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.
Even if you're claiming that the people who begin having children at 13 or 14 years of age or decide to have a baby every year that they can't support have sat down and reasoned that eventually these babies will be old enough to do some kind of manual labor and bring in the big bucks, or that they have many children because they're planning to have the children support them when they're old, it's a cultural attitude.
It's a response to the economy of poor regions of the world. Hence why richer people within the same culture have fewer children. It's more economic.
It's a cultural attitude that will lead to big problems in this country as it converts to a welfare cultural attitude.
You have shown no relation between your two points. You simply stated that there is a relation. Any justification or proof?
The fact is, that in order to succeed in the USA without the food stamps, the free health care, housing assistance and so on, these same people would have to change their attitudes, their beliefs, their culture. They'd have to do the same things that if they did back home, they would succeed.
They do change. Hence why second and third generations become more assimilated into the US. Again, you have this premise of "welfare culture" and "Third World culture" yet you have not established a link. So again, what are you talking about?
Right now in Mexico if someone stays in school, including the government provided public schools, works hard, doesn't begin having babies at age 14 or 15, waits until they've completed an education, and job skills, and a job, and a marriage partner, and has only the number of children they can feed and clothe, that person will be middle class.
Really? So the schools in slums of Mexico City, TJ, or any other large city (or rural area for that matter) will adaquately prepare people to be a part of the middle class? That's why the leave their homes, there is a lack of opportunity in Mexico. Again, economics shaping the way they live.
The problem with cultural attitudes is that is what leads to third world poverty. Girls having babies at age 13 -- whether or not they do because they're planning for their retirement now, having babies they hope will take care of them or some 30 year old woman having her 12th child with a man who can never find a job and they're planning to get a farm someday, it's still cultural mindsets.
Look, it seems that you place these people in the context of suburban America (with statements of with a man who can never find a job and they're planning to get a farm someday). It's a shame that in America people don't really have a great grasp of the larger world around them. Instead we come up with these truly idiotic notions of "Third World" mentality to explain that "If people simply went to school and had fewer kids, they'd be like us"...what if there was no school? What if instead there was a communal farm or a very small plot of land? What if there was no grocery store? Instead you have to pick your own food. This is the reality of the situation. Everyone has a "job" in the third world. The "unemployment" rate is low...that's because your job is survival. It's not working at Goldman Sachs, Boeing, what have you. Survival. So again, there are bigger forces. Why are there no schools (or poor schools)? Why is healthcare woefully bad? Why are there super rich people in these areas alongside the extremely poor? Where is the middle class? There are a lot of factors that you fail to mention. This is why I say unless you address ALL factors, don't post on this "Third World Culture"...it really shows American ignorance on the subject.
We (the USA) owe cultures that you described NOTHING.
Either the above Third World societies change or they need to die out----------literally.
They don't die out. We kill them. And yeah as a part of being an aware person we should acknowledge that much of our current standard of living is because of a system that pays peasant farmers and sweat shop workers barely anything. The prosperity we see in the West, is due to previous and current exploitation. It is what it is...not condoning it, nor bashing America or the West. We do have a moral obligation to try to actually help the situation. We could start here at home by fixing schools in poor regions. This will help ALL poor people regardless of legal status.
They don't die out. We kill them. And yeah as a part of being an aware person we should acknowledge that much of our current standard of living is because of a system that pays peasant farmers and sweat shop workers barely anything. The prosperity we see in the West, is due to previous and current exploitation. It is what it is...not condoning it, nor bashing America or the West. We do have a moral obligation to try to actually help the situation. We could start here at home by fixing schools in poor regions. This will help ALL poor people regardless of legal status.
I strongly disagree-----------if anything, the First World would be better off if we had no dealing with most Third World nations.
Think about it: possibly the main reason that Britain, France, Portugal, etc. cut their colonies loose after WW II was there was no economic incentive to keep the latter any longer.
One will note that the standards of living skyrocketed in all of the above Euro nations since them.
Again, please don't comment on things you have no clue of... There are more factors at work than simply culture. There are also economic, political, and historical factors that need to be taken into consideration. .
To go by YOUR posts, there's really only ONE participant on this forum who SHOULDN'T stop commentng....YOU. It seems that only YOU have the vast life experience, the worldly understanding, and the objectivity to see ALL of the world's societies and varying cultures for what they are, thanks to your sophistication and ability to 'cut through the crap'. Obviously, none of us here can compete with you, and I for one am not even going to try.
I'll make you a 'deal' then...call it a 'gentleman's agreement'. I'll stop commenting on the Third World (which I've visited extensively, but am obviously incapable of understanding), if YOU in turn will do us ALL the favor of refraining from commenting on the USA....a place YOU are obviously not altogether qualified from seeing objectively, having been born and raised elsewhere, arriving here at a recent time in company with your Mom, and obviously seeing our society not from the standpoint of one who has any history or emotional attachment here, but only sees the USA as a vast "grab bag" that SHOULD be at the total disposal of the rest of the world, 'no questions asked', and a society that SHOULD have the burden of objectively 'understanding' all the hopes and aspirations of ANYONE who shows up here, and without asking ANYTHING in return. Apparently, in your eyes, the USA alone in the world has this 'duty'....while all other societies are free to live as they please, their only duty being to look out for their own members. You have expectations of the USA that simply aren't based in reality.
So I'll stop talking about what I don't know about (the Third World), and YOU stop commenting on the USA; you simply don't have the history, or the background here, AS YET, to be lecturing all us benighted 'natives' on how we should feel about our own society. You're still a relative newcomer here, and while that gives you the LEGAL right to all our benefits, it doesn't give you the CREDIBILITY to suddenly decide all the rest of us "old timers" (those who've been here a few generations) should all suddenly shut up because you've come along, and you've decided that we don't see things your way. In the 'First World', that's considered just plain RUDE.
I strongly disagree-----------if anything, the First World would be better off if we had no dealing with most Third World nations.
Where are the majority of our consumer products produced at? Where is our gas from? Where is chocolate, coffee, pineapples, and other foodstuff from? I'll tell you what....it's not in the Western World.
Think about it: possibly the main reason that Britain, France, Portugal, etc. cut their colonies loose after WW II was there was no economic incentive to keep the latter any longer.
So why is France so interested in sending troops to Africa? Why is it that France continues to push Bouygues to African nations? Why are many Telecoms on the continent a subsidiary of France Telecom? Why are European nations afraid of China spending money in Africa? It's because there is a large economic stake in Africa for cheap raw materials and oil.
One will note that the standards of living skyrocketed in all of the above Euro nations since them.
There is such thing as neocolonialism, there still is exploitation. It's because we got more efficient at exploitation.
Colonies=net liability.
Again: we owe Mexico, Zimbabwe, etc. nothing.
We do. We owe them fair trade policies at the very least.
To go by YOUR posts, there's really only ONE participant on this forum who SHOULDN'T stop commentng....YOU. It seems that only YOU have the vast life experience, the worldly understanding, and the objectivity to see ALL of the world's societies and varying cultures for what they are, thanks to your sophistication and ability to 'cut through the crap'. Obviously, none of us here can compete with you, and I for one am not even going to try.
I'll make you a 'deal' then...call it a 'gentleman's agreement'. I'll stop commenting on the Third World (which I've visited extensively, but am obviously incapable of understanding), if YOU in turn will do us ALL the favor of refraining from commenting on the USA....a place YOU are obviously not altogether qualified from seeing objectively, having been born and raised elsewhere, arriving here at a recent time in company with your Mom, and obviously seeing our society not from the standpoint of one who has any history or emotional attachment here, but only sees the USA as a vast "grab bag" that SHOULD be at the total disposal of the rest of the world, 'no questions asked', and a society that SHOULD have the burden of objectively 'understanding' all the hopes and aspirations of ANYONE who shows up here, and without asking ANYTHING in return. Apparently, in your eyes, the USA alone in the world has this 'duty'....while all other societies are free to live as they please, their only duty being to look out for their own members. You have expectations of the USA that simply aren't based in reality.
So I'll stop talking about what I don't know about (the Third World), and YOU stop commenting on the USA; you simply don't have the history, or the background here, AS YET, to be lecturing all us benighted 'natives' on how we should feel about our own society. You're still a relative newcomer here, and while that gives you the LEGAL right to all our benefits, it doesn't give you the CREDIBILITY to suddenly decide all the rest of us "old timers" (those who've been here a few generations) should all suddenly shut up because you've come along, and you've decided that we don't see things your way. In the 'First World', that's considered just plain RUDE.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! You have quite a knack for eloquent evisceration.
I strongly disagree-----------if anything, the First World would be better off if we had no dealing with most Third World nations.
Think about it: possibly the main reason that Britain, France, Portugal, etc. cut their colonies loose after WW II was there was no economic incentive to keep the latter any longer.
One will note that the standards of living skyrocketed in all of the above Euro nations since them.
Colonies=net liability.
Again: we owe Mexico, Zimbabwe, etc. nothing.
Your ignorance is really perplexing. If the U.S. had no dealings with "Third World" nations, how would the U.S. economy survive, since the they are the ones that supply raw materials and serve as a market for value added products. This is the main reason developed countries had colonies, since they could regulate who was allowed to trade with their colonies.
Please provide any support that indicates that the sky-rocketing of the standards of living is due to the cutting loose of their colonies.
And on a more practical note, the U.S. does owe Mexico, $36.3 Billion in the U.S. public debt alone.. Saying that the U.S. does not owe anything to any other country just further illustrates your ignorance. According to the U.S. treasury, the country owes $3.27 Trillion to the rest of the world, again in just the U.S. public debt.
To go by YOUR posts, there's really only ONE participant on this forum who SHOULDN'T stop commentng....YOU. It seems that only YOU have the vast life experience, the worldly understanding, and the objectivity to see ALL of the world's societies and varying cultures for what they are, thanks to your sophistication and ability to 'cut through the crap'. Obviously, none of us here can compete with you, and I for one am not even going to try.
I'll make you a 'deal' then...call it a 'gentleman's agreement'. I'll stop commenting on the Third World (which I've visited extensively, but am obviously incapable of understanding), if YOU in turn will do us ALL the favor of refraining from commenting on the USA....a place YOU are obviously not altogether qualified from seeing objectively, having been born and raised elsewhere, arriving here at a recent time in company with your Mom, and obviously seeing our society not from the standpoint of one who has any history or emotional attachment here, but only sees the USA as a vast "grab bag" that SHOULD be at the total disposal of the rest of the world, 'no questions asked', and a society that SHOULD have the burden of objectively 'understanding' all the hopes and aspirations of ANYONE who shows up here, and without asking ANYTHING in return. Apparently, in your eyes, the USA alone in the world has this 'duty'....while all other societies are free to live as they please, their only duty being to look out for their own members. You have expectations of the USA that simply aren't based in reality.
So I'll stop talking about what I don't know about (the Third World), and YOU stop commenting on the USA; you simply don't have the history, or the background here, AS YET, to be lecturing all us benighted 'natives' on how we should feel about our own society. You're still a relative newcomer here, and while that gives you the LEGAL right to all our benefits, it doesn't give you the CREDIBILITY to suddenly decide all the rest of us "old timers" (those who've been here a few generations) should all suddenly shut up because you've come along, and you've decided that we don't see things your way. In the 'First World', that's considered just plain RUDE.
Your ignorance is really perplexing. If the U.S. had no dealings with "Third World" nations, how would the U.S. economy survive, since the they are the ones that supply raw materials and serve as a market for value added products. This is the main reason developed countries had colonies, since they could regulate who was allowed to trade with their colonies.
Please provide any support that indicates that the sky-rocketing of the standards of living is due to the cutting loose of their colonies.
And on a more practical note, the U.S. does owe Mexico, $36.3 Billion. Saying that the U.S. does not owe anything to any other country just further illustrates your ignorance. According to the U.S. treasury, the country owes $3.27 Trillion to the rest of the world.
As for Mexico: they owe us for the USA caring for their illegal alien criminals so the $36.3 billion figure is moot.
I do not have any numbers handy to rebut you otherwise offhand.
Needless to say: it would injure the Third World nations a hell of a lot more if the First World cut 'em off. About the only reason I can see kowtowing to the former is because Russia and/or China would step in and de facto recolonize Africa, Asia, etc.
Even if you're claiming that the people who begin having children at 13 or 14 years of age or decide to have a baby every year that they can't support have sat down and reasoned that eventually these babies will be old enough to do some kind of manual labor and bring in the big bucks, or that they have many children because they're planning to have the children support them when they're old, it's a cultural attitude.
It's a response to the economy of poor regions of the world. Hence why richer people within the same culture have fewer children. It's more economic.
It's a cultural attitude that will lead to big problems in this country as it converts to a welfare cultural attitude.
You have shown no relation between your two points. You simply stated that there is a relation. Any justification or proof?
If one of your Third World denizens relocates to the US and has 10 kids because that is the way things are done in the Third World, the chances are real good that the US taxpayer is going to end up subsidizing them. I am not interested. I behaved responsibly and limited the size of my family and can think of no reason why I should be on the hook for someone who fails to do so. I do not care if that is how things are done in the Third World. If they wish to have huge families that they cannot support, then they need to stay in the Third World.
Quote:
The fact is, that in order to succeed in the USA without the food stamps, the free health care, housing assistance and so on, these same people would have to change their attitudes, their beliefs, their culture. They'd have to do the same things that if they did back home, they would succeed.
They do change. Hence why second and third generations become more assimilated into the US. Again, you have this premise of "welfare culture" and "Third World culture" yet you have not established a link. So again, what are you talking about?
What are you talking about. We are supposed to subsidize this 'large families are great in the Third World' behavior for two or three generations until they manage to adapt to our smaller family sizes? Forget that. Let them stay where they are.
Quote:
Right now in Mexico if someone stays in school, including the government provided public schools, works hard, doesn't begin having babies at age 14 or 15, waits until they've completed an education, and job skills, and a job, and a marriage partner, and has only the number of children they can feed and clothe, that person will be middle class.
Really? So the schools in slums of Mexico City, TJ, or any other large city (or rural area for that matter) will adaquately prepare people to be a part of the middle class? That's why the leave their homes, there is a lack of opportunity in Mexico. Again, economics shaping the way they live.
Not my problem. They need to stay in Mexico and solve their own problems. I am confident other countries will be willing to offer advice if they ever get serious about cleaning up their own act.
Quote:
The problem with cultural attitudes is that is what leads to third world poverty. Girls having babies at age 13 -- whether or not they do because they're planning for their retirement now, having babies they hope will take care of them or some 30 year old woman having her 12th child with a man who can never find a job and they're planning to get a farm someday, it's still cultural mindsets.
Look, it seems that you place these people in the context of suburban America (with statements of with a man who can never find a job and they're planning to get a farm someday). It's a shame that in America people don't really have a great grasp of the larger world around them. Instead we come up with these truly idiotic notions of "Third World" mentality to explain that "If people simply went to school and had fewer kids, they'd be like us"...what if there was no school? What if instead there was a communal farm or a very small plot of land? What if there was no grocery store? Instead you have to pick your own food. This is the reality of the situation. Everyone has a "job" in the third world. The "unemployment" rate is low...that's because your job is survival. It's not working at Goldman Sachs, Boeing, what have you. Survival. So again, there are bigger forces. Why are there no schools (or poor schools)? Why is healthcare woefully bad? Why are there super rich people in these areas alongside the extremely poor? Where is the middle class? There are a lot of factors that you fail to mention. This is why I say unless you address ALL factors, don't post on this "Third World Culture"...it really shows American ignorance on the subject.
If there is a very small plot of land, why on earth are they having mobs of kids. Surely they can recognize the fact that they will not be able to support all of them on the food grown on this small plot of land? What happens when all 12 of their kids grow up? Are the parents going to keep dividing their land into smaller and smaller parcels until nobody has enough land to survive on? Or is there some mysterious program where the amount of land you own magically increases by several acres for each additional kid you birth? In an agrarian society there is only so much arable land. I do not care if this is their culture, it is an extremely shortsighted way of thinking.
I will post on Third World culture if I choose to do so. You do not tell me what to do.
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.
