Atlanta Nov 2016 Presidential Election (Oliver: market, weight, historical)

[Domitian]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

Well, Trump and Brexit are both about nationalism and ethnocentrism. I think everyone gets that. Sanders just got beat by double digits -- not sure why he's included in the list.

Sadly, nationalism and ethnocentrism have negative implications these days - not sure why. Why should a successful nation and culture NOT be protective of what they've built?

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by Domitian

Sadly, nationalism and ethnocentrism have negative implications these days - not sure why. Why should a successful nation and culture NOT be protective of what they've built?

Because it was built on internationalism, immigration, pluralism and multiculturalism? Unless you think England was greater or more successful than Great Britain or the United Kingdom, I suppose. If we get Scottish independence and Irish reunification out of this, maybe we'll get to test the theory.

As for the U.S., of course, it never existed except as a pluralistic, multicultural, ethnically diverse nation built on immigration, so those virtues are obviously bound up inextricably with whatever success it's enjoyed.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by bryan85

I don't know who will win, but I'm for Trump. He's NOT a career politician, and is beholding to nobody. Also, he is NOT PC- which is very rare for a person in his position. Hillary is the total opposite, and I trust her about as much as I do Obama- which is zero.

it's really not surprising that a person who responds to the first post like it was addressed to them and then immediately leaves the thread without reading anything new is a trump supporter.

[Domitian]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

Because it was built on internationalism, immigration, pluralism and multiculturalism? Unless you think England was greater or more successful than Great Britain or the United Kingdom, I suppose. If we get Scottish independence and Irish reunification out of this, maybe we'll get to test the theory.

As for the U.S., of course, it never existed except as a pluralistic, multicultural, ethnically diverse nation built on immigration, so those virtues are obviously bound up inextricably with whatever success it's enjoyed.

the diverse groups comprising the United States always shared a common "culture" of freedom and liberty. Immigration was the foundation of our state but it has always been controlled (i.e. the immigration moratoriums and quotas of the mid 20th century) to allow for assimilation.

We no longer demand or promote assimilation into the culture; in fact, modern day progressives seem to abhor the notion of assimilation while denigrating the culture of the United States.

Again, this runs counter to common sense and fuels campaigns built upon nationalism.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by Domitian

the diverse groups comprising the United States always shared a common "culture" of freedom and liberty. Immigration was the foundation of our state but it has always been controlled (i.e. the immigration moratoriums and quotas of the mid 20th century) to allow for assimilation.

We no longer demand or promote assimilation into the culture; in fact, modern day progressives seem to abhor the notion of assimilation while denigrating the culture of the United States.

1. Present immigrants don't value "freedom" and "liberty"?

2. Immigration is still controlled. No one (except, I guess, some strands of libertarians) is advocating uncontrolled immigration.

3. By "demanding" assimilation, what are you referring to? In any case, if you define assimilation in the usual ways -- socioeconomic integration and attainment, geographic distribution, language attainment, and intermarriage -- I suspect every "progressive" (really all sensible people) are in favor. Indeed, progressives typically want the government to take an active role in the process.

If, instead, it's a demand that immigrants abandon all aspects of their ethnic and cultural heritage and do their best to blend in with (or submit to) the WASPs, no, that's never been successful and never will be. Sadly, it's this kind of "assimilation" that the white Christian* nationalists demand.

* It used to be "Protestant," but these days all but the most virulent allow the Papists into their ranks.

[Pemgin]

Originally Posted by Domitian

the diverse groups comprising the United States always shared a common "culture" of freedom and liberty. Immigration was the foundation of our state but it has always been controlled (i.e. the immigration moratoriums and quotas of the mid 20th century) to allow for assimilation.

We no longer demand or promote assimilation into the culture; in fact, modern day progressives seem to abhor the notion of assimilation while denigrating the culture of the United States.

Again, this runs counter to common sense and fuels campaigns built upon nationalism.

How do current immigrants no longer value freedom and liberty? Anyone who immigrates here tacitly approves of these concepts. Are they supposed to drop their customs when they arrive in favor of Sunday Night Football and fast food? As long as they respect the laws of the nation, what else is there to assimilate into?

[Domitian]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

1. Present immigrants don't value "freedom" and "liberty"?

2. Immigration is still controlled. No one (except, I guess, some strands of libertarians) is advocating uncontrolled immigration.

3. By "demanding" assimilation, what are you referring to? In any case, if you define assimilation in the usual ways -- socioeconomic integration and attainment, geographic distribution, language attainment, and intermarriage -- I suspect every "progressive" (really all sensible people) are in favor. Indeed, progressives typically want the government to take an active role in the process.

If, instead, it's a demand that immigrants abandon all aspects of their ethnic and cultural heritage and do their best to blend in with (or submit to) the WASPs, no, that's never been successful and never will be. Sadly, it's this kind of "assimilation" that the white Christian* nationalists demand.

* It used to be "Protestant," but these days all but the most virulent allow the Papists into their ranks.

I dont speak for your definition of "white christian nationalist" but I dont believe anyone expects an immigrant to shed their heritage. What they DO expect of immigrants is an effort to fit into the preexisting culture and not expect the existing culture to bend to their demands. Many nationalists believe (whether right or wrong) that "the government" forces citizens to bend to the needs of the immigrants. Examples include the standard "marque el tres" on automated phone prompts, somali signage in social services offices, and prayer accommodations for muslim workers.

My background is in cultural anthropology and psychology so I appreciate cultural variance and the formation of new customs when they mix. We wouldnt have modern holidays such as "christmas" , halloween, cinco de mayo, st. patricks day, new years eve, etc. if it were not for the intermixing of cultures as a result of immigration. But I also see the USA so incredibly sensitive to the preservation of immigrant culture that they go out of their way to prevent assimilation and never allowing the new customs to become part of our "melting pot"

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by Domitian

Many nationalists believe (whether right or wrong) that "the government" forces citizens to bend to the needs of the immigrants.

What do you mean "whether right or wrong"? Do you believe it's right or wrong? I've never felt forced to "bend to the needs of immigrants" -- have you?

ETA: Laura Ingraham just now: "A lot of people go to London, they think they're in Pakistan. They don't recognize London anymore."

There you go.

[Domitian]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

What do you mean "whether right or wrong"? Do you believe it's right or wrong? I've never felt forced to "bend to the needs of immigrants" -- have you?

No. I dont speak for the "christian nationalists" as you put it, so it doesnt bother me to disregard phone prompts or signage that doesn't apply to me. . .

However some people - many people, in fact - are offended by that and believe immigrants should "learn the language" or not get offended by Nativity or Menorah displays, or expect special accommodations (i.e. full face covering on driver license photos). Why is their perceived offense any less important than our indifference?

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by Domitian

Why is their perceived offense any less important than our indifference?

Because we're small-l, classical liberals who believe tolerance and pluralism are civic virtues, and therefore we shouldn't take offense at others' differences?