We haven't, Benjamin, and I would not declare that a chicken-or-egg situation.
While we can see that all will start out with their own history and possibilities, how culture is a large component, there are scientific handles to it nevertheless (poliscience).
Just to be clear up-front.
If this reply does not end up getting a reply from you, I can claim an ignorant approach from you on this (meaning you decided to follow the path of ignoring the very specific information presented on this).
-
Let me be nasty toward the Brits. I actually like the English people a lot, but I hate their voting system. It is rotten. At the same time, that nation was extremely powerful, the Brits ruled the waves for three centuries, right?
What I dislike about the cultural influence that the Brits brought with them to the USA is that power is not necessarily based on the truth but can be based on power for the sake of power instead. Someone saying No for no reason other than being able to say No is one such example (whereas saying Yes is often politically the weaker position in light of sustained power).
The fact that the truth is not in the center of British culture makes me dislike it more than other cultures. Power is found in the center, and power likes to increase its power, dislike the diminishment of it.
As such, we have a starting point for the USA that is, for instance, not a two-party system but that got warped into being a two-party system due to (State) powers that be. The individual States concentrated powers more than the US Constitution tells them to. They want all power they can get (and they still do, they are relentless in their having as much power as possible compared to the Federal level).
-
We find a borderline in the United States that is not found at the border, but rather that is found within. This is a very important aspect and was brought here by the English who are more interested in winning than in dealing with the truth.
When discussing representation, then we can see that from top to bottom everyone is on the inside except for the bottom tier of society (as large as perhaps 25%). There is a borderline of representation in the United States and it exists already within the group of all voters. Even with all voters, the borderline exists within, and not at the actual border between voters and non-voters.
Naturally, we do not talk about this because we then need to do something about. So, we end up spinning. Red&Blue, for instance, will warp their words in order to wrap themselves around green, yellow and orange issues. They want to remain the bosses, even when it is not within their reality to address it (and therefore often end up doing nothing green, yellow or orange).
Spin is established because the powers that be don't want to acknowledge that there is a problem, that there is a borderline within.
-
I'll end with speaking truth about the definition of poverty and how we are spinning it.
The international definition for poverty is half the income of the person in the middle (50% of the median income).
The EU definition for poverty was purposefully set at 60% of the median income because they do not capture enough folks as living in poverty otherwise.
The USA definition for poverty (and this is a translation I calculated based on actual dollar amounts) is about 40% of the median income (39% was the outcome a few years back when I did the calculations).
We capture fewer people in poverty because our standard for poverty is purposefully depressed to a low point. I hope you can let that sink in, how we make ourselves look better by tinkering with these numbers, not interested in the truth.
If we were to use the EU definition, then one in three people are living in poverty in the USA. That would not go over well, right? Folks rather tell themselves they are middle class while living in poverty, so why wake up sleeping dogs? Don't speak the truth; don't discuss international comparisons. Let folks not know the truth and all will be fine.
I mention this to show you one example of a borderline that is found inside our society, inside our culture. I recognize the nasty British influence of lying (spinning) within our own culture, and I don't like it, Benjamin. The truth, particularly societal truths, must be our main goal. Not the warping that many people do, spinning stories so they feel better themselves. We ignore information about the bottom part of society and say that it is not that bad. We can also prefer to focus on those in power, repeating the stories just as we were told by the ones in power.
There is a borderline in our culture, and it is found inside, within, and not at the actual border. There is an ignorant aspect in place.
I hope you understand what I am saying and recognize it as a true aspect of what you call culture and what I call fooling ourselves.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate this conversation.
