
“Conspiracy” implies some kind of an attempt at secrecy. They don’t need to bother with that; they can openly shape the nation economically and politically to benefit them at the expense of everyone else, and most of the population will resolutely refuse to admit that there’s any problem with what they are doing.
No, I think they are evil because of what they do, and because for all of human history as a group the upper class has always been evil. Greedy, amoral, sadistic, power mad. As well, evil or not if you are not part of the upper class, then they are your enemy, they regard you as their enemy; if you refuse to believe that you are their enemy that just means they can exploit you without resistance. There’s always been a class war in America; it’s just that for the last few decades the lower and middle classes have been in resolute denial of that reality so the war has been one sided.
And, like everything in the US, this attitude to class is linked to race as well. Racial tensions were extremely beneficial to those who sought to prevent the development of class consciousness.
Yes; classic divide and conquer. Encourage poor and middle class whites and blacks and so on to hate each other, and they will work against each other instead of recognizing their mutual self interest in the face of exploitation by the powerful.
I’m not so sure that the upper class being evil throughout history isn’t a matter of perception more than of reality. But a couple of things - you seem to be saying that “the upper class” is a unified, organized group. Perhaps some people do perpetrate the evils you talk about, but they can’t be attributed to every person above a certain net worth.
And really, if you look at it, assuming that you’re 100% correct, the upper class views the lower classes as the enemy, while the lower classes view the classes above them as the enemy, and so on. Class warfare isn’t necessarily one-sided.
To a degree it general is. It’s simply in their mutual self interest to exploit those less powerful and wealthy than they are, and to ensure that their pre-eminent position remains stable. And they are perfectly capable of recognizing that mutual self interest regardless of what other disagreements they have with each other. And they do tend to know each other; they go to the same schools, live in the same gated communities, belong to the same clubs, serve on each other’s Boards of Directors, and so on.
Not necessarily, but in America it is. In America the lower classes respond to abuse and exploitation by the upper with either resignation or an almost masochistic acceptance. They almost never fight back, and in fact are more likely to fight for their exploiters than against them. Americans grovel a lot; they put up with treatment that would cause riots in much of the world.
Proof?
Greece.
It’s probably more useful at this point to ask for your definition of “upper-class.”
So I can get a handle on this, what abuse and exploitation are we talking about?
The riots in Greece are not caused by exploitation of the poor, they are caused by a government that borrowed too much money, spent a great deal of it on entitlements, needs to borrow more but is being required to cut back on some of that entitlement (and other) spending, and the people’s anger at no longer getting those entitlements. A government borrowing massively and misusing the funds is at the heart of the crisis, not some nefarious plot by the upper classes.
I’ll point out that the party in power in Greece is PASOK, or the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement. One party leader, Giorgos Lianis, basically admitted that the socialist programs do not work:
“I no longer believe in the economic policies that we have followed. Since we failed, we have been trying to hide the truth from the people”, states the four-page letter from the Florina MP.
http://www.protothema.gr/news-in-english/article/?aid=128050
If anything, the situation in Greece is evidence of why not to implement “social reform” programs (especially when the nation is in great debt), not evidence for them.
But that is not the question. It was whether or not Americans put up with things that other countries don’t. They clearly do. Other countries workers have shorter hours, more vacation time, more family leave, protection/warning of layoffs, publicly funded medical care, and other benefits not generally given to American workers. In Greece, among the sticking points was raising the retirement age past 55. Greece’s safety net was clearly over the top, but Germany is in good shape and they have many more protections of workers than the US does.
Every White man over the age of - let’s be generous - 21 was a recipient of the benefits of Apartheid in some way. Would you like some evidence that Apartheid happened? Exactly what sort of evidence would you like?
Or an acknowledgment that they will receive riches in the afterlife if only they put up with such treatment now.
It is the question, though. Der Trihs stated that Americans put up with oppression without rioting. You used Greece as an example of that rioting, and I pointed out that the rioting had nothing to do with oppression.
I don’t know if you’ve ever had to deal with, say, Germans, in business, but it’s almost impossible to get things done because they’re always on vacation. Perhaps Europeans work fewer hours, get more vacation, and have publicly funded medical care, but they are less productive and pay much higher taxes than Americans. Using the term “put up” implies that there is some undue hardship involved - and without any benefit. That’s not the case.
I assume you’re using a generalized definition of Apartheid (in which case it should not be capitalized). Why only those above 21? What happened in 1990 that suddenly evened the playing field for anyone born thereafter?
Have your post make some sense and I can answer - as it is, I can’t decipher your meaning.
Why on earth would you assume that?
Lots of things happenedin 1990/1991.
Did you think I was talking about America? Why would you think that, I had Apartheid in capitals and everything.
Cool story, bro.
Germans are only 7% less productive than Americans, and they get all that time off - I’m pretty sure they can live with themselves 
**Penderel **is a new guy, and so almost certainly doesn’t know you live in South Africa. Still, he should have had an inkling you weren’t talking about the US.