 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.69.140.23
In Reply to: RE: Thanks, Dave, for the informative, and courteous, posted by jamesgarvin on August 29, 2007 at 10:49:40
about upward mobility in "outside asylum" I'd join in.
You really aren't making your case by pointing to a few high profile Americans, are you?
Follow Ups:
Some stats: of the 651 members of parliament, there are three Asian, and three black members. Diversity? "Old Britain?"
"about upward mobility in "outside asylum" I'd join in."
Well, your prior post had nothing to do with "films", and probably also belonged in Outside, but since you jumped in, I saw no issue with me doing the same.
"You're thinking of old Britain"
No. England still has a Queen, and someday a King. They earn those titles, and riches that come with the title, simply by being born, having done nothing to earn the riches. Now, the U.S. has its share of trust fund children, but the difference is there it is, to a great extent, a state subsidized institution, whereas here, it is not.
"You really aren't making your case by pointing to a few high profile Americans, are you?"
There are many more. Those are the ones that came to me quickly. The point stands, though, how many people of color are given the reigns to lead the English government? How many of those people leading the English government have been culled from the lower classes? Could some like Rice, the daughter of sharecroppers from the South, raise to the pinnacle of the English Government. They have had several hundred years of a head start, and I doubt you can find someone in English history akin to Rice. Or Colin Powell. Or Gonzalez. No doubt you can go back to prior administrations, or a variety of state governments.
Dave appears to agree that England is still a country preoccupied with class. I suspect that if the Senate, House, and Governor's mansions in the U.S. were all lilly white protestants, you would be blasting the U.S. England, though, gets a pass.
Monarchy does not actually necessitate an inherited title.
Systems that elect parliaments to rule are closer to democracy than presidential ones, in my opinion.
THe black population of Britain has only really been statistically significant for 50 years.
I haven't lived there for 8 years so I can't comment on the number of black representatives in local government.
"THe black population of Britain has only really been statistically significant for 50 years."
Let's not forget that until the mid 60's, a scant forty years ago, black people's right to vote was somewhat limited in the South. It was not that long ago racial murders were taking place.
"But the USA elects a king every 4 years"
Elect is the operative word here.
"Systems that elect parliaments to rule are closer to democracy than presidential ones, in my opinion."
With the major distinction being that the Prime Minister is not elected by the people, but rather by the representatives the people elect. Sort of like Congress electing the President.
"Monarchy does not actually necessitate an inherited title."
I am not sure what you mean here.
I was trying/hoping to say that monarchy merely means rule by one and that it is not necessary for that to be a hereditary title.
In Britain, for example, it is not as important who is prime minister as it is important in the USA who is president.
The power is not as concentrated. The party rules to a much greater extent.
For this reason, it has not been that rare for ruling parties to change leader during a parliament, eg when the Conservative Party dismissed Thatcher.
it doesn't and that's a common logical fallacy.
The Queen proves nothing. Neither do Rice or, for that matter, Clarence Thomas: they didn't have slaves or sharecroppers in England, now did they, a generation ago?
You'd also do well to consider how much diversity exists in England: it's still a very white country with nowhere near the people of color we have.
There are stats which SHOW the ability of the poor to elevate themselves across different cultures and countries: these are sociological studies using accepted research methodology.
The cabinet of Britain, btw, is known as the Scottish Mafia. Now THAT'S diversity!
"There are stats which SHOW the ability of the poor to elevate themselves across different cultures and countries: these are sociological studies using accepted research methodology."
Then perhaps you can provide them to support your argument. Or are you akin to a King, in which your "opinion" is deemed to be fact.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
