Australian vs American culture

[pmccarthy]

On traditional hunting, I knew of a white guy who was hired by an aboriginal corporation to bag  Magpie geese with a shotgun  in northen Australia for eating. At least there are plenty of them (the geese I mean).

[Old Koreelah]

16 hours ago, old man emu said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why have I not seen any attention to this glaring phrase?

To me, it means anyone bearing arms should be in a well regulated militia.

 

What % of gun owners are members of the National Guard or other militias?

Where is the regulation?

 

Perhaps way back in the 1770s Americans accepted some regulation from the government, but today you can’t get many of them to wear a seat belt or a mask, let alone give up their military assault rifles.

[old man emu]

It's annoying when someone goes to the extent of researching a point and then providing a precis of the research and a link to the source and people don't bother to follow the link.

 

In the link a reader will find this:

Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined. It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight. In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

 

Militia:

At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states. "[When the Constitution was drafted], the militia was a state-based institution," says Rakove. "States were responsible for organizing this." Of course, with the size and scope of the modern United States military, and the fact that militias no longer exist, that notion is hard to imagine today. In the debate over the Second Amendment, this phrase, "a well regulated militia," remains one of the most cited and argued parts of the sentence.

[onetrack]

The simple fact remains that the founding fathers of the U.S. who wrote the 2nd Amendment, if they were resurrected today, would not only be stunned to see the changes and differences in American society - they would more than likely agree immediately, that the lines they wrote in the 1700's have little relevance to the 21st Century - they had no idea firearms and ammunition would be so potent and readily available - and they would be appalled to find that giant global corporations controlled the firearms manufacturing and distribution, and gun culture, in America today.

 

They would possibly be disturbed by the readiness of so many Americans to "shoot first and ask questions afterwards" - in other words, the number of American people nourishing murderous attitudes, full of feral hatred, for anyone different to them, and their views.

They would also possibly also be deeply disturbed to find so many Negroid-ancestry people in positions of power, and in Govt. - and the number of those of "mixed bloodlines". In their day, to engage in coitus with a dark-skinned person, was enough to endure banishment from their society.

[spacesailor]

Davey Crocket, Jim Bowie, and the others, that died in the " Alamo ", St Antonio,Texas.

Were the " militia   " that the forefathers meant.

Spacesailor

[old man emu]

Sorry, Spacey, but those who died at the Alamo might have been American citizens, but in 1835/36, Texas was still part of Mexico. The Texas Revolution (October 2, 1835 – April 21, 1836) was a rebellion of colonists from the United States and Tejanos (Texas Mexicans) in putting up armed resistance to the centralist government of Mexico. 

 

The region of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas, now commonly referred to as Mexican Texas, declared its independence from Mexico during the Texas Revolution in 1835–1836, when the Centralist Republic of Mexico abolished autonomy from states of the Mexican federal republic. The major fighting in the Texas war of independence ended on April 21, 1836, but the Mexican Congress refused to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, since the agreement was signed by Mexican President General Antonio López de Santa Anna under duress as prisoner of the Texians. There were intermittent conflicts between Mexico and Texas into the 1840s. The United States recognized the Republic of Texas in March 1837 but declined to annex the territory.

 

Texas was annexed by the United States on December 29, 1845 and was admitted to the Union as the 28th state on that day, with the transfer of power from the Republic to the new state of Texas formally taking place on February 19, 1846. 

 

So those who fought in the Texas Revolution were not covered by the US constitutions, nor were they US militia men. It could possibly be held that they did form a militia, but since they were in revolt against the lawful government of the area at the time, they are more correctly called "Revolutionaries" with respect to the lawful government. No doubt those rebelling against the lawful government saw them as "patriots". Just another example of what people call those on the other side of the political fence

[onetrack]

The personality and character, and cultural history of the extremist right-wing American "patriot" - the one who doesn't trust any Govt, who is generally a religious gun-fondler, and who is basically a war-monger at heart, comes from the Lowland Germans (mostly Hessians) who went to America as mercenaries during the American Revolution.

 

Not surprisingly, they fought on both sides, with the larger percentage of them on the side of the British. But a percentage also fought with the Americans. The vast majority of these Germans were strong Lutherans, well-trained soldiers, and they had played a big part in the earlier political wars of Europe.

 

There were already a sizeable number of German immigrants in America at the time of the Revolution. After the Revolution, the vast majority of the German mercenaries stayed and many became farmers and large landowners. In addition, they sent word back to Germany that life was good in America, and the opportunities were far greater than in Europe. The Germans flooded into America.

 

The German population of North America was around 10% in the mid-1800's, it grew much larger after the Revolution. The German language was the primary language of these people and many Americans complained about the widespread use of the German language. Even today, you will find many "native" families in America who know and can speak German.

These people were big breeders, with large families, following the Biblical exhortation to have large families. Their numbers exploded in the 1800's in America. They love pork, the same as the Germans, and it is their primary food preference.

You will find a very substantial number of Americans today with German surnames. Where their surname is not pure German, it has been Anglicised.

 

The best indication of this "patriot" German personality would have to be General Ernst Röhm, the decorated WW1 soldier who assisted Hitler to power - but who was then assassinated by Hitler because he was proving to be a threat to Hitlers power.

Descriptions of Röhm point out the classic "patriot" characteristics - gung-ho, a warmonger, a power-seeker, and a classic gun-fondler. Röhm was an arms-trader/smuggler in the 1920's and 1930's, and assisted in the re-arming of Nazi troops from 1922 until his death on Hitlers orders in 1934. 

 

Röhm was considered a "fanatical, simple-minded swashbuckler" who frequently displayed contempt for danger. The classic personality of the gun-fondling American "patriot".

 

Röhm described his personality in his memoirs as, "War and unrest appeal to me more than the orderly life of your respectable burgher."

Röhm saw no benefit in "legalistic" or democratic attempts to gain political control. To him, making war was the only way to seize power. An American "patriot" thinks the same way. Power comes from the gun, not the pen.

 

The Trump-supporting, gun-fondling American Patriots see Trump as their salvation to take power from "socialist, lefty, commies" that are ruining their country, in their simplistic view.

 

Curiously enough, Trump is largely German ancestry, and his familys surname was originally the German name Trumpf. These "patriot" warmongers can trace their warmongering ancestry back over 1000 years in Europe.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_in_the_American_Revolution

 

https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-26-can-the-germans-be-re-educated-(1945)/how-did-the-germans-get-that-way

 

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by onetrack

[Old Koreelah]

20 hours ago, old man emu said:

It's annoying when someone goes to the extent of researching a point and then providing a precis of the research and a link to the source and people don't bother to follow the link...

I’m sorry if I have upset you, OME.

I was responding to your post of Tuesday (101.190.142.153).

I presume in the above complaint you mean your post from the following morning. Perhaps I should have read all posts on the thread before going back to respond to earlier ones. 

[spacesailor]

german sir names everywhere !

SANTA CLAUSE  ( saint KLAUSE )  ( spelling ).

Davy Crockett was a militia man before he joined the Mexican revolt.

AS was Jim Bowie.

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

Regardless of old national heritage of individuals involved in the US insurrection, I would think that the mob who occupied Capitol building, would consider themselves as "Revolutionaries".

 

They and many of similar mindset (probably millions of US citizens) are calling for "The Revolution" that will make America great again. Since that particular attempted revolution failed, we choose to call them "domestic terrorists".

 

To the winner go the spoils, and the right to write the history with their own dialogue.

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

...They and many of similar mindset (probably millions of US citizens) are calling for "The Revolution" that will make America great again...

After enduring four years of this fluff, I still haven’t heard them explain any cogent policies that would achieve that outcome.

[nomadpete]

Policies? No, I'm not suggesting any political parties openly pushing revolution as a policy. The intruders at Capitol were not acting out a policy. But they were revolting. They all want a political revolution but have no idea what would have to happen next to make it any better than what they had before. They were venting and using force in the mistaken belief that their violent actions will bring about political change that validates their beliefs and makes their life easier.

Such stuff as White supremacy, and forcing other countries to change their trade agreements to better benefit USA, make government more focussed on the common man (persons M or F). And bring back the good old days when there was a lot of employment (albeit lowly paid) in low skilled manufacturing jobs. And numerous contradictory outcomes such as access to health care for everyone but without cross subsidies that might mean one individual must help pay for someone else's medical bills.... Etc

That last one raises the point that responsible government shouldn't just help the rich, but must adopt some policies that share the social responsibility (of health care, for instance). Which sounds suspiciously like a socialist agenda to many. It raises the "Commie fear" that seems to petrify so many of them.

[onetrack]

The worrying part for the authorities in America is the potential for a number of cells of right-wing extremists that are planning assassinations, armed takeover, and general mayhem.

The FBI have arrested 68 individuals involved in the Capitol Hill mayhem, and from that they have initiated 170 "investigation" cases (obviously involving criminality, insurrection, or talk of insurrection and assassinations). The FBI head has stated, "These 170 cases are just the beginning. We have many more to go".

 

It is obvious they are greatly concerned over the rise of a Nazi-style takeover - aided by Trumps constant lies and complaints of "illegal" moves to oust him.

Shades of Germany in the late 1920's - social unrest, a poor economic situation for many ordinary people (many Americans are still hurting deeply from the destruction of their coal-mining industry, and the COVID-19 virus is impacting most Americans financially, in an adverse manner) - street violence, incited by an extremist right-wing demagogue who utilises constant lies to pander to his followers prejudices and ill-feeling towards those with left-wing or moderate political aims - a glut of firearms in the hands of anyone who wants one, and a willingness to dismantle "an oppressive Govt" with armed revolt.

 

I have this horrible premonition that Joe Biden will be assassinated by a right-wing extremist, whilst in office. I hope my premonition is wrong.

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by onetrack

[Jerry_Atrick]

OT - given the statistic that OME provided - that no president elected in a year ending with 0 has survived their presidency, the odds aren't looking good for him (of course, I am not sure there is a statiscially valid number of presidents elected in a 0 year - but sometimes, even I have to admit, stats aren't always a great predictor). But, even if it were not a 0 year, I would think the odds of him being assasinated are pretty high. While the extreme left are known to engage in violence, the extreme right seem more prolific at it - porobably because there are more extreme right wing than left wing people, I suppose..

 

I actually fear more for Kamala Harris... can you imagine a right wing white supremacist - Even though their judgement is severely clouded, they will probably work out that if they kill Biden, not only will a woman become the president of the USA, but a woman of colour - no less. Of course, they are probably only ever so slightly more tolerant of sub-continental lighter skinned people than Arfican Americans. So, they will probably do her first (or both at the same/very close timelines).

 

Let's also not forget, there seemed to be some members of the Capitol Police who were sympathetic to the cause and seemed to facilitate some of the activity once it started. One Captiol Police officer has taken his life - without reading detail about it, I don't want to speculate, but I hope it would not be because he perceived himself a failure if he in good faith protected the Capitol building to the best of his ability.  However, it seems clear from the pictures that at least some law enforcers who were sympathetic to the cause took the law into their own hands and facilitated or at least were failing to attempt to enforce the law.. although in that situation where one's life is potentially in grave danger, who is to say they weren't acting properly? Until everything is investigated, we need to keep an open mind. My point is that there may be sufficient sympathisers in law enforcement/military that allow through inaction, a Biden/Harris assasination and I hope the authorities take approriate precautions.

 

How does this all compare to Australia? Well, I am going to take the contraversial stand here... There are three main differences that make us different in this area - the strong gun laws, a (albeit weaker than historically) third political party option, and depoliticisied government institutions with permanent administrative heads rather than poltiical appointments. These all help stabilise more extreme elements of government.

 

However, when I last lived in Australia, for about 3 years ending in 2006. my partner and I came to the same conclusion that all Australia needed was a charasmatic leader (thankfully in short supply) with nefarious intentions (sadly, in great supply), and Australia would be very easily turned into a facist state. We both noticed that, as with the rest of the world, Australia had significantly shifted from community concerns to individual concerns. We noticed the political rhetoric and press rhetoric was very American based; that people were willing to forgive indiscretions as long as they weren't affected or it made them better off - bugger the rest, etc. There seemed to be a lot more BS being sprouted by the pollies and press that were being lapped up; the siding with corporations; the increasing polarisation of communities, allowing standards to drop, partiicularly in media if there was a buck in it (have you seen/heard some of the stuff that comes out of radio stations?), etc, compared to when I was growing up and a young adult in Australia, were stark. Maybe as I lived in it, I didn't notice it. But I recall the presumption of the unemployed as unlucky or disadvantaged rather than pure bludgers (I know the term dole bludgers has been around forever, but how many people actually thought it). I certainly don't recall the levels of homelessness there is now, and the total indifference to it.

 

Having lived in the US, I can vouch the averge American will back their mates as much as Aussies - the thing is Aussies, as in WWII, would consider more people their mates, whereas Americans it was really only a close circle of friends. Now, I think Australia is much more akin to the American version of mates. Australia seems to have its fair share of right and left wing extremistst, too..

 

Who would have thought, when I was a young adult, that Pauline Hanson or Fraser Anning would be elected to parliament. I think Pauline Hanson was starting to eminate in QLD as I left Australia the first time, and everyone treated her and her policies as a joke. When I was last in Melbourne, I could find a lot of support for her.. I was truly astounded.

 

Australia's not the only place. Nigel Farage (and to a lesser extent, Boris Johnson) has been able to acheive his aims unfortunately through a nationalist/populist front. Although Marie LePenn was defeated at the last French polls, there is a rising nationalist/populist movement in France; Even Germany has had a rise in Facist/Nazistic parties. Eastern European countries, who have been "oppressed" for decades, after a brief bout of western style democracy, seem to be heading back to more extreme (or traditional) positions.

 

I think the problem is too much wealth, moving towards a more individual centric philosophy and too much centralisation of wealth leaving many segments of society marginalised. There is less tolerance as a result, and if you can find a charismatic leader who can say want they want to hear, you have yourself another Trump.. If they are more competent, I may take Willeedoo's advice and move to Russia...

Edited January 14, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

...The intruders at Capitol were not acting out a policy. But they were revolting.

The peasants are revolting!

 

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

That last one raises the point that responsible government shouldn't just help the rich, but must adopt some policies that share the social responsibility (of health care, for instance). Which sounds suspiciously like a socialist agenda to many. It raises the "Commie fear" that seems to petrify so many of them.

It amazes me that so many Americans vote against their own best interests. Most of the developed world has much more efficient social welfare than the US. and a lot less crime. All they seem to know about Europe is the high taxes; they don’t seem to realize people live safer, healthier and more secure  lives.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/reel/playlist/the-nordic-way?vpid=p09312qp

 

 

[Marty_d]

I'd be surprised if they could get to a sitting president, security for the POTUS is seriously good at any time and probably much more now.  Joe's more likely to die of natural causes relating to his age (apologies to those on the site older than he) than a bullet from some redneck who's only ever pinged targets at 100 yards with his AR-15.

 

 

[old man emu]

Trump rode to power on the slogan. "Make America Great Again". Obviously this, and his call to "drain the swamp", meant that his aim was to make radical changes to the American Nation and Federal politics. It reminds me what is written in the Gospel of John at 2:19: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

 

This was a statement made at the time Jesus cleared the Temple of merchants, causing quite a kerfuffle. Since Jesus had just disrupted their business and caused a scene, they were right to question Him. In doing so, they challenged Him (John 1:18) to perform a miracle. This was the sign of a prophet, and would have demonstrated that Jesus' words were actually from God.  Instead of responding with fireworks, Jesus makes a claim which almost nobody understands at first. The temple in Jerusalem had taken nearly fifty years to build. It was the most important place in Jewish society. Work on this particular temple had been nearly constant since around 20 BC. So, when Jesus claimed that He could rebuild a destroyed temple in only three days, they assumed He was crazy. However, Jesus' reference was to His future death and resurrection. 

 

In other words, to make something anew, it is necessary to tear down the old. Not saying that in any way, shape or form Trump is a messiah, but there's logic in what he said. Trump's Presidency will die on the 20th of January. Will he rise from the dead on the Third day? Will his demise lead to America becoming great again? But if so, how will its greatness be defined? 

[Marty_d]

Jeez, OME, put the cap back on the Shiraz.

Just because the simple-minded basket of deplorables (yes, looks like she was right) think that Trump is their messiah, he remains simply a sociopathic, narcissistic, crooked cashed-up bogan.

 

If there were equal justice for all, Trump's only future would be a jail cell, with no resurrection for 10-15.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

The peasants are revolting!

 

Doh! I thought I was shooting pheasants....

 

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

It amazes me that so many Americans vote against their own best interests. Most of the developed world has much more efficient social welfare than the US. and a lot less crime. All they seem to know about Europe is the high taxes; they don’t seem to realize people live safer, healthier and more secure  lives.

I think you can include many western societies in that statement. Has voting in the LNP been in the interest of the majority of voters that voted them in? Probably not. Would voting in Labor be in the interest of the majority? Probably not. At any point in time, one party may represent the interest of the majority better than the other, but LNP is clearly big existing/obsolete business, and Labor is usually more moderate but union worker focused. My brother has recently obtained a position where he now has to handle industrial relations with the organisation he works for - and he can't believe a lot of it - and he is a traditional Labor supporter. 

 

And also, the perception of what is right or good for oneself or the community is very much subjective (within extremities) based on individual situation, culture and education... and your trust in the government. In Sweden, they have great trust in the government because of what it has accomplished. People would be happy paying taxes because they feel they get good value for money. The government has probably focused on the collective good rather than narrow and vested interest.. Also, their culture is (or was) a lot less self-centred. I watch a documentary on Sweden some time ago and the thing tha struck me was a communioty spirit of a Swedish word that roughly translated to "enough".. That is, they were happy with enough for a comfortable life... they weren't obsesesed with individual greed (on the whole). Although I am in no way anti-immigration, my guess is Sweden has much lower rates of immigration against a much older established culture than the US, Aus, and the like, which makes it easier for the government to cater for the needs of the population - a monoculture is easier to serve than multi-cultures...

 

All this combines to instill trust in the government of the wider population and this was borne by their approach to the pandemic. There was no lockdown and the government trusted the people to do the right thing as advised by the government and they generally did. Social distancing, masks where required, elderly and vulnerable protected. Yes, Sweden's numbers are up now, but the government has put their hand up to the mistake - not tried to cover it up.

 

Compare this to the US, UK, Australia, most western European countries (to a lesser extent), etc.. Who trusts the governments? Which of these governments hold the best interests (whatever they may be) of everyone? What is our collective culture? Who thinks the government is doing a good job and we are getting good value for our taxes? Which civil servants aren't following their agenda? What about a press that is also partisan?

 

If we don't trust the government, if the government is going to run along narrow/vested lines of interest, etc., if they are going to protect their mates or allow discretions they don't allow the population, are we going to be happy contrinuting to higher taxes? Are we going to think about the other person, or is it going to be an "I'm alright jack.." approach? How many people today still are anti-maskers despite all the evidence? Why is that?

 

If we don't trust the government, we want to limit its reach - one oway of doing that is to minimise our taxes, minimise the role of the state, and therefore minimise the opportunity (if there is one in such jurisdictions) of becoming more like Sweden (and most other Nordic conuntries).

 

Note, in the documentary I saw, there was a recognition that the "enough" philosophy was eroding - slowly. In the video posted by OK, there is a dichotomy between immigrants and indigenous (although I would expect anyone born to an immigrant would be considered for a national id, so hopefully it won;t be more than a generation of difference).

Edited January 14, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Thanks for adding to the mix, Jerry. I appreciate your input.

 

If we continue down the current path of disconnection between public and government (= the difference between voters and the controlling donors), then democracy is doomed.

 

I don't like the alternatives at all.

 

In the current system, government of the people is controlled by vested interests. So, it doesn't act in the interests of the people.

 

To his is unlikely to change.

 

I really like the concept of mandating that ALL political donations should be only permitted to flow through the AEC. From there they should be distributed equally to all candidates. Anything else is truly bribery.

 

That too is highly unlikely.

[pmccarthy]

The one change that would greatly benefit our society is 100% income tax after $600,000 income, indexed to inflation. Politicians to be paid say $200,000 maximum. Think about the consequences and changes in behaviour.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon Swedes have taken political correctness too far.  There is great censorship preventing news of moslem attacks on women there for example. As has happened in Germany.

Sweden, with its tolerance to immigration of moslems, has tried to be the world's champion of civilization and tolerance and they have paid an awful price.

 

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Jeez, OME, put the cap back on the Shiraz.

Yep, what I said implying that Trump had a plan that was aimed at changing the USA for the better is highly unlikely to be true, but one never knows. I don't believe Trump ever had anything more in mind than self-aggrandizement, but maybe changes will come. We've said here that the Constitution needs to be brought up to date in some sections, and that could happen if fundamentalist who hold that the original constitution is immutable could be converted to the fact that not everything needs to be changed. Even the 2nd Amendment could be reconstructed to still permit gun ownership, but incorporating those restrictions that several States have introduced and which have been found by the superior courts not to violate the amendment.

 

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

100% income tax after $600,000 income,

High taxes on income can stifle the growth of the factors that encourage income generation. I agree that some incomes are well and truly above reasonable levels - sports people and media personalities come readily to mind, but you can't penalise people whose hard work and skills result in their obtaining a high return based on the provision of employment for others. 

[old man emu]

9 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I reckon Swedes have taken political correctness too far

I have a Swedish email-mate (is penpal an archaic word?) and have sent him what Jerry wrote so that he can comment on it. We'll see tonight what he says as a resident, but not Swedish born.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks OME. I think they have taken non-racism so far that police cannot use any reference to appearance etc when seeking perps.

How they justify neutrality to Germany in WW2 is a mystery to me. Sure they made a lot of money selling Bofors guns to each side. Please ask your mate about this.

Also, when there is a clash between being pro-female and anti-racist, why do people like me think that the females always lose? Like when a group of women are attacked by a group of moslem men?