Family Fundamental Building Block And American History

[Stone holm]

We often hear reference to the family as a fundamental building block, although that sometimes seems to be code for certain political views which may or may not actually support the family. The question that I have is how historically accurate is that? We know that the Pilgrims were in the habit of farming their children out to be raised by others so they would not be spoiled. My Father used to tell me that his Covenanter forbears didn't have their Christmas gift giving at home, but at Church. So was there a point in time when community or Church rivaled the family? Has the insular family become more and more important as community cohesiveness has dissolved. What are the real forces at play here? Is it really all about pornography, sexual liberation, homosexuals, and abortion?

[rodheadlee]

Community cohesiveness has dissolved due to Blue Tooth, IPad etc. Everyone has a set of headphones on or an ear bug stuck in their ear. No one communicates face to face anymore. It was a phenomenon I noticed on our last cruise from Annapolis to California. I first noticed it in Charleston. We were fresh off the boat taking a walk through downtown looking for a particular restaurant and every person we attempted to ask directions had headphones on, All the joggers, bikers, walkers on the street were plugged in, no communication was possible.  It was pretty much the same in all the cities we stopped at going down the coast.  The villages of Panama, Costa Rica and El Salvador were not plugged in but the cities were, Panama City, San Jose,. They have huge modern malls down there. Everyone was plugged in. It was disconcerting, we cruise to meet people of different cultures and everybody was too busy staring at a little square box connected to the internet to connect with those standing right next to them.

[Nofear]

Would reply more, but I got to respond to an urgent text...

[Nofear]

Don't forget to add air conditioners to the demise of human sociability:
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQO-OHAhBV0&t=2922s

[wenglund]

We often hear reference to the family as a fundamental building block, although that sometimes seems to be code for certain political views which may or may not actually support the family. The question that I have is how historically accurate is that? 

 

What are you supposing has historically been the fundamental building block of society if not the family?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Storm Rider]

The family unit has always been the subset of the community. I am not aware of a time when the singular family was the only unit of any society i.e. there only existed independent societies made up of thousands of insular families.  The more homogeneous the society the more cohesive the society.  

 

I remember listening to a corporate presentation meant to explain the wonders of diversity. During the presentation the two presenters attacked the validity and/or reality of the melting pot theory.  They thought the reality and better analogy was more of a salad bowl theory - that it was best for society. You identified each member of the salad as separate and distinct and that is what made society great.  I asked the simple question that if you created stress on that salad bowl, say by throwing the contents in the air, what is strength of that type of society?  Unfortunately, the stress on the society - throwing it up in the air - results in a destruction of society because nothing sticks together.  I further explained that the beauty of the melting pot of American society was that it was made up of all different kinds of cultures that chose to unite and become a single people with a single culture.  There is much beauty in the smaller distinctions, but people were committed to being a member of society and that is where the strength of society is found.  

 

Nowadays assimilation has become a rejected and much looked down upon concept.  We seem to prefer the balkanization of societies.  There is no desire to unite because there is only a respect for the individual; what "I" want; what feels good to "me"; what is pleasurable to "me"; how "I" feel; how "you" make "me" feel.  There is no sense of community or communal culture.  

 

Of course, all things that exert a negative influence on the family unit and the strength of community has always been viewed as bad and unworthy of emulation.  However, we have grown much more sophisticated and don't need to be bothered by anything that remotely detracts with what "I" want, feel; desire; sense; etc.  Society has become rather passé as an idea in exchange for the "me".  Of course, families have also become  passé.  It is not a mom and dad that are needed; heck we can do what they do in a lab; it is a village that is needed.  It is the great ME that is of real value. 

Edited May 17, 2014 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint]

Of course the most basic of building blocks of any society is the individual. Without the individual it is hard to have any society at all. That being said the family is the mortar that hold the individual blocks together. Then the village makes the wall, that society makes the house that we all live in.

[wenglund]

I am thinking that there may be an inverse relationship between the level of importance and focus one puts on the family and the level of importance and focus one puts on the government.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Of course the most basic of building blocks of any society is the individual. Without the individual it is hard to have any society at all. That being said the family is the mortar that hold the individual blocks together. Then the village makes the wall, that society makes the house that we all live in.

...and where do individuals come from?

[thesometimesaint]

...and where do individuals come from?

 

Biologically or civilly?

[cinepro]

Most people have an extremely simple and idealized perception of what "family" and "marriage" have been over the centuries.  We're truly living in the golden age of marriage and family, and there has never been a better time to be a husband, wife, child or single person in the history of the planet.

[thesometimesaint]

Most people have an extremely simple and idealized perception of what "family" and "marriage" have been over the centuries.  We're truly living in the golden age of marriage and family, and there has never been a better time to be a husband, wife, child or single person in the history of the planet.

Agreed.

[changed]

Just ask yourself a simple question - if the government fell, if war/disease/natural disaster etc. came your way, who would you be worried about saving first?  I think most people - now and throughout history - would say their first concern would be to look for/help/protect their family.... that's your answer, our loyalties lie first with our family, it is the last connection broken when a society falls.

[thesometimesaint]

Just ask yourself a simple question - if the government fell, if war/disease/natural disaster etc. came your way, who would you be worried about saving first?  I think most people - now and throughout history - would say their first concern would be to look for/help/protect their family.... that's your answer, our loyalties lie first with our family, it is the last connection broken when a society falls.

 

People are so adverse to anarchy they'll tolerate almost anything to avoid it.

[changed]

[CV75]

Biologically or civilly?

Familially, of course! Marriage is the mortar that makes two individuals become one to bring forth more individuals that follow suit.

[mormonnewb]

Nowadays assimilation has become a rejected and much looked down upon concept. We seem to prefer the balkanization of societies. There is no desire to unite because there is only a respect for the individual; what "I" want; what feels good to "me"; what is pleasurable to "me"; how "I" feel; how "you" make "me" feel. There is no sense of community or communal culture.

Of course, all things that exert of negative influence on the family unit and the strength of community has always been viewed as bad and unworthy of emulation. However, we have grown much more sophisticated and don't need to be bothered by anything that remotely detracts with what "I" want, feel; desire; sense; etc. Society has become rather passé as an idea in exchange for the "me".

I think we might be looking back at the past with rose-colored glasses (as usual) when we speak of some great desire for assimilation. Who was in favor of it? The whites who didn't want non-whites to live in their communities (or even use the same public TOILET)? Or maybe it was the European immigrants who immediately flocked to their own parts of town -- Little Italy, Germantown, etc.?

Contrary to the myth we like to believe, first-generation immigrants didnt come here and immediately learn English. Their children did. And guess what? They still do.

And given our progress in civil rights, the truth is that we are closer than ever before to getting to that melting pot.

Edited May 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[volgadon]

I think we might be looking back at the past with rose-colored glasses (as usual) when we speak of some great desire for assimilation. Who was in favor of it? The whites who didn't want non-whites to live in their communities (or even use the same public TOILET)? Or maybe it was the European immigrants who immediately flocked to their own parts of town -- Little Italy, Germantown, etc.?

Contrary to the myth we like to believe, first-generation immigrants didnt come here and immediately learn English. Their children did. And guess what? They still do.

And given our progress in civil rights, the truth is that we are closer than ever before to getting to that melting pot.

 

Some first-generation immigrants certainly did come here and immediately learn English, like my great-grandparents from Czernowitz, the most European town of old Europe.

 

Your examples are all valid, but they suck as generalisations.

[Storm Rider]

I think we might be looking back at the past with rose-colored glasses (as usual) when we speak of some great desire for assimilation. Who was in favor of it? The whites who didn't want non-whites to live in their communities (or even use the same public TOILET)? Or maybe it was the European immigrants who immediately flocked to their own parts of town -- Little Italy, Germantown, etc.?

Contrary to the myth we like to believe, first-generation immigrants didnt come here and immediately learn English. Their children did. And guess what? They still do.

And given our progress in civil rights, the truth is that we are closer than ever before to getting to that melting pot.

 

Still drinking at the liberal cool-aid stand.  The difference is they came and wanted to be Americans; they wanted to assimilate.  It is clearly evident that they did not come and wanted to reject all of what they had in their old countries; they still retained some of the influences of that culture and those things blended into US culture. Clearly there were still communities or towns within towns where similar cultures lived together. The issue is that they knew they were Americans; that this was their country and they belonged. 

 

We have to disagree on the melting pot. There is not real pot left to melt into because there is no desire to be one people. The prevailing doctrine is "you must think like I do, you must believe what I do and if you do not we will destroy your job, your home, and you will be a pariah in society."  Worst of all that society is a bunch of MEs without any concept of we and our. 

[california boy]

A lot of your question seems to hinge on what the definition of a family is.  Certainly most everyone grows up in some kind of family.  Those that don't statistically don't do as well in assimilating into the community.  If your definition of a family is a father, mother and children, the building blocks are already gone.  Only something like 25%  of Americans live in that definition of a family.  Has civilization collapsed?  Not any more than during any other period of history.  You could in fact state that we are currently living in the most civilized societies ever in the history of man.  I certainly can not think of a time where all humans were respected more and allowed to fulfill their personal vision.  This alone is one of the key ingredients to the explosion of knowledge that has occurred in the last 100 years.  

[Storm Rider]

A lot of your question seems to hinge on what the definition of a family is.  Certainly most everyone grows up in some kind of family.  Those that don't statistically don't do as well in assimilating into the community.  If your definition of a family is a father, mother and children, the building blocks are already gone.  Only something like 25%  of Americans live in that definition of a family.  Has civilization collapsed?  Not any more than during any other period of history.  You could in fact state that we are currently living in the most civilized societies ever in the history of man.  I certainly can not think of a time where all humans were respected more and allowed to fulfill their personal vision.  This alone is one of the key ingredients to the explosion of knowledge that has occurred in the last 100 years.  

 

Let's wait and see what the future brings for all these wonderful societies that ignore God and his laws.  Your language of respect and personal vision is really the definition of chaos and anarchy; hardly civilized.  You may want to tone down on the announcement that there is no societal collapse.  It is far too early to proclaim that. 

[readstoomuch]

Many couples are not having children. Dogs instead. As much as I might want gay people to be monogamous, I wish it did not have to be called marriage. Secularism has convinced many that they don't have to married. More people are living alone than anytime in our past. Young people are leaving most denominations in droves. The family, our communities and churches are under attack. Political correctness and liberal recognition of almost anyone's rights no matter what is mot making society better.

[rodheadlee]

Would reply more, but I got to respond to an urgent text...

At least they could hear you speak.

Edited May 17, 2014 by rodheadlee

[mormonnewb]

Still drinking at the liberal cool-aid stand.  The difference is they came and wanted to be Americans; they wanted to assimilate.  It is clearly evident that they did not come and wanted to reject all of what they had in their old countries; they still retained some of the influences of that culture and those things blended into US culture. Clearly there were still communities or towns within towns where similar cultures lived together. The issue is that they knew they were Americans; that this was their country and they belonged. 

 

We have to disagree on the melting pot. There is not real pot left to melt into because there is no desire to be one people. The prevailing doctrine is "you must think like I do, you must believe what I do and if you do not we will destroy your job, your home, and you will be a pariah in society."  Worst of all that society is a bunch of MEs without any concept of we and our.

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you say that current Americans want to impose a hegemony of thought. And yet, on the other hand, we are a society of MEs without any concept of we and our. Take your pick. We either have a totalitarian view of we and ours that does not allow for dissent of any kind or we are totally disconnected from one another. However, we can't be both at the same time.

As for the difference between the past generation of immigrants and today's immigrants ... What makes them so different? Why do you think that the new folks don't want to be Americans? Because they keep their own language? The "good" immigrants did that too. Because they keep their own food? The good immigrants did that too. Because they congregate in barrios and China towns? The "good" immigrants did that too. So what makes this new breed of immigrants so different? What is it about them that makes them so "un-American"? I wonder what it could be.

[mormonnewb]

DELETED

Edited May 17, 2014 by mormonnewb