Books that explain sociologically what an American is?

Are you saying America isn't multicultural? I thought that you were criticizing this development and even advocating segregation because of it.

Difference being that America includes all those groups in your map as well. But I wouldn't say that you could sociologically define an 'Indian' either. It's a nationality, that's it.

The multiculturalism would be obviously taken into account. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah but how would this look? An American is a guy who lives in the nation of America. Great. No race, no language, no religion, no history, no common system of law, no nothing.

India at least has a few of those.

"The same person who is quite willing to leave the government of the entire nation in the hands of an autocrat balks at the idea of not having a voice in the administration of his village - such is the residual weight of the hollowest of political forms."
Perhaps the most telling quote.

Attached: Bronze Age Postironist.jpg (1279x1210, 473K)

Why do Americans use the term "liberal" in such a weird way? From where I stand almost all Republican and Democrat politicians would be considered liberal. The only people in America who aren't liberals are the far right and Marxists

americans use the word liberal to refer to progressives, ie. the spectrum from neolib to communist. I don't know why Europeans find it so hard to understand this, we all know liberal once meant something different.

>Difference being that America includes all those groups in your map as well.
But they speak English and are in smaller numbers. In India those people all speak their own language in significant numbers. For example, there's a separate Tamil literature
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_literature
>Tamil literature has a rich and long literary tradition spanning more than two thousand years

Hindi literature
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi_literature

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_literature

Attached: a.jpg (282x575, 109K)

It's just weird that a lot of them consider it such an insult to be called a liberal when I'd consider America to be founded upon liberal principles.

That's just how words work though. Of course America was founded on classical liberal principles(though there was a fair amount of pretty right wing sentiment going on with the Founders, they definitely weren't pro democracy as we know it now)

Thats because it has almost became a synonymous with leftist and communist which is retarded.

It's not that retarded. American conservatives are not the most educated group and they notice that the people who hate them, eg. the NYT and Harvard, are composed of both communists and neoliberals. These groups argue with each other sure, but they present a unified face of complete scorn and derision to the suburban or rural conservative.

In terms of social dynamics it is not hard to understand how they were grouped together.

Americans are such snowflakes. You're talking like there isn't that Americanness that one can always sense in you people. I don't know how to describe it but it's there.

Neither Basedriley nor DickTorqueVillain were liberals

Of course it's there, and you envy us for being more innate humans BECAUSE of it! Why else would eurotrash degrade the imperial standard, other than banal, base, petty, loathsome euro envy

It would be good to read the works that were influential to America rather than just works that would seem more directly aimed at this question. I think a lot of the American identity formed itself around basic enlightenment principles, especially for lack of other constants.

John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Voltaire, I'm not well studied on this subject enough to give a comprehensive list but these will definitely give you some insight. If you want to understand a thing it's good to look at its origins

was actually for this To ...
Surely there's some definition to be had. You're speaking to a more basic problem with reality - to simplify anything into a definition is to do an injustice to its complexity. This doesn't make it unanswerable, it just means it's difficult

Propaganda by Edward Bernays

It won’t fill you in on all the intricacies of modern America, but Tocqueville’s Democracy in America has some interesting insights. A lot of early American writers also mention the peculiar differences between Americans and Europeans in a surprisingly relevant way. iirc Thoreau talked about this, and many 19th c writers used their stories to discuss or critique the American way of life (mostly wealth/success = happiness, letting go of traditionalism, new philosophies, gender shit). I wish I could give you a real list, but these are just things I’ve observed from time to time.

Unironically Siege by James Mason.

Attached: Siege-by-James-Mason_0000.jpg (451x675, 43K)

only correct answer

It doesn't really matter. We will balkanize into a squabbling mess of ethnicities and races. Or we'll become an irrelevant and dysfunctional Latin American republic before 2060.

Attached: 1555541080723.gif (735x920, 169K)

that map is almost as retarded as you, tripfag.

Keep underestimating us latinos

Attached: 81lR0EKUEJL.jpg (1600x1292, 308K)

Attached: 353122.jpg (316x475, 45K)

Lasch and Toqueville.

>the NYT and Harvard, are composed of both communists and neoliberals.
>NYT
>Communist

America is also heterogeneous racially not just linguistically and culturally

There is no American. America is an economic zone where the world's wealthiest live and where foreign nations can violently speculate on the world's future through lobbying, propaganda, and corruption.

Attached: 1551927520148.png (775x480, 298K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

This is why. In America, the "social" or "modern" part of the phrase "social liberalism" was dropped, while free market types (what in Europe you call liberals) joined social conservatives to oppose their expansion of New Deal government programs.