Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the immigrants were to establish within the Host community, then why didnt the europeans do this when they first migrated into the exclusively native american enclave? double standards no??
For several reasons imo. First, the Europeans arrived and had a more advanced civilization. The Native Americans had no permanent cities.villages with permanent buildings and structures. The Native Americans were nomadic and without a written language. With the Pilgrims arrival, the NA stayed out of sight for months. The lands seemed devoid of civilized human life, and for the Europeans, America was perfect for European colonization. Even when there was contact later on with the NA, they seemed to be a very primitive people to the settlers. And this situation was also repeated in South America, Australia (with the aborigines), India, and Africa. And the building of the Roman Empire was the same. The more powerful and advanced civilzations don't consider much less advanced natives their equals, they take over the lands and put their cultural mark on them. The Europeans brought their science, engineering, organizational skills, and religion with them. Even today in South America, the primitive tribes are forced to live on the outskirts of modern civilization if they want to keep their cultural identity intact.
It's just Mother Nature in action. Only the strongest survive.
I don't like being forced to listen to somebody else's music, and it doesn't matter if the music reflects a different culture from my own, or not. Aside from that, I cannot recall ever being forced or even expected to conform to anybody else's culture.
Hmm, sounds to me you look and smell just like those 17th century invaders the way you like to brush off those comments, i dont think the mentality has changed that much. Native Americans invaded who?? your talking about tribal wars and how you associate that to going to far off distant lands to eliminate a culture and way of life to extinction is wayyy beyond me. Nice deflection btw. NOT!!
I highly doubt the early settlers thought about it that hard. Most people back then saw the world in terms of "tribes". European people's had been at war between each other for centuries and extended that mentality when they explored the outside world. Was it a tradgey? Sure, but they didn't do it out of any real organized vision of genocide like what so-called "Scholars" believe.
Dead is dead, weither it was from a fellow indian's arrow or a european's musket. I doubt the smaller, weaker indian tribes would have taken much consolidation having been wiped out by the "noble" cheeorkee or mayans rather those eeeeeeeevil europeans. Extinct is Extinct.
This next comment is gonna elict some screams, but frankly, alot of this "Blame whitey" is rooted in the envy that stemms from the fact that they [europeans] managed to build a still-functioning civilzation while African/American empirial gains went for naught.
As a liberal, I have mixed views on Multiculturalism, and whether it's a good policy or not.
I think every country needs a common culture. If someone moves to another country, they should adhere to "when in Rome" - that is, speak the language, and follow the basic customs of that country, while keeping their own so long as it does not interfere with the host country.
For example, if vigilantism is the cultural norm in your country, but not in the country you've immigrated to, you can not call people "intolerant" for not allowing you to practice vigilantism.
If their custom does not interfere with anyone else's business, yes, it is wrong to be intolerant of that custom.
I support the inclusion of people of all races, orientations, etc, but I also think one should join the culture of their new country and not form little versions of their old country and expect others to conform to their country's culture.
Interesting post. If you as a self proclaimed "Liberal" have a fragmented opinion on this subject seems odd. Multiculturalism is one of basic tenets of a liberal.
I don't really believe in an excess of multiculturalism. I'm trying to picture myself in a foreign country. I would like to think that I would adapt to the local customs, instead of just being an American in a foreign land. Don't know it might be harder than it sounds. Overall I do subscribe to the "When in Rome..." idea.
The thing about multiculturalism is a matter of degree, not type. I imagine it would be difficult having a large population that didn't adhere to basic social mores, but food, music, art, dress, all of that is also a part of your culture, and I imagine the nation would be terribly mundane if everyone gave up their uniqueness in that.
I can 't remember the movie, but it was about a young girl exploring herself as a lesbian. A wonderful line she uttered: "If God wanted us all to be the same, why did He make us all so different?" (IMDB attributes this line to "Saved", a 2004 picture, but I'm sure I heard it in a different context in an earlier movie.)
If the immigrants were to establish within the Host community, then why didnt the europeans do this when they first migrated into the exclusively native american enclave? double standards no??
Um, er no. The Native Americans WERE tribal - just as the European settlers were. But they also believed in absolute individual autonomy and responsibility; even their religions demanded it. Each individual was responsible for his family and his own production, THEN for the tribal community. The settlers who lived in a more communal setting upon their arrivals actually were influenced to some degree by the Native American autonomous behavior; it encouraged them to strike against their 'tribe' of European domination and begin life and a country as free men. Without the restraints of the communal tribe, men struck out on their own, learned independence and autonomous behavior from the American Native culture. Many of the original explorers, trappers, hunters, set out on their own and made their own rules for survival - or recognized and followed the ones that the environment enforced. Declaring independence from England put into hard cold practice what was only hazily assumed for a panacea by those who originated the Magna Carta.
But back to the OP - I am against multiculturalism when it is demanded by either the established community OR by those who seek to enter it. I like to explore different cultures and ask questions and discover differences and samenesses - but I am NOT Hispanic or Chinese or Italian. As much as I might learn and even enjoy observing those cultures, I have my own and do not want to become assimilated.
Why should I change my language or learn to speak another, or cater to another culture, in my own country? I would want to learn the language of another country if I moved there - of course. Do I want my DH to develop a 'macho', male supremacy theorem of behavior from Arabic or Hispanic culture when our own culture, in our own country, has raised us to pull in tandem and be partners? Would I want to adopt a Haitian religion as my own, in my own country, rather than the one in which I was raised? Do I want to don the raiment of an African or Russian princess just because it is pretty, when I have no conception of its meaning? Of course not. That is insulting to the culture. But I don't want MY culture dismissed or insulted either.
I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes or in their own countries, I may even find it fascinating - but do not expect to come into MY home and demand that I speak your language or cater to your beliefs and culture, any more than I would do it to you.
Although a lot of liberals support Multiculturalism, I would definitely not consider it a central tenet of liberalism since Multiculturalism would change the host culture sufficiently to negate a liberal society.
I support Diversity, the tolerance of non or slowly assimilating foreign cultures in a host culture, but not Multiculturalism, the intentional, socially engineered cultural mish-mashing of society (usually out of some sort of guilt over colonialism).
It's the difference between a foreign culture's right to express their culture (kebab, language, foreign dress) versus impose their culture (Sharia law in London, justifying rape as a cultural norm from the 'old country').
I am all for a melting pot of different cultures and ideas, people take and give up what they want at their discretion, but culture or history does not over ride the rule of law in a country just for that reason. If there is popular vote to change the way things are done, and passes the checks and balances then fine...but people don't get exemption or exclusion from the law of any land based on what was present where they came from.
Against ... it simply doesn't work and you end up with increasing social tension and alienation.
I agree. Oil and water don't mix. When you try to force multi-culturalism on society, you end up with culture clashes, political strife, religious wars, and language barriers.
We live in the UNITED States, not the "divided" states. "Diversity" means divisive. Succesful countries need unity and people who share common cultures.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
