Then I direct you to post 35, where it was not argued that Columbus was part of U.S. history. Arguments I made include,
~Max
Wonderful (the buzzer). But ‘identity’ is still singular, the plural form is listed as identities.
Opinions are, of course subjective. But my opinion is that other people in my own nation are wrong to think there is more than one single national identity.
~Max
I meant that I don’t see the self-evident moral value in basing one’s national identity around resisters to oppression rather than oppressors.
Specifically, in my own words rather than yours, I don’t see the self-evident moral value in identifying my nation with historic Native Americans rather than Columbus.
~Max
I disagree. There are reasons for Americans to celebrate a day aside from the day commemorating an event that is properly part of U.S. history. The first thing to come to mind is New Year’s Day.
~Max
I disagree with both parts of that. As I’m pretty sure I’ve already said.
How can there be one single national identity if people who are part of the nation disagree about what it is?
Ugh. I’m seriously tempted to say that if you can’t see it, then there’s probably no sense in trying to explain it to you, because it’s bloody obvious. However, it’s possible that I’ll think of a different answer if I let it steep in the back of my head for a while.
New Year’s Day isn’t part of US national identity. It’s an international holiday.
Sure, but they’re also part of US history. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on putting all these complex intertwined entities into tidy mutually exclusive categories.
Then we have nothing left to discuss. We fundamentally disagree on what a national identity is and what use it is. You’re out on an island by yourself, I suspect.
You failed to answer the actual question asked of you.
But that is not the linking feature in the three alternates in the OP, so therefore irrelevant. The connection I pointed out is still implicit there.
Blacks who don’t identify with slaveowners aren’t real Americans, gotcha.
I quoted #35 again because you pointed to it as me saying Columbus’s voyages were part of U.S. history. I didn’t quote it to imply you hadn’t responded to it.
Some people are wrong. I wrote that in the very sentence you quoted. This reminds me of a recent debate where @Exapno_Mapcase argued, because people disagree on the answers to any given religious question, religion can not exist.
I think it’s both.
~Max
“Tidy mutually exclusive categories” is the very nature of categorization - the explicit purpose of distinguishing U.S. history from other history.
~Max
Very well,
I am not actually saying that.
Indigenous People’s Day is not like the others in that list. Whereas Leif Erikson Day and Columbus Day celebrate either specific historic individuals, a specific historic event (western civilization reaching the Americas / meeting of peoples from both hemispheres), or a people/culture (Italian/Nordic), depending on who you ask. I’ve been defending Columbus day as a celebration of the event, and to that end wrote that I was okay with changing the name and taking down statutes of Columbus himself. Indigenous People’s day celebrates a people/culture. Or am I mistaken?
I didn’t write that and don’t believe it.
~Max
For what it’s worth, that’s not an accurate statement of my position. You would have to take out the “neutral de-racialized”, and I would prefer to specify that the element of shared cultural identity is the national element (so there’s no implication that an individual identifies as racist overall - just that they recognize racism as being a major force in their own country’s founding).
~Max
To clarify, if A and I agree we belong to the same nation, but A thinks that isn’t the same national identity as slaveowners in the 1820s, I think A has the wrong definition of national identity. But I still think A and I belong to the same nation.
And if B thinks I belong to a different nation, but I think B and I belong to the same nation and I think the law backs me up, I still think B and I belong to the same nation.
~Max
I don’t deny the existence of alternatives, the choice to distinguish U.S. history from Irish history &etc. is entirely mine and follows from the bright-line definition of national identity I have used.
The main argument of Kimstu seems to be, because U.S. history is broader than the history of the people who considered themselves part of the United States, my concept of national identity is wrong. My counterargument is that, in my opinion, U.S. history is a narrower topic than she implied; I doubled down.
~Max
If that’s all you’re trying to say, all I can say is that you haven’t been communicating that very well, and that saying that Americans must identify with Columbus and the conquistadors and must not identify with, say, the Haudenosaunee does not read to me as at all the same thing.
Part of the problem with it is that you want to broaden it all the way to Columbus, but narrow it everywhere that applies to non-Europeans.
That was my opinion on the Black Americans and slaveowners, in a tangent discussion with MrDibble, I believe.
I would say that Americans should identify the predecessors to the United States (the British colonies) and the historic U.S. itself as having been more like Columbus & the conquistadors than various indigenous peoples.
In reference to the holiday that commemorates Columbus’s voyage and landfall, the United States is identified as a nation that followed Columbus’s footsteps - Europeans, not the indigenous people.
I don’t see why that would be a problem in and of itself.
~Max
And yet another USA poster has said it is true. Why should I believe you over them (and my own experiences of US culture)?.
If they’re not also engaging in actual religious activities, then it does.
And if they only engage in minor religious activities and a lot more secular activities, then the holiday is still secular.
Do you see a moral difference between an oppressor and a resister to oppression, yes or no?
…and their history.
I know that. You can tell because it’s not presented as a quote.
You just believe that if they don’t identify with Europeans, they don’t share the same national identity as Americans who do…
I fail to see the distinction. What is American “national identity”, if not that supposedly singular identity that defines a real American? If two people, one identifying with Europeans and one not, both have national identities, either one (or possibly both) must not have the singular national identity. Or else you’ll have to admit that multiple national identities are in fact the reality.
I’m not right because I’m right. I’m right because that’s what the reality of tree toppers is. No amount of fear of accidentally getting Christian cooties from them is going to change that.
No addressing of your mapping of “worship” onto “oppression”, there, so I’m not exactly concerned about what you’re buying or not.
The issue here is you have outright said B and you don’t share a national identity. B is the one who thinks they belong to the same nation as you.
Yes. ETA: An oppressor is by definition unjust, whereas a resister to oppression is not necessarily just or unjust.
Okay, okay, I see your point. All three holidays involve history. But I don’t think that implies that all three holidays celebrate U.S. history, if that was the point you were making (I’m a bit confused again).
Not necessarily. Both could have the same singular national identity without both acknowledging it.
I did not say B and I have different national identities, but I did say B thinks we belong to different nations.
~Max
Yup, hijack. But it was substantive enough that I’ve moved it to its own thread, with the blessing of the GD mods. I tried to leave any posts that overlapped in this thread, so there may be bits that look out of place. And I apologize for any confusion, or mistaken moving/not-moving on my part.
Leave me and your misstatements of what I said elsewhere out of your arguments.