Red necks the only real Americans

Norsemaiden

barbarian
Dec 12, 2005
1,903
6
38
Britain
What do you say? Are red necks the only true Americans? I say yes, because if you imagine the idea of the President sending Americans to colonise another country (not that it would ever happen) who else could he send that would feel a blood tie and loyalty to the US as being their homeland?
 
Norsemaiden-I am not sure why you would think that rednecks are the only Americans who feel a blood tie to their country. 99% of Americans love their country. You don't have to agree with the direction that the current POTUS is taking the country to feel closeness to it. What made you pick rednecks anyway? I mean, it seems rather ridiculous. Please elaborate.
 
fah-q said:
Norsemaiden-I am not sure why you would think that rednecks are the only Americans who feel a blood tie to their country. 99% of Americans love their country. You don't have to agree with the direction that the current POTUS is taking the country to feel closeness to it. What made you pick rednecks anyway? I mean, it seems rather ridiculous. Please elaborate.

she's believing what she reads in 'The Guardian.'
 
fah-q said:
Sue, what is The Guardian?

it's the UK's equivalant of cat box liner [in the US, known as The New York Times].

a far-left leaning, anti-American crap-rag.

i'm willing to bet there have been editorials printed that say something to the effect of how all the 'civilized' Americans realize the European way is the ONLY way and any citizen that openly supports our nation is obviously a common 'redneck.'
 
SueNC said:
it's the UK's equivalant of cat box liner [in the US, known as The New York Times].

a far-left leaning, anti-American crap-rag.

i'm willing to bet there have been editorials printed that say something to the effect of how all the 'civilized' Americans realize the European way is the ONLY way and any citizen that openly supports our nation is obviously a common 'redneck.'
OK, now it makes more sense. It appears that the "philosophers" are trolling over here. Thanks.
 
What I mean is that if you send a random group of Americans to colonise somewhere that could include people of all different racial backgrounds. Americans are generally mixed up and doesn't the Statue of Liberty have this slogan of "Give me the wretched refuse of your teeming shores" or something like that?

The rednecks are the descendants of the first pioneers. They went to America and made it great. Now you invite anyone in, and let the scum of the earth multiply in America like rats. All at the expense of the hardworking whites who are made to feel ashamed at the same time. (Straight out of The Guardian! - not!)

Anyway if you send a mixed up group of so called Americans to another country to colonise it - incluing people who consider themselves Italian-American, Chinese-American, Cuban-American and don't even get along together as a community, how the hell are they going to behave when they colonise somewhere? They'd soon be fighting amongst eachother, splitting up and wanting to do their own thing. As individuals they might say they love America - but they don't have the group cohesion needed to maintain that allegeance once they have left it.

The US itself is falling apart and is going to be divided along racial lines. That's what happens with a hybrid government and polyracial subjects.
Refugees are bound to be grateful to the US for saving them, but they would never make a group of loyal American colonists.

But then the US is such a multiracial country now that only whites from isolated areas of southern states who never encounter the reality of the situation could really feel that they had a racial bond with the nation. There's nothing wrong with those that are disgusted with how things are and feel like their country has been stolen from them. That kind of feeling would make certain rednecks unsuitable as colonists. In fact they might be confused about just what it means to be an American in the modern day. Just some thoughts. Have I got a point or not?
 
Norsemaiden said:
What I mean is that if you send a random group of Americans to colonise somewhere that could include people of all different racial backgrounds. Americans are generally mixed up and doesn't the Statue of Liberty have this slogan of "give me the wretched refuse of your teeming shores" or something like that?

That includes every Western country these days Europe is full of non white immigrants as well...America in particular was never meant to be a mixed race nation, the writers of the constitution, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others were slave owners and didn’t believe in racial equality…it wasn’t until the 1965 immigration act where America has to deal with every single nationality on the planet.
 
Norsemaiden said:
What I mean is that if you send a random group of Americans to colonise somewhere that could include people of all different racial backgrounds. Americans are generally mixed up and doesn't the Statue of Liberty have this slogan of "Give me the wretched refuse of your teeming shores" or something like that?

The rednecks are the descendants of the first pioneers. They went to America and made it great. Now you invite anyone in, and let the scum of the earth multiply in America like rats. All at the expense of the hardworking whites who are made to feel ashamed at the same time. (Straight out of The Guardian! - not!) I am all for closing America's borders.

Anyway if you send a mixed up group of so called Americans to another country to colonise it - incluing people who consider themselves Italian-American, Chinese-American, Cuban-American and don't even get along together as a community, how the hell are they going to behave when they colonise somewhere? They'd soon be fighting amongst eachother, splitting up and wanting to do their own thing. As individuals they might say they love America - but they don't have the group cohesion needed to maintain that allegeance once they have left it. Anyone who calls themself a chinese-american, italian-american, irish-american shouldn't be going to begin with. Americans of Chinese descent, Americans of Irish descent etc, would be chosen. Besides, you are assuming ethnocentrism would supercede nationalism.

The US itself is falling apart and is going to be divided along racial lines. That's what happens with a hybrid government and polyracial subjects. Not if everyone thinks of themselves as Americans first.
Refugees are bound to be grateful to the US for saving them, but they would never make a group of loyal American colonists.Norsemaiden, if everyday you predict the fall of the US, eventually, you may be right. Operative words being eventually and maybe.

But then the US is such a multiracial country now that only whites from isolated areas of southern states who never encounter the reality of the situation could really feel that they had a racial bond with the nation. That's pure conjecture and after reading some of your other posts am quite suprised you would even lay that out here. There's nothing wrong with those that are disgusted with how things are and feel like their country has been stolen from them. I agree That kind of feeling would make certain rednecks unsuitable as colonists. In fact they might be confused about just what it means to be an American in the modern day. Just some thoughts. Have I got a point or not?
From what do you build your mental picture of rednecks? It would seem that you are about as qualified to comment on Rednecks as I am to comment on Mods.
 
fah-q said:
From what do you build your mental picture of rednecks? It would seem that you are about as qualified to comment on Rednecks as I am to comment on Mods.

Correct me if I am wrong but they are white people with a long history in the US are they not? I am particularly thinking of people from the Southern States like Hillbillies and Confederates.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Correct me if I am wrong but they are white people with a long history in the US are they not? I am particularly thinking of people from the Southern States like Hillbillies and Confederates.

OK... let's start off by realizing you havent got the SLIGHTEST idea about this nation. you apparently read something or watched some silly movie and were led horribly astray.

there are people of many ethnic backgrounds with a 'long history' in the US.
those with the longest history in the US arent white, at all. they're called Native Americans because they were on these shores LONG before any caucasion ever arrived.

as for the Southern states, during the Civil War, most states south of the Mason-Dixon line were considered a part of the Confederacy, so i guess that's where you get the term 'Confederates' from.

'Hillbillies' is a term that was used to describe simple country people living in the hill country of states like Tennessee or West Virginia and is not meant to be a blanket description of all of the southern United States.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Correct me if I am wrong but they are white people with a long history in the US are they not? I am particularly thinking of people from the Southern States like Hillbillies and Confederates.
You are mislead in your interpretation of what a redneck is. I am from New York and consider myself to be somewhat of a redneck. I could be wrong but, I am of the understanding that I am considered a redneck because of my interests and how I spend my free time more than anything else. For example, I own quite a few guns and am rarely without one. I tend to lean to the right in my political stance. My primary vehicle is a 4x4 pickup truck. I ride and build motorcycles, primarily Harley's and Norton's. I like getting dirty and drinking beer from a can. These and many other things are what comes to mind when I think of a redneck.
Being a redneck has nothing to do with your lineage. Are there still "confederates"?
 
None of y'all seem to know the origin of the word "redneck." The original rednecks were of Scotch-Irish descent. They immigrated to America as poor indentured servants. Basically, they were temporary slaves, forced to work for the already settled English Colonists.

The descendants of English settlers were upper class property owners. And they happened to own the cotton and tobacco plantations in the southern United States. African slaves worked the fields, of course, but paying for a desperate Scotch-Irish person's journey to America, in return for seven years of field labor, was also an option for some easy profit.

The indebted Scotch Irish people (among the palest ethnic groups on the planet ... I should know, I am Scotch-Irish), developed a red neck (sunburn), as they were working off their debt in the fields of the plantation. Hence, the term "redneck", became a classist slur againts poor, uneducated servants.

Nowadays, just about every schmuck who owns a house in the suburbs, refers to themselves as a redneck. I find it to be a bit pretentious.
 
The Scotch-Irish, by the way, were Protestants from Scotland who fled to Ireland to avoid religious persecution.

Or maybe it's the other way around. gotta look it up.
 
Dr Teeth seems to have the best idea. I may have been a little narrow in who I described as rednecks, but the truth still is that the only kind of people a President could begin to consider if he wanted to colonise some other country would be a reasonably homogenous group that feel a strong loyalty to the US. American Indians wouldn't do the job. Only white Americans who were of the most patriotic type would do it. Have you got a picture of them in your head? Are they mostly rednecks or not?

red·neck (rĕd'nĕk')
n. Offensive Slang.
Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
http://www.answers.com/topic/redneck

Is the most support for wars that America fights coming from this part of the US too? Are the Southern States more patriotic proportionately?
 
Dr.TEETH said:
None of y'all seem to know the origin of the word "redneck." The original rednecks were of Scotch-Irish descent. They immigrated to America as poor indentured servants. Basically, they were temporary slaves, forced to work for the already settled English Colonists.

The descendants of English settlers were upper class property owners. And they happened to own the cotton and tobacco plantations in the southern United States. African slaves worked the fields, of course, but paying for a desperate Scotch-Irish person's journey to America, in return for seven years of field labor, was also an option for some easy profit.

The indebted Scotch Irish people (among the palest ethnic groups on the planet ... I should know, I am Scotch-Irish), developed a red neck (sunburn), as they were working off their debt in the fields of the plantation. Hence, the term "redneck", became a classist slur againts poor, uneducated servants.

Nowadays, just about every schmuck who owns a house in the suburbs, refers to themselves as a redneck. I find it to be a bit pretentious.
Dr, I stated in my post "What I believe to be..." I thought we were discussing the contemporary definition of the term. If we are going to get into the history of it, I will admit now that I know nothing.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Dr Teeth seems to have the best idea. I may have been a little narrow in who I described as rednecks, but the truth still is that the only kind of people a President could begin to consider if he wanted to colonise some other country would be a reasonably homogenous group that feel a strong loyalty to the US. American Indians wouldn't do the job. Only white Americans who were of the most patriotic type would do it. Have you got a picture of them in your head? Are they mostly rednecks or not?


http://www.answers.com/topic/redneck

Is the most support for wars that America fights coming from this part of the US too? Are the Southern States more patriotic proportionately?
From a historical standpoint, the good Dr. does seem to have the best idea. I was speaking from what I believed the contemporary term to be.
I have spent little time in the south so, I can't say for certain if they are more patriotic down there. In the northeast, we have a lot of liberal democrats who are opposed to the war in Iraq. I am of the opinion that you are not necessarily un-patriotic if you oppose the war. That line gets crossed when you are doing things that hurt the morale of the troops and such.
In regards to whom a president would send to colonise. Everytime I try to answer that question, it just raises more questions.
-Colonization is not the m.o. of the US. When we fight, we usually kick the crap out of a country, pay to rebuild and then never get our $$$ back. We never colonize.
-If we were to colonize. I believe that military families would be sent first. This means that multi-racial families would be placed there. After the anti-american sentiment died down (if ever). I believe that movement to that country would be on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it would be a socio-economic equation and not a racial one. Eh?