You might find the following newspaper article educational.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists.html?in_page_id=489557&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=244

 

Quote: How difficult it is to write about immigration without being misrepresented...

 

Title: I'm all for planned immigration.But what worries me is whether a country that is still recognisably British will survive in 50 years

 

by Stephen Glover.

If the link doesn't work:

www.dailymail.co.uk/

Access: Columnists

Access: Stephen Glover

Who?

 

Although an official genealogy has not yet been completed,there is evidence that his heritage includes Welsh,English,Scottish,Irish,French,Dutch,German and Jewish ancestry.His great-great grandparents were William Mansell and Morning Dove White who was a full blood Cherokee indian,which would make him 1/16 Cherokee.His surname was Anglicized from the German Pressler during the Civil War.His ancestor Johanin Valentin Pressler emigrated to North America in 1710.Pressler first settled in New York,but later moved to the South.There is even a possibility that he was distantly related to Oprah Winfrey.

 

Answer: Elvis Presley.

@ Altoids

Michael Steele is from the state of Maryland, not New Jersey. 

Telling Armor to save his sneers for "someone who gives a damn", suggests that you don't give a damn.  That tends to undercut the power of whatever 'arguments' you are trying to make.

@ Atheling

'Bollekeboy' has written a long paragraph to explain in what specific sense he thinks that Americans (today) are "more European" than modern Europeans are.   He uses the term "European" in an historical/cultural sense, whereas you are using it in a geographic sense.  So, I think there is no real difference between you and him.  And, of course, your abhorrence of Armor's manifest racism and your insistence on a distinctive American culture today, are very 'modern American'. 

 

@pvdh

 

So, you think that you "have always considered myself to be SIMPLY ME".   As if you were a fully-formed individual that suddenly dropped from the sky, independent of any cultural societal context that helped "form" you.   It is strange that you, the naive-leftie intellectual, would take the extreme 'individualistic'  position on a purported 'conservative' blog.   Since you seem to be unaware, or at least not fully cognisant, of the cultural determinants of your "me", it is no surprise that you are not much concerned about preserving the underlying culture that 'made' you.    Genuine 'conservatives' know better.  They know (but can not fully fathom) who it is that made you physically, they also realise that 'culture' was used to help form you spiritually, and they know that cultures change over time (which is the real subject here under the guise of the terms "European and American").   

"I'm not of European descent. I am of Chinese ancestry (...) At my university, more people study Chinese than French. I vote. Welcome to the future."

So, what's your take? Do you say that fewer whites in America is a good thing, in spite of what most of them think? Do you say it is good for diversity? Or do you think that America is not really changing, since you are perfectly assimilated and don't care at all about your own ancestors?
By the way, what do you think would be the right proportion of whites in the United States? Do you think they should be allowed to live in separate areas?

Atlanticist: As a Bostonian,God Bless America,and God Bless the Red Sox!

 

As an Englishman with proud Irish ancestry,an Atlanticist and a supporter of the NY Yankees,can we still be friends?

Armor is opposed to uncontrolled mass immigration into Europe and the USA (who isn't?),but everything else he has to say on the issue is tangential, unadulterated extraneous piffle.Period.

I don't want to agree with Armor on anything, but maybe Americans are European in a certain way. We are a former British colony, and that should never be forgotten or marginalized. The British think of themselves as different from the people on the Continent, and they are. The ideas of representative government, individual human rights, and the rule of law were born in England. They were then exported around the globe by the British Empire. The American founding fathers were British citizens, born and bred, who took those ideas a little farther than the government back in the mother country.
We then had mass immigration from many continental nations, including some of my own ancestors from Germany. They brought many of their cultural traditions with them, but wanted to leave oppression behind. In other words they came to America to live under our form of government, which was based on British tradition. The most important thing these immigrants did maintain from the old country was their Christianity. Our British inheritance and our Judeo/Christian inheritance our the bedrock on which the American nation was built, and they were both imported from Europe. Today these traditions are better maintained in America than they are in Europe. The U.K. is being ever more integrated into the E.U. and socialism has replaced Christianity as the 'opiate of the masses' on much of the Continent. So, I would argue that Americans are in fact more European than modern Europeans are. What does everybody think?

Atheling: 

I think the election of Bobby Jindal is great - the Republican party needs to effectively attract upwardly-mobile minorities, using candidates like Jindal and Steele (of NJ). The sooner minority voters realize that the "diversity" of the Democratic party is simply white guilt/paternalism/blatant exploitation, the better. 

Armor:

 

Save your sophisticated Continental sneers for someone who gives a damn.  Having your assumptions directly contradicted must hurt, eh?

Atlanticist: As a Bostonian, God Bless America, and God Bless the Red Sox!

You'll have to forgive me.You are right,of course,but we Atlanticists have to tread warily,lest we offend the Armors of this world.Which reminds me...

 

@Armor

 

Let's see,Armor + Eskimos.On second thoughts, maybe you are not related to Napoleon afterall.Maybe I should have been thinking of Nell.That would be Nell Gwyn,of course.

Calling someone "hot" is never off-topic.  Saying "God bless America!" is never off-topic either, and who care's if it is un-PC?

What is this thing with you and Eskimos?

It is now your turn to make a big revelation about yourself.
What are you? an Eskimo?

"That ought to put Armor's panties in a wad".

 

Don't be too sure.It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Armor is the half-brother of Yitzhak,a distant cousin of Amsterdamsky with a French Grandfather whose direct lineage can be traced back to Napoleon Bonaparte himself !!!

 

btw  slightly off topic and ever so un-pc,that description of yourself sounds "hot". God Bless America!

"For example,tell Atlanticist that he is a European and wait for his reaction".

 

 

If Armor posed the same question to a Korean,Malaysian or Afghan,I doubt if any of them would deny that they are Asians.But neither do I believe that they would place Continent before Country.If they wouldn't,why should I do so just to make Armor happy?

It seems a bit convenient for a European to insist only now that Americans are really Europeans when it comes down to it.  For centuries, French writers and other European observers have written in near unison about the un-European (and inferior) nature of American culture and of Americans in general (even insisting that the North American oxygen was suspect, and that North American wildlife were stunted and malformed as a result).  Nor do I remember the EU extending an invitation for membership to Canada or the United States, though Cyprus -- situated in Asia, but populated in part by Europeans -- qualifies as European.  Only when Europe is in need of American assistance do the European roots of North American culture appear strong; only then do the Europeans see us as family (but not, of course, as equals).  My greatest fear is that Hilary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani will fall for this crock again.  Let's hope she's as bitchy and he's as irritable as everyone says.

Armor writs, "[Y]ou should bear in mind that Europe is not a monolithic block."

 

That is immaterial if the non-hostile, non-rude, non-sanctimonious Europeans never dare to speak out.  The times I've been treated condescendingly by Europeans are innumerable.  The times other Europeans have intervened on my behalf to rebuke the condescending boobs?  It's never happened.

Altoids writes:  "Within a generation, voters who have only visited Europe to see some castles and museums will wonder why we are paying for the defense of an ungrateful continent."

 

Some of us from the current generation have been wondering this our entire lives.  And let's be honest:  Europeans are worse than ungrateful.  In both their diplomacy and in casual conversation, they tend to be aggressively hostile and absurdly condescending.

While the US and EU account for ~57% of GDP, the US accounts for roughly half of that. The northeast Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, China) easily account for over 20%, and does not include the growing nations of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Thus, the US-Asia trade bloc would easily exceed that of the US-EU.

 There is no question that the US and EU economies are currently more integrated, given their long history of bilateral trade. However, as the Asian nations begin to overtake the EU, integration will begin to shift eastward. This is most apparent in California, where the Silicon Valley economy is now fully integrated with Asian manufacturing and R&D. Europe is an afterthought. In some sectors of the American economy, Asian nations already have greater clout that Europe, such as technology, manufacturing, and raw materials.

American engagement with Asia grows stronger with each passing day, while Europe becomes increasingly irrelevant. Even culturally, the American imagination is being drawn from French and Italian food to Thai and Japanese, from Armani to Shisedo. American TV dramas feature more Asian locales, and fewer Continental ones.

To be blunt, Europe matters less and less to the American. With in a generation, voters who have only visited Europe to see some castles and museums will wonder why we are paying for the defense of an ungrateful continent.

"Personally,I would rather live under Russian occupation than under french occupation...Why is it worse for Russia to occupy Karelia than for froggyland to occupy Brittany?"

 

Very adult,very mature,very Armor!

"Frank Lee is right".Fine,so my 'tangent' managed to help elicit an adult response from you.It worked.(I notice you didn't bother to pass comment on my original post  re: the Steyn quote.I wonder why?).

 

A counter-suggestion: Try keeping your nose out of US foreign and domestic affairs and British foreign and domestic affairs and we'll all start taking you more seriously.

 

btw

 

That would be powerful European armies,NOT army,got it?

Before you are allowed to go off at another tangent,are we to assume that you are satisfied and agree with Frank Lee's answer to your original question,"against whom?"

The role of America in Europe's recovery from WWII notwithstanding, trade between the United States and the European Union thrives today not because of NATO or America's maintaining responsibility for Europe's security, but regardless of NATO and America's maintaining responsibility for Europe's security.  By all means, let's keep trade strong, and let's keep cooperation on anti-terrorism measures strong as well.  The sharing of information about terrorists is important, but its importance does not justify the infantalization of bratty Europeans under the care of an American babysitter.

The EU and the US are each other's main trading partners. When the world’s two largest economies account for a combined total of 57% of world GDP, there is much to gain from more trade and investment and less barriers between them.

The EU and US are responsible together for about two fifths of world trade. Trade flows across the Atlantic are running at around €1.7 billion a day. In the year 2003, the total amount of two-way investment was over €1.5 trillion, composed of €731 billion of EU Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the US and around €772 billion of US FDI in Europe. The overall "transatlantic workforce" is estimated at 12 to 14 million, of which roughly half are Americans who owe their jobs directly or indirectly to EU companies. In the year 2005, exports of EU goods to the US amounted to €250 billion, while imports from the US amounted to €234 billion. Concerning trade in services, EU exports to the US amounted to €108.6 billion in 2004 while EU imports from the US amounted to €93.0 billion.

The two economies are interdependent to a high degree. Close to a quarter of all EU-US trade consists of transactions within firms based on their investments on either side of the Atlantic. The transatlantic relationship defines the shape of the global economy as a whole as either the EU or the US is also the largest trade and investment partner for almost all other countries.

Being the largest players in global trade, the EU and the US are committed to cooperate both politically and economically, be it on bilateral issues or in the multilateral framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Several trade-related disputes which regularly hit the headlines in reality only impact of some 2% of EU-US trade.

I suppose, if the worst comes to the worst,we could always place our trust in a strong,independent Brittany to save us from this future nightmare.

Against whoever it is that keeps NATO in existence:  1) the 2010s equivalent of the Serb leaders who sent waves of immigrants into Western Europe:  probably a militant Turkish/Ukrainian/North African/fill-in-your-candidate-here regime whose war floods Europe with new refugees; or 2) a Russian leader who decides that Karelia isn't enough:  he wants all of Finland and the Baltic countries back while he's at it; or 3) internal Muslim separatists (yes, it seems impossible that the Europeans could imagine that America can solve that problem for them, but don't underestimate their powers of imagination); or 4) Germany back in ape-shit crazy mode (ironically, this is not a threat that Americans take seriously, but it seems to be something Europeans still fear, not least of all the Germans themselves); or 5) we just don't know.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!!

 

Well,to hear some Europeans talk,they are hell bent on global domination so from that twisted perspective,why not?

Other possibilities include,A resurgent Russia,a nuclear enabled Iran,Djerba,Madagascar,my auntie Edith...

Your question is redundant.

 

"Permanence is the illusion of every age.In 1913,no one thought the Russian,German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade..."

(Excerpted from,"It's the Demography,Stupid",by Mark Steyn).

The question,therefore,isn't "whom" but rather "when" the threat comes,as come it surely must,will Europe be capable of defending itself? Without the active support of the United States of America,I don't believe it has the necessary wherewithal to do so.

"Europeans are hoping a new European Union treaty will help raise their profile in international affairs. But unless European elites bring their postmodern fantasies about the illegitimacy of military “hard power” into line with the way the rest of the world interprets reality, Europe is unlikely to have much of a global voice at all."

Is that postmodern fantasies or postmortem fantasies?

"The United States will continue to be the main guarantor of European security for well into the foreseeable future," writes Mr. Kern.

Let's please not forget that the United States is a sovereign nation with its own interests to consider.  It is not a guarantor of security for nations willing themselves into dhimmitude, especially not nations with shrinking economic might relative to that of China and India.  My fondest wish is that the United States never again lift a finger to guarantee European security.  If other Americans share my views, the Europeans may have no choice but to take responsibility for their own security.  There's a novel idea:  wealthy, educated adults assuming responsibility.

Lost me here:

 

"Three years of European soft power diplomacy has not persuaded Iran to abandon what Europeans admit is a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. "

 

The Economist and other analysts I have read don't believe for a second Iran has a clandestine nuclear-weapons program.  The problem is that a civilian program would quickly allow them to create a nuclear-weapons program after they master the fuel cycle.  The difference is important because Iran is sqeaky clean with regards to the NPT and international law.

With the exception of the U.K. the rest of Europe's countries are cowards when it comes to defending any ones interests in a military sense . The shameful way most of Europe behaves in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other world theatres is well known , they criticise the U.S. but they hide behind the U.S.'s skirts .