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.
Seriously, tone down the attitude. It's not necessary.
Nobody said white people have more entitlement to live in America. The slight concern is growing old in a country where some people no longer make up a decent portion of the population. I said I'd move to Canada to be around similar people. Humans generally segregate themselves naturally. White people want to be around white people, blacks around blacks, and Hispanics around Hispanics. That's why "racial communities" exist. Not always because of racism, my friend, but because of human nature.
And for the record, I'm from a younger generation. I grew up in the Pasadena and Deer Park area (1992-2000) and grew up around other races. Racism is not an issue for me, because I judge character. Right now, you're showing a hostile, judgmental character, so if I met you in person and you happened to be black, I would ignore you because of your attitude, not race.
accusing me of being 12 and I'm the one with the attitude?? lol!
As far as the entitlement is concerned, notice I DIDN'T quote YOU in any of my posts.
Look up "Caucasian" in any respectable reference (i.e. not published by the kkk). racist? how? in the same mind that doesn't consider Middle Easterners Caucasians?
Maybe a European country that's been mostly white for eons, but America? Hello, wake up, Caucasians haven't been here for that long. And becoming a majority by pure innocent and decent expansion? No, by a slaughtering of the natives and exploitation of Africans. So don't cry victim here. I'm not for illegal immigration but when people start talking about America like they have more right to be here than another LEGAL immigrant just because of the skin color, then they need a reality check.
Why can't we exclude Middle Easterners from being categorized as "caucasians", even though the Caucasus Mountains are in the middle east?
After all, we don't include people from Spain as "Hispanics", do we? And we don't call Italian-Americans "Latinos"---everyone knows they're "Anglos". Most people born in the USA are not "Native Americans", are they? And how about New Zealanders? Surely we don't call them "Pacific Islanders", do we? And Hindus born in the Sacramento Valley certainly aren't "American Indians", they're "Indian Americans". Do we call immigrants from Egypt or Tunisia "African Americans"? Certainly not! That would be confusing...so why should we call Middle Easterners "Caucasians", just because they're members of that group?
By the way, just where IS the Middle East, anyway? From my perspective here in California, it could be Pennsylvania or Delaware....
What a "politically correct" mess....
The question was, "dissolved due (mainly) to multiculturalism" not "had more than one culture within their borders but dissolved due to:"
*the former Soviet Union - Poor economic planning coupled with an unweildy and repressive totalitarian government.
*Yugoslavia - I'll give you this one, but add the qualification that it had a poorly organized government and socioeconomic structure that was dependent on the USSR. I would hardly say that the US and Yugoslavian cases are comparable.
*The Roman Empire - Weakness and corruption in the central government. Lack of expansion of a system of governance dependant on conquest and expansion. External attack.
*The British Empire - Supply problems to occupied territories caused by WWII.
*The Mongol Empire - Weakness of centralized leadership. Lack of expansion and conquest in a system of governance totally dependant on conquering new territories.
I'd do the rest, but I feel those examples are enough. I can't believe you would claim that the Inca's fell due to multiculturalism and expect us not to think that your arguments were specious. These sort of wild claims make it seem that you are so dead-set against multiculturalism that you will grasp at the most fragile of straws to prop up your failing arguments.
The question was, "dissolved due (mainly) to multiculturalism" not "had more than one culture within their borders but dissolved due to:"
*the former Soviet Union - Poor economic planning coupled with an unweildy and repressive totalitarian government.
*Yugoslavia - I'll give you this one, but add the qualification that it had a poorly organized government and socioeconomic structure that was dependent on the USSR. I would hardly say that the US and Yugoslavian cases are comparable.
*The Roman Empire - Weakness and corruption in the central government. Lack of expansion of a system of governance dependant on conquest and expansion. External attack.
*The British Empire - Supply problems to occupied territories caused by WWII.
*The Mongol Empire - Weakness of centralized leadership. Lack of expansion and conquest in a system of governance totally dependant on conquering new territories.
I'd do the rest, but I feel those examples are enough. I can't believe you would claim that the Inca's fell due to multiculturalism and expect us not to think that your arguments were specious. These sort of wild claims make it seem that you are so dead-set against multiculturalism that you will grasp at the most fragile of straws to prop up your failing arguments.
Leading up to and during WW2, Germany, Italy and Japan suffered the following from your list of problems:
1.repressive totalitarian government
2.weakness and corruption in the central government (Italy, IMO)
3.lack of expansion of a system of governance dependant on conquest and expansion.
4. external attack
When these countries were defeated, what role did having having a more monocultural society play in the fact that they did not splinter into little pieces but rather were able to recover and once again become functional countries? I see an underlying lack of cohesion amongst the various groups inhabiting Yugoslavia, the USSR etc., as perhaps the most critical factor in their subsequent implosions. Really, a totalitarian government was all that ever held the USSR together. It is doubtful that the citizens of Kazakhstan (Borat!) or the other SSRs ever felt an allegiance to 'Mother Russia' so it is not surprising they split from the program as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
The question was, "dissolved due (mainly) to multiculturalism" not "had more than one culture within their borders but dissolved due to:"
*the former Soviet Union - Poor economic planning coupled with an unweildy and repressive totalitarian government.
*Yugoslavia - I'll give you this one, but add the qualification that it had a poorly organized government and socioeconomic structure that was dependent on the USSR. I would hardly say that the US and Yugoslavian cases are comparable.
*The Roman Empire - Weakness and corruption in the central government. Lack of expansion of a system of governance dependant on conquest and expansion. External attack.
*The British Empire - Supply problems to occupied territories caused by WWII.
*The Mongol Empire - Weakness of centralized leadership. Lack of expansion and conquest in a system of governance totally dependant on conquering new territories.
I'd do the rest, but I feel those examples are enough. I can't believe you would claim that the Inca's fell due to multiculturalism and expect us not to think that your arguments were specious. These sort of wild claims make it seem that you are so dead-set against multiculturalism that you will grasp at the most fragile of straws to prop up your failing arguments.
All of this is true, and all of it was, without a doubt, exacerbated by the many problems of cross-cultural conflicts in these far-flung regions, making a bad situation immeasurably worse.....It's hard to run an empire 4000 miles wide when you can't even rely on everyone being on the "same page"...
The Incas fell apart (disregarding the arrival of the Europeans) because they (like most of the other examples) tried to impose their ideals and culture upon an ever-widening territory, encompassing many cultures along the way that, for various reasons, objected to their being "dominated" by the Incas. Of course you can support your argument, because it's a very complex situation. But I fail to see how you can think the job of maintaining order across a landscape of 10 or 15 or 45 different languages and cultures would not be more complex and difficult than if just one culture had been involved. Seems pretty simple to me. I would rebut you by saying it's apparent to me that you are so dead-set upon the joys of multiculturalism that you cannot conceive of any downside. That's your right, of course; I just think you're ignoring some very important considerations.....
In closing, I'll ask you this, in all seriousness: other than a few screwball racists and xenophobes, do you see ANY problems with multiculturalism? If so, what are they? Given the opportunity, where (if anywhere) would you set the boundaries for this? Are there any cultural aspects, of any group, from anywhere, that you could see yourself objecting to? If so, why? Would you require that all prospective "new arrivals" into our multicultural society THEMSELVES demonstrate an acceptance of the new cultures THEY'D be encountering? Or would you give them a pass, provided their cultures "didn't allow this"?.....
Interested to hear your thoughts on this.....
Leading up to and
When these countries were defeated, what role did having having a more monocultural society play in the fact that they did not splinter into little pieces but rather were able to recover and once again become functional countries? I see an underlying lack of cohesion amongst the various groups inhabiting Yugoslavia, the USSR etc., as perhaps the most critical factor in their subsequent implosions. Really, a totalitarian government was all that ever held the USSR together. It is doubtful that the citizens of Kazakhstan (Borat!) or the other SSRs ever felt an allegiance to 'Mother Russia' so it is not surprising they split from the program as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Well stated--you are guilty of first-degree common sense
I just want to complement on andreabeth and macmeal on their intelligent and well-reasoned arguments before I reply. Two positive ratings!
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.
