No no no. You're mixing up two different things. Capitalism and murder are unrealted for this exercise. Capitalism exists all by itself.

So the owner of CokeMart killing McCracky's is not a function of Capitalism, possibly a by-product. The rules "we" have that surround the Drug Trade serve only to interfer with the pure essence of its Capitalstic possibililties. The Drug Trade need not be an ugly thing... Murder IS an ugly thing. Drug Trade could exist very nicely without crime... were but drugs legal.

In an example it's not important to pick every possible scenario out to glean the gist of the concept.

I'm getting hung up in the practices of many drug dealers because I'm assuming that's what Turnea was refferring to when he said that the illegal drug trade was "tearing our country apart". My point is that the tactics of the drug dealers are what's tearing this country apart, not the capitalist system. Turnea mistook what is doing the real damage. He [and I'm assuming you, Quark] is saying that the drug trade's damage on society is a result of unfettered capitalism [I'll ignore the fact that by banning something you're making it as fettered as possible], when he should be saying that the drug trade is harming society because of the tactics of the drug lords which is made possible because the drug trade is underground, which has nothing to do with capitalism, and, in fact is the result of NOT freeing the market and allowing drug dealers to participate in an open market.

And just as a point of order: By definition the ILLEGAL drug trade is not unfettered.

Emphasis mine. That's my point, that's exactly my point. What makes the drug deal violent and deadly is not capitalism. What makes it violent and deadly is the fact that it is illegal. That's exactly what I've been saying.

CP

Ok we're having two diffferent conversations here - let me clarify the one I'm having.

In a vaccuum the Drug Trade is a pristine example of Capitalism. Stop! Don't add anything to that.

Now... wait. OK. Good.

You and I agree on just about everything else so let us never speak of those points again

Granted. What Turnea attempted to do, however, is blame the social harms of the illegal drug trade on capitalism...Can we agree that that is unreasonable?

CP

Well then. Perhaps you can define what you mean by multiculturalism? I gave you my definition. What is yours?

I wouldn't want to go "around and around and never get anywhere".

While you're at it, you can elaborate on what you mean by "identifier" and what you mean by "popular culture" as well.

The civil war? That's the end result of multiculturalism by my definition. I guess you'll have to give us your definition of the cultural split that precipitated that bloody conflict.

Here's one example of "multiculturalism":

In a multicultural society, it is OK for lordhelmet and Victoria Silverwolf to be members of a minority religious opinion. In a unicultural society, it would not be OK.

Which do you prefer?

I don't follow your point. What is meant by multiculturalism these days isn't traditional American religious freedoms such as what you are specifically referring to.

It's the belief that we should allow ENTIRE cultures to have their own place in this country independent of others. It's the belief that they should live separate but equal but yet be able to practice their own cultural values, norms, standards, language, even LAWS outside of the rest of America.... but of course reap all the financial and legal benefits related to American citizenship.

Here's an objective definition which may help in this debate.

Wikipedia definition

Quarkhead claimed that the founding fathers were believers in "multiculturalism". They were not. They believed in the "melting pot" approach as do I.



I maintain that the modern definition of "muliticulturalism", if taken to its end, will result in the "Balkanization" of the USA.

A far better approach is to assimilate people, adopt what's best from their native cultures into the culture at large, and reject the bad parts (which were likely the reason they left those native cultures for America in the first place).

While I did read your post, actually more than once, I disagree.

Frankly, I believe that you can dig/reach back as far as you want to find roots in some society for music, food, or some other assemblance of culture. Frankly, to the naked eye there is little or no easily discernable correlation. Rap music and African culture really don't connect unless you pull out some magic marker and draw your own lines. One can use archeological evidence to find at least dotted links to all man kind in general, but that doesn't give license to apply labels at will and expect general society to accept it.

The nature of this conversation lies in that if everyone has some heritage that they lay claim to outside of the US, who is really "American"?

As I've mentioned, I've had my feet on soil in Europe, S. America, the Middle East, and even Japan. There has never been a time at which people mistook me for someone other than an American. Sure, tan skin and a southern accent give me away, but frankly the world doesn't see a black (brown) man from the US as African in any sense. Funny enough, our Latin American Bus Dev guy took me to Mexico City last year, where we met our CFO who is from York, UK to negotiate a deal with the carrier. Oddly, the client knew immediately (partly from my Spanish) that I was not only American but from Texas.

We need to wake up and smell the roses... and accept and be elated that we're American. The other 170+ industrialized nations in the world see us as just that. Being proud of heritage is one thing. Attempting to straddle a national or cultural fence is another.

Okay, I'm back. ...in between I've discovered what I already knew (and I think you've found out too, every second-semester college student does) textbooks are a racket!!

I swear after you're done with the blinkin' things you can't give them away. Ten bucks for a physics text that cost me a fortune... its disgusting.

Maybe I should have used that as my example of capitalism gone wrong.

I think I'll stick with the drug trade though for I'm afraid the social harms caused by the drug trade are due to the dealers employment of unregulated capitalism. Stretching supply by cutting in worthless (occasionally dangerous) additives is lowering materials cost much as Coca-Cola does using concentrated corn syrup instead of natural sugar. Sure one gives you a spark heap for a brain while another just makes you fat and rots your teeth... but the principle is capitalist. Lower cost, raise profit.

Cutting out the competition, though under-cutting prices or throat-slitting murder is still purely profit driven.

Capitalism is deadly dangerous without careful regulation. It is not something that holds a country together in and of itself.

I stand by my original answer.

That's what holds us together in practice.

Cultural laws are not part of the definition of multiculturalism.

The point of multiculturalism is to allow anyone to keep their culture except where it impignes on the natural rights and freedoms of other, period.

I noticed you didn't quote that definition you linked to except to bit about Jay which was not really part of the definition.



link
Victoria Siverwolf is right in saying it is the natural extention of the doctrine of individual freedoms that makes this country such a great place to live when adhered to.

I don't look to the founding fathers for help in dealing with a multicultural world, frankly our history has shown that those old tactics failed miserably when confronted with crises and led to some of the ugliest moments in our history.

When embraced, multiculturalism has defied the sordid hisory of forced assimilation.

Tell me about it. I bought four books last semester, was only able to sell one back due to "new editions coming out". Net loss: $280...Although I can understand that, Northeastern's really scraping the bottom of the barrel financially speaking

These qualities in and of themselves are not dangerous. They do become dangerous when they are driven underground by regulation...which is the opposite of free market. So I submit to you that the drug trade is doing what it is doing to various communities as a result of regulation. Bring drugs into the free market and the ideals of "lower cost" and "raise profit" are still there, but the techniques used to do so [killing the opposition, etc] will dissapear. Capitalism is not the reason why the drug trade is ugly, the drug trade is ugly becuase it is underground, which again, is a direct result of banning drugs.

On edit: Let me go about this a different way Turnea. What specific aspects of the drug trade are "tearing our country apart", in your opinion?

CP

I don’t think we can come up with a definition that will suit everyone. Victoria is correct, but there are other practical manifestations of multiculturalism. If it were not for multiculturalism, would we - for example - have French, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, German and Italian restaurants?

Do "real" Americans eat only almost raw steak and baked potatoes or bar-be-cue washed down with Coors Light?

In the movie Selena, the slain tejano star’s father allegedly said, “Gringos love Mexican food”. As a Texan, I bear that out. We have our own concoction called “TexMex.” Ah, I love that TexMex. I’ll have to visit Joe T. Garcia’s famous restaurant soon. How UnAmerican of me. Bad BoF, bad BoF.

http://www.joets.com/

I like this definition by Lord Parekh.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3600791.stm

If you object to this definition Lordhelmet, I'm sure you'll let us know. The ball is now in your court.

Questions for Debate:

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?



aevans176 has hit on the main thing about "hyphenate Americans". Americans always concentrate on what comes before the hypen. The rest of the world blinks in dumb astonishment that you don't seem to notice what comes after it.

Indeed, as an outsider, I'd go so far as to say that the ceaseless argument inside America over whether Americans should all unite around their ideals or their culture or their politics rather than whatever their hyphen-designator allows them to define themselves as is itself uniquely American.

America is, to date, the only country that is based on an idea rather than an accident of birth.

I am British because I was born and raised here. Say what you like, any immigrant that comes here from anywhere, whether or not they qualify for legal citizenship, can never "become" British the way immigrants to America can become American. (These days, their kids can, and do, become British in every meaningful way.)

Nearly every other country on Earth defines itself more (e.g. Australia) or less (e.g. Japan) as the British do - it's mainly about where you're from, not what you believe in.

Only America defines itself on ideas, and so only in America can such arcane discussions of precisely what "American" means take place.

2. From many, one. That's not uniquely American; it's how all nations define themselves these days.

3. On the plus side, multiculturalism in moderation allows for the "melting pot" to which lordhelmet referred, with lasting ideas of some sort of otherness. Distinctiveness is not forced out of existence, but neither is it forcibly entrenched. It's hard to say whether the remaining cultural diversity within America will last all that long - America is still, in global terms, a very young nation. The "Welshness" of pre-revolutionary Welsh settlers is pretty much gone (walk around in a red jersey wearing a leek/daffodil in New England on 1 March, and all you'll get are funny looks from people with names like Price or Pritchard or Preece or Jones or Davies or Llewellyn, who will probably be wearing green and drinking Guinness a full two and a half weeks before Paddy's Day). In another 300 years, who can say whether discussions about "African American" or "Mexican American" will be as irrelevant as "Welsh American" or "English American" are today.

That's not to say people of African or Mexican origin will have contributed any more or less to the future (and present, and past) of America than people of English or Welsh stock, just that such things fade, given enough time.

On the minus side, multiculturalism, taken too far, can cause isolation, division, suspicion, and persecution - usually of the minority that are isolating themselves.

I'm not sure that it fades over time - for two millennia, Jews kept themselves (almost totally) separate from the cultures and races they lived amongst, and they haven't all merged into the general Euro mongrel - though it's important to remember that many, many did.

However, even this can have a plus side; Jewish culture is still there and still distinct and still vibrant.

Taking a non-religious example, the Welsh (yes, the Welsh, again - does he ever shut up about them ??) have emerged from centuries of persecution and occupation by the English with a vibrant culture of their own; Native American tribes are beginning to reassert themselves somewhat, now crushing poverty is being alleviated somewhat by casino money.

So perhaps time - and lots of it - can be the real unifier. There is reason for hope as well as fear in multiculturalism. It's nothing to fear in itself; only in its implementation.

I have issues on two fronts.

1. Driving something underground is not the "ultimate" form of regulation in all cases particularly with the drug market. I think of regulation in practical rather than simply legal terms. Dealers don't stretch drug because drugs are illegal, they do it to make more money.

Legalizing drugs would, in an of itself, do nothing to stop that. Nothing to address the risk of permanent health damage and the social dilemma which follow.

We could have the same discussion about smoking and I think thats a better example as I can see some problems with my using the drug trade, which I may need to bring up in another thread.

The point as it pertains to this thread is as follows in general, rather that analogy-driven form.

Capitalism, taken alone, is not a cohesive force. In fact its emphasis on personal aggrandizement as a driving factors makes it divisive by definition.

Not "wrong", but divisive.

There is nothing about duty to country in the practice of capitalism, it is a global world-view, unburdened by patriotism.

I wouldn't have it any other way, but to say it holds America together....


It seems to me the same is true in America, we just don't like to admit it.

Answer: we all are. It is a sum total of all of those parts, or whichever pieces of them one chooses to adapt, that defines us. We adapt parts of other cultures all the time (which is why we don't speak English...we speak American, as I'm sure any Brit here will attest).

I'm curious...do other countries have hyphenated members? I haven't heard of any. (correct me if I'm on wrong on this). I think that's part of what makes America America. Since we all do come from somewhere else, we are a country used to that, and adapt it to our culture much more so than other countries, I think. That, to me, is a big part of what being an American is. Not that I don't think other countries don't do this...but countries with an older history than we do, generally with a much more distinct culture of their own, would naturally not be as much of a 'melting pot' as we are. After all, almost everybody is from 'somewhere else' if you go back far enough. We just haven't had as much time to become homogenized as other countries.

I was listening to John McWhorter on NPR and he was saying as he frequently travels to Europe, he finds places like London rather dull (sorry, Julian) because it lacks the diversity you find in New York City.

He's absolutely right because spend one hour sitting in the lobby of a Manhattan hotel and you'll hear so many different languages, accents and people from every corner of the globe in one place. It's intoxicating.

That is one of things that makes America the greatest social experiment in cultural diversity of all time. It's not a melting pot. It's a gumbo. The idea isn't that we should all be the same and conform to the norms and customs of one group over the other, but that all cultures are equally respected and you don't have to lose your roots to plant new ones here.

Some people seem to think what makes someone an American is how much they are like them. That's not the way it works out and I couldn't be more pleased that's the case.

Hobbes:

Ever been to the PI? No hyphens, but the Ilocanos are reported by the Tagalogs to keep their money safely hidden in that sock under the mattress. The Tagalogs also think the Ilocanos rather miserly [cheap]. And both of them together, well, I married a gal from the Bicol region [southern Luzon] and the word from the Ilocanos and Tagalogs is that boys from Bicol grow up to be priests while girls become bar girls/whores, though my wife was never a bar girl and none of her brothers are or were ever priests. And let's not talk about those darn Cebuanos, who inhabit the Visayan islands, and who speak not Tagalog or Ilocano, or even Bicolano, but Cebuano, and how dare they [they are about a third of the population of the PI]. And so some in the PI are still trying to forge an initial identity of one and all simply being Filipino. The relatively new national language dubbed Filipino is nothing more or other than Taglish, i.e., Tagalog and English, and so your more elite Tagalogs are all in favor of adoption of "Filipino" as the national language, while some others see the elimination of their own language in favor of "Filipino" as the first step in the destruction of their culture.

Oh, and we haven't even talked about Mindanao. But Mindanao would bring us to religious divide, since it isn't ethnicity/race but faith that explains why we and they call them Moros, i.e., by ethnicity/race the Moros are Maquindanao, Maranao, and Sulu, and speak different languages, but they are united by Islam, while the majority of the rest of the peoples inhabiting the PI are Roman Catholic. Precisely because the Spanish did not judge them by ethnicity/race but by faith, the Roman Catholic Spanish called the Muslim Maquindanao, Maranao, and Sulu, "Moros." The Roman Catholic peoples of the PI, be they Ilocano, Tagalog, etc., adopted the distinction and so too call them Moros. On an interesting side note, and this is something we might want to play up in the press, but in 1935, when the Commonwealth of the Philipines came into existence, our Moro friends, fearing domination by the rather largely Roman Catholic peoples of the rest of the PI, asked that Mindanao and Sulu remain under US administration. Of course, we rejected their request. But they did ask and that says something about us, I mean, it's not like the Moros can say that they asked to remain under our administration because we were "Crusaders." And there's even the spin off, I mean, what was the Commonwealth of the Philippines that come into existence in 1935? A planned step towards Republika ng Pilipinas [Republic of the Philippines]?

Oh, and for turnea and civil rights, the Moros are otherwise the most impoverished group in the PI and so have the lowest life expectancy. Which is not to blame the government of the PI, or the peoples of the PI, since hard to expect all to be in favor of helping those who have stated their desire to secede from your union, and it's also hard to do some real reconstruction in the middle of an insurgency, even if some otherwise wanted to do some reconstruction. Oh, and for faith day parades, the subject of that other thread/topic here on AD, well, Victoria, it is indeed the fact that the majority of the peoples of the PI are Roman Catholic that gives one hope that eventually unity will come, as they have at least that much in common as their starting point, and one can always otherwise say that one's faith should define one's identity, and so there's hope.

Even if one accepts the "melting pot" idea, the substance in the pot is a dynamic, energetic force, not the stasis Pat Buchanan and others applaud.

If we melt pure aluminum we get a weaker material than the alloy obtained by mixing in other substances. There is no melting pot that isn't influence by what is melted therein. We simply can't melt in a variety of cultures and have an outcome that resembles late 18th Century European America. Pat Buchanan you are in daydream mode.

Call it gumbo or an alloy, but in my opinion, we are strengthened by every change in the brew.

Thanks for pointing that out because along with nighttimer's quote it makes a critical distinction which a multicultural society cannot afford to forget.

I understand his objection to to use of the melting pot metaphor because it may be one of the most conistently abused concepts in this nation's history. I mean manifest destiny used to sound good too, but now a lot of us are remembering to count the true cost.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people don't melt. Expecting them to will only lead to disaster. The assimilationist mindset is the antithesis of multiculturalism and is one of the major factors that causes division among Americans.

Assimilation and multiculturalism are forever at odds and I for one choose the latter as in philosophy and practice is has out done assimilation hands down.

Buchanan argues that common cultural elements (in his view, those derived from Western Europe) -"race, faith, ethnicity, and history" (page 248) are what make a nation. He rejects what he calls a propositional nation, that is, one held together by ideals such as liberty and self-government derived from the constitution and laws. He says that the latter view is held by people like historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Questions for Debate:

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors? I disagree completely with Buchanan. Why did the people he mentions (those from Western Europe) come over here in the first place? Liberty and self government. It is those ideals that have always bound this country together, and brought other people over. It is pretty obvious how Buchanan views the influence other cultures are having as their percentage of the population increases. It's a shame, really--Buchanan is missing what makes America great, IMHO.

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

I'm not sure exactly what the context is here, but I tihnk "From many, one." One signifies unitedness , the other diviseness.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism. Hmmm. It depends on what the 'ism' implies. Being multicultural, to me, doesn't have any disadvantages. What's negative about being exposed to more things, and being able to take the best from any of them? Steps taken in the 'ism' part are often disfunctional. If one is truly multicultural, then there shouldn't need to be an 'ism' to foster it.

I was actually think about the underlying principle here while in what was possible the most boring lecture I've ever been in (at one point a classmate turned to me calmly and said "I am about to lose my *expletive deleted* mind....")

I liken this to the Second Law of Thermodynamics:


Entropy is simply a scientific measure of chaos. In other words, things tends to break down rather than build themselves of, lose rather than gain in order.

As true as this is of physical systems it is even more true of a social dynamic.

The human tendency in the absence of civilizing influences is conflict.

I want what I want, that's not what you want, too bad, gimme what I want chump!

What we've done to civilize ourselves is in large part to to "-isms". Through establishing values and common belief systems that minimize undesirable conflict.

Representative democracy, natural rights, and multiculturalism are all great examples.

The don't hold use together as uniquely American, they do however, encourage use not to give each other the royal smackdown every time a political issue rears its ugly head.

The "ism" is a decision. Multiculturalism is the understanding that cultural conformity is not a value we as a society we choose to seek.

We have other values that can clash with cultures, but "American" culture itself is not something to force on our fellow Americans.

It's necessary.

Multiculturalism is more than ethnic restaurants, it's a philosophy of mutual respect.

...and therein lies the dilemma for many of the opponents of a pluralistic society, Turnea. Giving up respect means having to give up so much more. You have to see others whom you once regarded as inferior as equals. That is a terrifying idea for those who yearn for a return to the safety of the status quo.

It's difficult for some people to grasp the idea that you can't call a Black man a "boy" and Native Americans don't feel honored by the Washington Redskins nickname and the tomahawk chop or Chief Wahoo logo. For some it's a painful notion that someone frowns now when they call a woman a "chick" or "baby" or someone who is gay a "fag." Giving up treating other human beings as less than equal to yourself is very difficult for these folks. They would rather slash their wrists than change their ways.

They would like to go back to some mythical "good old days" that really were only good for them. They resent having their options limited and their speech subject to sanction. They call it "political correctness" gone nuts and cry that it runs counter to their right of free speech.

What it really is resistance to the future and to the fact that nothing stays static in a world of motion. We don't live in the days of Ozzie and Harriet and everything isn't a purely white bread world if indeed it ever was.

It pains some people to have to respect others. They fear it diminishes their own place in the food chain to acknowledge that Latinos have a right to speak English and Spanish and if it bugs you that the ATM forces you to choose a language before you proceed to get your beer and pizza money, that's just tough.

The world is always moving in one direction--forward. Those that would prefer to live in the past are doomed to be dragged along kicking and screaming all the way into the brave new world where other cultures---different cultures, are considered equal to the one already in place.

Change or die. That is how evolution works. You adapt or you become extinct. Resist and protest all you like, but don't be surprised if the change comes anyway rolling right over you, with or without your approval.

Is it? Or is it something deeper. Personally, I don't think it's a decision you can enforce, at least not on individuals, or even on yourself. One either has this outlook, or one doesn't.



Ahh, now there we have it....a philosophy. This is much different than a decision. A philosophy helps guide you in making the proper decisions. I would fully agree that it is much more than ethnic restaurants...maybe its more like truly enjoying having them there. Which is kind of how I feel about multicuralism. It's much more than having lots of different cultures around...it's valuing them and their differences.




Exactly. Except that it never really was the status quo, but only their perception of it. Reality can be a scary proposition sometimes.

True enough, what I meant to say was that embracing multiculturalism is a decision. Similar to embracing democracy or civil liberty. One can take it or leave it, but leaving it has consequences.


We are not born with outlooks. A person can, and indeed must if one is to gain in wisdom, examine their outlook and work to improve to way they engage with their fellow human being.

Courtesy and respect are fundamental to healthy relationship on a small or large scale.

When abandoned harm to the relationships follows swiftly.

That is the real importance of multiculturalism its an expression of courtesy (or dare I say brotherly love? we used to call that one of our key values as some point).

Getting into a huff when two colleagues have a conversation in Spanish, or when a Sikh enters the office with his turban it not courteous, not loving, and not wise.

Of course, one can choose to seek these virtues, just as one can choose to reject natural rights or the concept of democracy.

Not all choices are good ones.

..and as a driver of public policy it means not hassling those who choose to display these differences.

It's limited government at its best, a plea for human beings of all cultures to mind their own business.

Just a thought. Doesn't some measure of cross culturalization take place, even if it is perhaps on a subconscious basis. Is it as Tennyson said?



Alfred Lord Tennyson
English poet (1809 - 1892)

In practice this is always true. I'ts funny how some complain about the assimilation of the African-American community when their ancestors have been in this country longer than many European-Americans and their culture is so much ingrained into America.

Time does tends to lead to the melting we talked about, but only to a point and only at an appreciable level on a generational scale. Individuals don't meld well.

That's why a lot of of people are warming to gumbo. Boiling anything mixes the flavors, that doesn't mean the constituent parts aren't discernible.

In the abstract multiculturalism recognizes that even if this cross culturalization doesn't take place at all, that doesn't mean we still can't get along just fine.

I understand the concern but I believe its important to remember that multiculturalism does not rest its hopes on time to bring us together, but the decision we make right here, right now, to behave respectfully towards one another.

That is a sure foundation for a healthy society. Far too often we cross our fingers and say that our children will do better, that the differences will fade away.

Our differences are not the problem, but how we approach them.

So yep, cross culturalization plays its part, but its really more of a supporting role.

I pretty much agree with nighttimer’s “gumbo” analolgy.

I do, however, believe that cross culturalization does take place. In other words, cultures can learn from each other without dominating each other.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

During the early to late 1970s, several hospitals in the Fort Worth imported a large number of nurses from England and Ireland and a lesser number from Scotland and Wales. Many of the nurses worked the 3 to 11 shift. As soon as they got off many of them would come to Mable’s Summit Club – long defunct. The nurses became my primary social group for nearly a decade.

I have never cared for phony British accents, so I avoided this scrupulously. Then I made friends with Nigerian, who was working toward a Ph.D. in International Relations, at what is now The University of North Texas.

Shortly after meeting the Nigerian, he asked me if I had been around British people. I told him "yes" and inquired about why he asked. He said that my speech was unique. According to him, I had a Texas accent delivered in British cadence. While I had avoided picking up the accent I had apparently picked up the cadence subconsciously.

BTW: When licensing procedures changed in the late 70s, most ot the nurses went home. I still miss those nurses. Those were my "good ol'days."

As an outsider and a European, the clearest difference is the civilian experience of war.
Europe is defined by this experience and it remains the clearest difference in culture and politics.
Growing up in the sixties and seventies the vast amount of literature, films, radio and TV in Europe equated war with deprivation and death, not far away but at home even in my home town with a deprivation that lasted long after, that was embellished with stories of relatives near escapes from death in their homes or the workplace as well as the joys of rationing.
Until recently I knew but did not fully comprehend that ww2 and immediately after was for the majority of U.S. the "Happy days" that is a time of wealth and plenty with pleasant planned neighbourhoods with no bombed out buildings. Not only in Europe but in the rest of the world the civilian population has born the brunt of war,

To have such different associations must create fundamental change to the culture.