Defending the Truth

Yeah, go there and "demand" your culture identity. Those damn Laotians would be a bunch of racists for not accepting this.

Actually I only need one or two female-type individuals.

Yes, and the genocide and take over of America by Europeans does not a true "Native American" make.

You seem to be confusing your argument; are you talking about nationality or ethnicity? Because on the one hand you correctly point out that you're not ethnically Chinese, yet you keep asserting your self as an "American" and similarly a "native American".

And yet, all three of those are different political entities. A Scot born in the Kingdom of Britain is British, but he is not English.

Really? Travel to Europe and say you're from the "country of America" and you get either strange looks or looks of pity. Similarly, if someone told me he/she was a "European", or "Asian", I think that warrants some specification.

Does it really? Your ancestors (Europeans) wiped out the native Americans and tens-of-millenia-old cultures and yet you consider yourself American. It seems as if it would require a similar event in Britain for you to consider black people British.

The United States is largely a cultural melting pot because such was forced upon the many already existing, at the time, native American nations. You're not native American just as you correctly point out that you're not native Chinese.

Tell me, is the mixing of races (the existence of "races", genetically speaking, is arbitrary at best) necessarily a bad thing?

Okay, upon some thought I have realized that my argument has been confused by now. No doubt my attempts at a Socratic method has ended in failure.

I was mainly attempting to differentiate between ethnicity and nationality.

I probably have more in common with a Swede of the same gender, age, and class than I do with a rich white gentile Protestant from the United States. Does that make me Swedish? Absolutely not. I'm an American. But what makes me American?

Usually, ethnicity, culture and nationality are separable and often times arbitrary parts of these kinds of designations. Ethnicity and race are probably among the most arbitrary. Therefore we're dealing with mostly perceptually assigned differences. I am of mostly German decent and of western culture but I'm not considered German, i.e. I lack nationality. On the other hand, someone who lacks the perceived ethnic designation of German or European (let's say a Turk), yet who is assimilated to their culture and was born there and has citizenship, is a German in the context of nationality.

Therefore, the statement of a fifth-generation Brit from African decent "is British" is not false even though saying that (perceptually) ethnically, "they aren't British" would also be a correct statement. As British citizens, black British are no less "British" than white British, and therefore they are no less deserving of the equalities under the law or equalities in the access to political participation.

In other words, I agree that you're American, PN, but I disagree that you're "Native American" (or ethnically American).

Likewise, I was attempting to differentiate between 'difference' and 'value to difference'. Being as completely arbitrary race and ethnicity is, and even national culture, value is often misappropriated among these arbitrary designations. In other words, there is a difference between recognizing the perceived difference of races, and to assign value to this difference (e.g. claim that it is bad if they are not separated). The former is as natural as recognizing that I'm taller than you are, the latter is an immoral position taken by racists and fascists alike.

The numbers that don't look good for Hillary have to do with the pledged delegate count, which, according to RealClearPolitics, Obama leads 1340 to 1206. Clinton is unlikely to overcome that lead by the end of the race, and to many Obama supporters, this means that the super delegates will have no choice but to support him. After all, if they don't, they are bucking the "will of the people," and we could have rioting in the streets.

Gee Kat, If I'm not American, then what the fuck am I - German? The United States of America (also referred to as America) wasn't even a nation until immigrants from Europe created it. It hard to say that the Indians were the first Americans when the country didn't even exist until 1776.

By the way, I live overseas most of the time and refer to myself as an "American" all the time. I haven't had anybody be confused by that. Further, I've never heard anybody say I'm a "United States of American." So, I'm not sure why you so on about being identified as an "American."

How far are you going to take it before you can identify yourself as a native of a particular country? Primitive humans lived in "America" long before the American Indian. Are you going to say the cavemen are the only true "natives."

I'm on the fence on that topic. Don't forget, my daughter is from China.

Interesting post, Bullwinkle. Otherwise, it could throw the democratic party into chaos. If the super delegates should wise up and support Obama, then that would bring chaos to order.