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.
sponger: See, that's the difference between you and me: I understand that there is a very strong connection between the environment, and our attitudes towards it, and illegal immigration. Very limited social justice is possible without concomitant environmental justice. It's not about "hugging" or "hating." But whatever. *sigh*
P.S. If we were poisoning illegal immigrants because they were interfering with our development goals, you'd probably not be so sanguine. But, hey, prairie dogs are "only animals," right?
Japan has a disasterous history, thanks to it's monoculturalism. They have:
1. Isolated themselves and fallen far behind the rest of the world in technology (prior to Admirl Perry's shocking visit)
2. Began a disasterous, cruel, and illegal invasion of China, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philipines, resulting in the perpetration of some of the worst war crimes in the history of the human race. Nanking comes to mind.
3. Foolishly attacked the most powerful nation on the planet, thanks to their blindly ethnocentric beliefs, resulting in their utter defeat and humiliation in WWII and the catastrophic atomic destruction of two of their major cities.
These are all results of the Japanese mindset of cultural superiority and their unrelenting racism against other peoples and cultures.
Following WWII, they were forced to grudgingly accept American occupation, and it was foreign aid and investment that rebuilt their country to 1st world status after the devastation of war. To some extent, the violence of WWII has shocked the Japanese into accepting other cultures. Their companies have begun to do more overseas business and Japanese youth have began to imitate aspects of other cultures in ways that would have been unthinkable to previous generations. They are still very ethnocentric in governance, but the winds of change are blowing stronger in the home islands thanks to a catastrophically low birth rate and various other social pressures.
However, thanks to their past racism, I do not think there is a nation more hated or alienated by it's regional neighbors. We might like Japan now because they were forced to be our ally after surrendering to us in WWII, but that was not the case in 1939, (or 1945) for that matter, and the relationships between Japan and China or Japan and Korea are frosty to say the least.
Japan has (and always has had) a very, very low rate of immigration and is a culturally and technologically advanced First World society. The Japanese have made many significant contributions in many fields such a robotics and manufacturing which have benefitted people all over the world. Their population enjoys a high standard of living and their education system is top notch. An obsession with multiculturalism should not blind you to the fact that Japan is a successful society any way you slice it.
Quote:
Culture will always be affected by geography and racial makeup. Europeans are not going to migrate to Africa and Africans to Europe in numbers so great as to achieve homogeniety. That sort of mixing is possible but unlikely. It's effects are unknown. As with all things, there are positives and negatives. Considering the current state of affairs in the world, a I suggest that a little (or a lot) more cultural mixing has more positive effects than negatives.
Africans have alot more to gain by moving to Europe than Europeans do by moving to Africa. The cultural mixing that is going on now vis a vis the Europeans-Africans is very one sided. What benefits are the Europeans reaping from having millions of impoverished unkilled people take up residence in their countries?
Quote:
Funny you should ask, since the term means "way" or "path to the water source". If that doesn't speak to the origins of Sharia Law being primarily driven by a desert environment, nothing does.
The word "Sharia" literally means "the path on sand created by camels walking to water-spots" but spiritually it means guidance.- Free Muslims Coalition
I need to ask for some evidence that sharia law arose because of a desert environment as I have not been able to find anything that support that contention. Rather, I think the term 'path to the water source' is a metaphor rather than a literal path.
Quote:
I would ask you to quantify this "large" group of people with a number, but I doubt you can. People can intend to do whatever they wish, so long as they do not violate anyone's basic human rights. Surely you as a rational individual could speak with someone who wanted to see Atzlan come to be and hear their arguments for it. If they swayed you--and a majority of people--to their side, they could then petition the government to hear their request. But it's not going to happen. We can't even raise gas taxes to keep our bridges from falling down and people think that the prospect of creating Atzlan is anything but butterfly wings and fairy dust farted out by some college "activist" through his dorm-room computer? Neither peaceful nor violent movements for establishing a land of "racial purity" ever succeed in the long term, and only a tiny handful of irrational supporters (and irrationally fearful detractors) believe that this fantasy will ever come to pass.
You are right. Aztlan will not come to pass. It will be stopped by American citizens. But that does not mean that such extremist beliefs should not be recognized as a potential threat by anyone.
sponger: See, that's the difference between you and me: I understand that there is a very strong connection between the environment, and our attitudes towards it, and illegal immigration. Very limited social justice is possible without concomitant environmental justice. It's not about "hugging" or "hating." But whatever. *sigh*
I think there are much more powerful forces causing environmental degradation than immigration. I think we should address the effect of those forces on the environment before we talk about the effect of immigration.
My reply was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not derisive. I do hate McMansions and love Prarie Dogs. Well, I wouldn't say I love them, but I like them well enough.
Japan has (and always has had) a very, very low rate of immigration and is a culturally and technologically advanced First World society. The Japanese have made many significant contributions in many fields such a robotics and manufacturing which have benefitted people all over the world. Their population enjoys a high standard of living and their education system is top notch. An obsession with multiculturalism should not blind you to the fact that Japan is a successful society any way you slice it.
I agree they have been technologically successful. Nazi Germany was also technologically advanced and the originator of the space program. However, both these one-time Axis allies have pursued less than desirable social policies due to their ethnocentrism, and that is what this discussion is about.
If you want to look just at the last 50 years, certainly Japan has been successful, but their population is projected to drop from 130 million today to 100 million in 2050, and only 64 million in 2100. This would seem to indicate that, whether through cultural mixing or simply through failure to maintain birth rates, monocultural 1st-world societies' destinies are uniformly one of eventual extinction.
Quote:
Africans have alot more to gain by moving to Europe than Europeans do by moving to Africa. The cultural mixing that is going on now vis a vis the Europeans-Africans is very one sided. What benefits are the Europeans reaping from having millions of impoverished unkilled people take up residence in their countries?
A stable or expanding base of workers. Genetic diversity. New ways of thinking. The usual. You think the trend would not reverse itself were Africa to become depopulated and Europe overpopulated?
Quote:
The word "Sharia" literally means "the path on sand created by camels walking to water-spots" but spiritually it means guidance.- Free Muslims Coalition
I need to ask for some evidence that sharia law arose because of a desert environment as I have not been able to find anything that support that contention. Rather, I think the term 'path to the water source' is a metaphor rather than a literal path.
I think the choice of metaphors is telling. They didn't call it "Navigating the way to moral purity through the easy living here in garden of milk and honey."
Harsh environments lead to harsh punishments for disobeying the laws used to bind society together. They lead to the domination of the (generally) larger male over the smaller female. They include regulations that limit personal freedoms to avoid drains on the scarce resources available to society. The same thing was true of many Christianity-based laws. Just take a stroll through the old testament, or talk to some fundies here in the US and ask them WHY the rules are the way they are. Do you think it's a conincidence that a LOT of old-school Christians are big into survivalism?
Many of these old laws and customs become outmoded by easier living conditions. Stealing a horse in the Old West could kill a man and his family and could get you lynched. Stealing a horse today just means they have to drive the truck, and MIGHT get you some jail time. Old-timers might reminisce fondly about the days when "laws meant something" and horse-rustlers were hanged, but that doesn't mean it was better then. Just harder.
Old generations see the changes in laws and customs as decadance and straying from the path of moral purity or character, but the truth is that the environment has changed and made some of the old laws obsolete. Newer, less draconian laws and customs will take their place. The kids accept it, and the old adults hold out. No matter how hard old-timers cling to it and try to fight for their outmoded ideals, do you really think Sharia Law is any match for MTV and McDonalds? I'm afraid that the basic human nature of sloth and greed is more powerful than the artificial impositions of any religion or creed.
Quote:
You are right. Aztlan will not come to pass. It will be stopped by American citizens. But that does not mean that such extremist beliefs should not be recognized as a potential threat by anyone.
Sure, I disagree with the idea of Aztlan, just like almost everybody else. Those few who promote it are about as dangerous to the rest of us non-whackos as the Heaven's Gate cult.
MovingForward, I agree with a lot of your points, but I think your post is a little off-topic. I really wish you'd start an enviornmental thread where we can hate on McMansions and hug prarie dogs in harmony.
I think you might be suffering from the media's false portrayal of France as a nation of liberal, wine-drinking, cheese-eating, surrender frogs. The truth is that French citizens are--on the whole--less tolerant than Americans. Yes, yes, I know this runs contrary to the sorts of things we hear from the French intelligencia, but they have average citizens too, who are just as racist--if not more--than a lot of Americans. The French are suffering from the collapse of their ivory tower fantasy. Used to be, they could push their underpriviliaged non-french population of second-class citizens into the suburban ghetto and have them do the dirty work of the country while the French 1-st class citizens went about their cheese eating in the gentrified cities. Well, now the immigrants and something-Francos are having their own civil rights revolution. The French might have thumbed their noses at us when we were trying to reconcile our own apartheid with riots, marches, and water cannons, but now it's their turn to learn that you can't keep the good jobs, houses, and services away from a significant minority just because you don't like the color of their skin or the religion they practice. If you do, cars get burned, people protest, and you have to buy a whole lot of teargas.
I use the French as an example, but the same thing is happening in other Western European nations to various degrees. To them I would say: "Welcome to the reality that we've been facing for the past 50 years. Not as easy as it looks, is it?"
The whole point is that we can't have any second-class citizens and still have a stable society. Illegals currently are our 2nd-classers. If they are documented, deported, or whatever, they will be come 1st class citizens with all the opportunities for advancement given to any other documented resident. If we leave things as they are, we face real danger from social upheaval. Take blacks as an example. When they were 2nd-class citizens, there were riots, bombings, and militant organizations. Nowadays they are, by law, the same as whites, there are the occasional lawsuit and peaceful demonstration.
To ignore all other historical evidence and point to racial intermarriage as the sole, primary, or even a major contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire is the height of frivolity.
Rather, I would ask you this: can you point out a monocultural society which has managed to occupy significant territory (on par with the size of the United States, or the furthest extent of th Roman Empire as a reference), defend it's borders, and unite it's citizenry to live in peaceful harmony for an enduring period?
Well if this is true, then history should be rife with examples of successful monocultural societies. Please, enlighten us! Point out a case of a monocultural society growing faster and more strongly than any other.
There is no need for a homogeneous world monoculture. There are some basic principles called "human rights" that all peoples must observe. All but the most extreme people agree on these rights, and even in cultures where these rights are suppressed, it is either due to a totalitarian government or extreme environmental pressure. With modern technology and communications, the totalitarian dictator can be overthrown by their own peoples and the environmental pressures can be mitigated through better infrastructure allowing the distribution of resources.
Some people like France. Some people hate France. Those that like it will try to migrate there and make positive contributions to French culture, while assimilating into the culture themselves. France will evolve into something new, but no less French. Those that hate France will see it change and evolve and they will be able to better relate to the "New France" because of the people that they know who moved there.
Naturally, we can't all crowd onto the Maldives, no matter how much we like tropical islands, so some regulation of human migration is necessary. However, the migrations are generally self-regulated by geography, climate, and even overpopulation in some cases. After all, how many of you want to migrate to NYC? Many see it as expensive, dirty, and overcrowded. I know a few people who like those kinds of conditions and a lot who don't. Therefore, the migration of people into NYC self-regulates.
Japan has a disasterous history, thanks to it's monoculturalism. They have:
1. Isolated themselves and fallen far behind the rest of the world in technology (prior to Admirl Perry's shocking visit)
2. Began a disasterous, cruel, and illegal invasion of China, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philipines, resulting in the perpetration of some of the worst war crimes in the history of the human race. Nanking comes to mind.
3. Foolishly attacked the most powerful nation on the planet, thanks to their blindly ethnocentric beliefs, resulting in their utter defeat and humiliation in WWII and the catastrophic atomic destruction of two of their major cities.
These are all results of the Japanese mindset of cultural superiority and their unrelenting racism against other peoples and cultures.
Following WWII, they were forced to grudgingly accept American occupation, and it was foreign aid and investment that rebuilt their country to 1st world status after the devastation of war. To some extent, the violence of WWII has shocked the Japanese into accepting other cultures. Their companies have begun to do more overseas business and Japanese youth have began to imitate aspects of other cultures in ways that would have been unthinkable to previous generations. They are still very ethnocentric in governance, but the winds of change are blowing stronger in the home islands thanks to a catastrophically low birth rate and various other social pressures.
However, thanks to their past racism, I do not think there is a nation more hated or alienated by it's regional neighbors. We might like Japan now because they were forced to be our ally after surrendering to us in WWII, but that was not the case in 1939, (or 1945) for that matter, and the relationships between Japan and China or Japan and Korea are frosty to say the least.
Culture will always be affected by geography and racial makeup. Europeans are not going to migrate to Africa and Africans to Europe in numbers so great as to achieve homogeniety. That sort of mixing is possible but unlikely. It's effects are unknown. As with all things, there are positives and negatives. Considering the current state of affairs in the world, a I suggest that a little (or a lot) more cultural mixing has more positive effects than negatives.
Funny you should ask, since the term means "way" or "path to the water source". If that doesn't speak to the origins of Sharia Law being primarily driven by a desert environment, nothing does.
I would ask you to quantify this "large" group of people with a number, but I doubt you can. People can intend to do whatever they wish, so long as they do not violate anyone's basic human rights. Surely you as a rational individual could speak with someone who wanted to see Atzlan come to be and hear their arguments for it. If they swayed you--and a majority of people--to their side, they could then petition the government to hear their request. But it's not going to happen. We can't even raise gas taxes to keep our bridges from falling down and people think that the prospect of creating Atzlan is anything but butterfly wings and fairy dust farted out by some college "activist" through his dorm-room computer? Neither peaceful nor violent movements for establishing a land of "racial purity" ever succeed in the long term, and only a tiny handful of irrational supporters (and irrationally fearful detractors) believe that this fantasy will ever come to pass.
India and China are pretty mono-cultural and they seem just fine. USSR was multi-cultural and look how that turned out.
I don't think it matters either way, but ultimately, America is still a very White country. It was at 75% during the 2000 census. Not very "Multi-cultural". Yet, it is a "success".
I think it's naive to think A largley Black/Muslim Europe will be "Europe". The buildings and languages may still be in place, but I think things may turn out dramatically different culturally. Same with a totally Hispanic "America".
Let me ask you, did a multi-cultural South Africa work?
India and China are pretty mono-cultural and they seem just fine. USSR was multi-cultural and look how that turned out.
Calling China (in it's current state) monocultural is like calling the North American continent monocultural (including Central America/Mexico and the Caribbean). There's at least 6 distinct major spoken languages in China, and another half-dozen regional dialects of the three or four primaries. Then there's the recent and historical civil wars and foreign conquests...
Suffice to say; not a good example in any regard, unless you were trying to support my arguments.
I don't know about India, so I can't speak for them.
I addressed the USSR earlier.
Quote:
I don't think it matters either way, but ultimately, America is still a very White country. It was at 75% during the 2000 census. Not very "Multi-cultural". Yet, it is a "success".
Quote:
I think it's naive to think A largley Black/Muslim Europe will be "Europe". The buildings and languages may still be in place, but I think things may turn out dramatically different culturally. Same with a totally Hispanic "America".
Do you think we'll really see a "largely Black/Muslim Europe" or a "totally Hispanic" America? Are those majorities of white people and/or Christians just going to stop breeding amongst themselves, refuse to find mates from different races/cultures and just evaporate over the course of 50 years? Or do you only consider someone with "racially pure" ancestors as white and everyone else is Hispanic or Black?
Quote:
Let me ask you, did a multi-cultural South Africa work?
You're talking about AFTER apartheid, right? Let me check with my friend, who was born and grew up there, and get back to you with a more accurate opinion than I could give by myself.
no, i dont believe so. As long as we teach people the right morals and have a good economy i dont ever believe we will run like Mexico. Plus, what do you think? Only third world nations have corrupt public officials?
Have you been to California lately??? This state was gorgeous until they let Mexico have it!!!
humm, I guess I dont see how it would be racest. Im not saying one is better, just saying thats my personal observation. Im German and would not be offended if someone said they couldnt tell me from a Danish or Polish. Anywho, sorry if it came off as racest.
I thought it was funny!! I don't see how that statement would be racist people need to get over the thin skin attiude. I'm sure they say the same about white people.
Oh, wait I forgot you can't take it as a racist comment if your white!!!
I think there are much more powerful forces causing environmental degradation than immigration. I think we should address the effect of those forces on the environment before we talk about the effect of immigration.
My reply was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not derisive. I do hate McMansions and love Prarie Dogs. Well, I wouldn't say I love them, but I like them well enough.
The truth is that overpopulation--caused mainly by too many immigrants--is one of the MOST important causes for ecological destruction on the U.S. land mass. WE can talk about the economy and culture all we want, but in the end, they will both go down because of environmental destructions. I just don't get why people have such a hard time getting this very simple fact. The environment MUST come first: long term, everything else depends on it. We CANNOT separate the environment from the issue of immigration (legal or illegal)--not without dooming the next generations to a seriously endangered continent.
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.
I don't see how that statement would be racist people need to get over the thin skin attiude. I'm sure they say the same about white people. 
