In 50 years will there be any predominantly caucasian countrys left? (illegal immigrants, laws)

[sponger42]

Originally Posted by macmeal

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?

Actually, it's not a few screwball racists, but rather an overall aspect of instinctive human nature to group with one's own kind. I see this as a huge problem to multiculturalism, but I think it can be controlled and corrected by rational people, just as we control other instincts which are destructive to society.

Example:
Many men have the instinctive urge to mate with multiple female partners, yet for the sake of society we have adopted a framework which--for the most part--bars polygamy and encourages fidelity. This results in stronger male-female unions which has the positive result of providing stable environments for childrearing among other things.

If so, what are they? Given the opportunity, where (if anywhere) would you set the boundaries for this?

Monoculturalism might have been fine for isolated hunter-gatherer-farmer communities when the world's human population was in the low millions. People were isolated from other cultures and they did not posess weapons or industries capable of widespread destruction. As the population increased and humans harnessed more powerful energy sources, cultures met, clashed, and fought progressivly more destructive wars, ending with the cold-war standoff of MAD and the prospect of possible extinction.

Now, I see our species as trying to overcome the barriers of monoculturalism on our increasingly crowded planet. Can you imagine a total war like WWI or WWII fought today? I believe that is the alternate path to mixing the cultures.

Are there any cultural aspects, of any group, from anywhere, that you could see yourself objecting to?

Yes, there are quite a few cultural aspects that I percieve as "backwards" or "repressive." Then again, these cultures did not evolve in a vacuume. There were environmental pressures that caused these beliefs to come into being. Remove the environmental pressures, and you see the more arcane and draconian aspects of most cultures fade.

This is easy to see in successive "permissive" generations who refuse to follow the "old ways" both in our own culture and others.

A benign example:
You (or your parents) might bemoan the fact that your children no longer hold the door for a woman as an example of the loss of courtesy. Yet, do women really need doors held open for them? Couldn't some find this sort of "chivalry" demeaning?

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.....

The last question is quite difficult. Obviously, our society will not tolerate "honor killings" or other illegal activities. Nor should it. These are clear violations of human rights, whatever their cultural background.

But what about traditional schooling, veils, dress, intermarriage, tolerance? I think these things will sort themselves out. There will be holdouts in any culture--from hardline evangelical christians to radical muslim clerics--who both preach the same sort of hate and repression. But we must recognize them for what they are--holdouts and extremists.

There is no culture that I know of which has such a perfect system as to be able to completely control their children and force them to follow the "old ways" when the pressures that formed those "old ways" no longer exist in their new multicultural society. With each successive generation, the old ways fade into a few quaint ceremonial expressions. After all, no one gets burned at the stake for celebrating Halloween or tortured for working on the Sabbath.

Those are my thoughts. I look forward to your response.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by sponger42

Actually, it's not a few screwball racists, but rather an overall aspect of instinctive human nature to group with one's own kind. I see this as a huge problem to multiculturalism, but I think it can be controlled and corrected by rational people, just as we control other instincts which are destructive to society.

Example:
Many men have the instinctive urge to mate with multiple female partners, yet for the sake of society we have adopted a framework which--for the most part--bars polygamy and encourages fidelity. This results in stronger male-female unions which has the positive result of providing stable environments for childrearing among other things.





Monoculturalism might have been fine for isolated hunter-gatherer-farmer communities when the world's human population was in the low millions. People were isolated from other cultures and they did not posess weapons or industries capable of widespread destruction. As the population increased and humans harnessed more powerful energy sources, cultures met, clashed, and fought progressivly more destructive wars, ending with the cold-war standoff of MAD and the prospect of possible extinction.

Now, I see our species as trying to overcome the barriers of monoculturalism on our increasingly crowded planet. Can you imagine a total war like WWI or WWII fought today? I believe that is the alternate path to mixing the cultures.



Yes, there are quite a few cultural aspects that I percieve as "backwards" or "repressive." Then again, these cultures did not evolve in a vacuume. There were environmental pressures that caused these beliefs to come into being. Remove the environmental pressures, and you see the more arcane and draconian aspects of most cultures fade.

This is easy to see in successive "permissive" generations who refuse to follow the "old ways" both in our own culture and others.

A benign example:
You (or your parents) might bemoan the fact that your children no longer hold the door for a woman as an example of the loss of courtesy. Yet, do women really need doors held open for them? Couldn't some find this sort of "chivalry" demeaning?



The last question is quite difficult. Obviously, our society will not tolerate "honor killings" or other illegal activities. Nor should it. These are clear violations of human rights, whatever their cultural background.

But what about traditional schooling, veils, dress, intermarriage, tolerance? I think these things will sort themselves out. There will be holdouts in any culture--from hardline evangelical christians to radical muslim clerics--who both preach the same sort of hate and repression. But we must recognize them for what they are--holdouts and extremists.

There is no culture that I know of which has such a perfect system as to be able to completely control their children and force them to follow the "old ways" when the pressures that formed those "old ways" no longer exist in their new multicultural society. With each successive generation, the old ways fade into a few quaint ceremonial expressions. After all, no one gets burned at the stake for celebrating Halloween or tortured for working on the Sabbath.

Those are my thoughts. I look forward to your response.

It's apparent that your "dangerous" ideas are looking more and more rational as I read on. Most of what you say is just good common sense. Can't argue with it, nor with your good intentions.
Your example of men's inherent urge to "spread their seed", however, does run the risk of oversimplification. What you allege is true, of course; men and women do seem to have profoundly different ideas regarding this, to say the least---(ahem)..HOWEVER, the "ideal" of monogamy has never been universally accepted in practice, wouldn't it be fair to say? And the stigmas and peer pressures supporting it have been largely developed as the work of rather stern, uncompromising religious figures thundering damnation from the pulpit. Even THEN it didn't "take" too well...there was considerable "backsliding", I think we both realize. I'm not sure we'd let anyone or any religion dictate our behavior today or in the future---If monogamy wre introduced today, I fear it might not be accepted. I'm not sure we could "control our instincts" in the future as well as we did in the past. (In fact I'm sure of it, and this is one of my constant refrains)---


As far as your supposition that new conditions will cause the "rougher" cultures to modify their ways, this is probably true. In fact, I think the "new people" do want to assimilate and fit in, more so than our own home-grown multiculturalists want them too. I think most immigrants would like to be "regular Americans" while our own local intelligencia would prefer that they remain "colorful and exotic". Still, I think it's counterproductive to espouse this multicultural way of thinking, no matter how few real adherents it has....

Your "chivalry" point is good. It's true that our OWN culture is changing so fast that it's difficult to take anything as a given, and the best of intentions can, and do, backfire....

Lastly, your points about the "kids" getting away from the old ways is the story of America. The only qualification I'd offer is that this was formerly done with the peer pressure of the general population to accelerate this process of assimilation. With all the various pressure groups and activists out there now, I think the process of assimilation is being discouraged. In fact, I think there are many groups out there who make no secret of the fact that they DEPLORE assimilation. It will happen anyway, but this makes it much more difficult.
Enjoyed your post...

[James T]

Here are a few anthropological definitions:

Caucasian- One of the three catagories of homo sapien. This includes all people neither Mongoloid nor Negroid. Arabs and Persians are Caucasian.

Latin/Latino- A Southern European. The French, for example, are Latinos.

Hispanic- a Spaniard of 100% European ancestry. NOTE: Most Mexicans are not Hispanic.

Mestizo- a non-White person from Mexico, Central America, or South America, not including Blacks. Most Mexicans are Mestizo as a result of intermarriage between Spaniards and Aztecs.

White- a person of non-mixed European ancestry.

There; that should settle that. Those are the correct definitions, even though the mainstream media misuses them almost all the time.

[sponger42]

Your example of men's inherent urge to "spread their seed", however, does run the risk of oversimplification. What you allege is true, of course; men and women do seem to have profoundly different ideas regarding this, to say the least---(ahem)

Preaching to the choir, my friend. Whomever said it was a "Man's World" apparently has never met a woman.

..HOWEVER, the "ideal" of monogamy has never been universally accepted in practice, wouldn't it be fair to say? And the stigmas and peer pressures supporting it have been largely developed as the work of rather stern, uncompromising religious figures thundering damnation from the pulpit. Even THEN it didn't "take" too well...there was considerable "backsliding", I think we both realize. I'm not sure we'd let anyone or any religion dictate our behavior today or in the future---If monogamy wre introduced today, I fear it might not be accepted. I'm not sure we could "control our instincts" in the future as well as we did in the past. (In fact I'm sure of it, and this is one of my constant refrains)---

I think the old Gods have been supplanted by the New Gods of "Science" and "Awareness" (I hate that word!) Wherever you find someone who no longer worships the god of their ancestors, you'll find them worshiping Science or (cultural) Awareness instead. Science tells us that we are all humans and all essentially the same. Cultural Awareness tells us that we must all get along, hug kittens together, and shoot rainbows out our butts.

So, I think that the different cultures can learn to live together, given full bellies and the occasional rainbow kitten. Especially since the Science and Awareness worshipers are fairly open to new ideas and people different from them. A big chunk of the fire and brimstone crowd also is COMMANDED to love thy neighbor, and does so grudgingly some of the time. Well, at least on the surface. We are all just a bundle of raw nerves and instincts under a thin veneer of manners and socialized rational thought. It only takes a minor disaster and/or a few days without food for that veneer to scrape away and show our true lawless nature.

Still, we live in a world where we in the developed countries can spend our whole lives without going "without" so we can afford to maintain that veneer and the society it protects. In fact, considering the weapons at our disposal and how intertwined our complicated economic supply system is--that feeds 5.2 of the 6 billion people in the world each day--we can ill afford not to.

As far as your supposition that new conditions will cause the "rougher" cultures to modify their ways, this is probably true. In fact, I think the "new people" do want to assimilate and fit in, more so than our own home-grown multiculturalists want them too. I think most immigrants would like to be "regular Americans" while our own local intelligencia would prefer that they remain "colorful and exotic". Still, I think it's counterproductive to espouse this multicultural way of thinking, no matter how few real adherents it has....

I couldn't agree more. However, I really don't see the intelligencia saying "THOU SHALT NOT LEARN ENGLISH. (Or thou shalt kill thy slutty sister)" Yeah, the anti-illegal lobby likes to throw around the occasional anecdote (of dubious legitimacy) of parents telling their children to speak Spanish. I generally just see people being encouraged to throw parties on whatever holidays they observed in the home country. At least, that's what I encourage. Any excuse to get s-faced is a good reason to support multiculturalism.

I make light of this, but you are right. There are a lot of "smart" people who do secretly look down on the funny little brown/red/white/yellow men and think their cultural ways are cute, so long as they stay in fillipino/China/Little Mexico/Ital town and don't bother the ivory tower types in their oddly monochromatic (with token bits of color) upper-middle suburbs, while the rest of us slog through working out our differences/biases here in the lower-middle trenches. But at least we're honest about who we don't like, who we're afraid of, and why we feel that way. I don't disrespect anyone who's even a bald-faced racist. People are who they are. Some can change, some can't. We still have to live with them, even if they're not the most pleasant people to be around.

Okay, I'm out of time. I'll try to hit the other points later. Sorry if I was a little unpolished this time.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by sponger42

Preaching to the choir, my friend. Whomever said it was a "Man's World" apparently has never met a woman.



I think the old Gods have been supplanted by the New Gods of "Science" and "Awareness" (I hate that word!) Wherever you find someone who no longer worships the god of their ancestors, you'll find them worshiping Science or (cultural) Awareness instead. Science tells us that we are all humans and all essentially the same. Cultural Awareness tells us that we must all get along, hug kittens together, and shoot rainbows out our butts.

So, I think that the different cultures can learn to live together, given full bellies and the occasional rainbow kitten. Especially since the Science and Awareness worshipers are fairly open to new ideas and people different from them. A big chunk of the fire and brimstone crowd also is COMMANDED to love thy neighbor, and does so grudgingly some of the time. Well, at least on the surface. We are all just a bundle of raw nerves and instincts under a thin veneer of manners and socialized rational thought. It only takes a minor disaster and/or a few days without food for that veneer to scrape away and show our true lawless nature.

Still, we live in a world where we in the developed countries can spend our whole lives without going "without" so we can afford to maintain that veneer and the society it protects. In fact, considering the weapons at our disposal and how intertwined our complicated economic supply system is--that feeds 5.2 of the 6 billion people in the world each day--we can ill afford not to.



I couldn't agree more. However, I really don't see the intelligencia saying "THOU SHALT NOT LEARN ENGLISH. (Or thou shalt kill thy slutty sister)" Yeah, the anti-illegal lobby likes to throw around the occasional anecdote (of dubious legitimacy) of parents telling their children to speak Spanish. I generally just see people being encouraged to throw parties on whatever holidays they observed in the home country. At least, that's what I encourage. Any excuse to get s-faced is a good reason to support multiculturalism.

I make light of this, but you are right. There are a lot of "smart" people who do secretly look down on the funny little brown/red/white/yellow men and think their cultural ways are cute, so long as they stay in fillipino/China/Little Mexico/Ital town and don't bother the ivory tower types in their oddly monochromatic (with token bits of color) upper-middle suburbs, while the rest of us slog through working out our differences/biases here in the lower-middle trenches. But at least we're honest about who we don't like, who we're afraid of, and why we feel that way. I don't disrespect anyone who's even a bald-faced racist. People are who they are. Some can change, some can't. We still have to live with them, even if they're not the most pleasant people to be around.

Okay, I'm out of time. I'll try to hit the other points later. Sorry if I was a little unpolished this time.

So far you're making sense--not always hewing to the politically-correct line, but making sense nonetheless. My biggest quibble with your reasoning so far has been a "worst-case" scenario. So far, here in "our" part of the west (that is, in the US), we've been swamped by a relatively sudden influx of immigrants (illegal ones) who, while their presence here has certainly been contentious, so far seem only to want to work and prosper here. This may annoy some of us (as any unannouced house-guest with a sense of entitlement would), but to this point, these folks seem pretty benign, and the worst they seem to do is to undercut our wage scales and "overload" our infrastructure.
But over in Europe, which shares similar roots to the founders of our nation, and is an area of "western" culture, things far more sinister are developing. Those folks seem to be in the process of invasion by an angry, hateful group that actually wants to kill its hosts. Our similarities lead me to wonder if the same thing might not happen here. And our own pro-immigration apologists may, at this point, just seem naive--but I ask myself, could they ever become as "nutty" as some of the Europeans, many of whom have apparently resigned themselves (in France, particularly) of literally allowing their nations to "go muslim" in the next century or so. Their calm acceptance of this just baffles me, but it seems to be genuine.
Naturally, I fear the parallels. After all, despite man's gruesome history of beating up on, maiming, and killing each other, I don't think there's been a precedent for a population simply sitting by with a weak smile while they willingly allowed another group to just walk in and take over without firing a shot. Seems to me the Europeans are headed this direction. Though our politics (and our "illegals", SO FAR) are somewhat different, could we allow that to happen here?
What's going to happen when our PRESENT illegals do become legal? Are they going to be satisfied with their second-class role? How, and by what means, are they going to assert their new clout? And wouldn't it be easier for the powers-that-be, instead of trying to help the new folks to "fit in" to society, to take this as an opportunity to simply chip away at ALL of our civil rights and privileges, so that NOBODY feels worse off than anyone else? Might this not be seen as "necessary", to reduce the rate of dissension and conflict in our "new" society? (and also things like the thousands of new "surveillance" cameras around the UK)--Does this sound too bizarre to come true?---I sure hope so, but somehow that doesn't reassure me.
Looking forward to your further input, sponger....

[Dee62]

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?

If only educators, politicians, Businessmen, Media - Network newsreaders and the Drug addicts of Hollywood would analylize history instead of just reading it they would be able to see Multicultural socities do not endure for very long! Rome was a great society when it was racially Homogenious and its isolated geography prohibited Racial intermarriage with the Primative tribal peoples of other parts of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East! After several military conquests Romes' boundaries expanded beyond the Italic peninsular permitting her racially pure citizens to intermarry with the non-italic and non-Latin peoples! It is interesting to note the Roman government (emperors and Ruling elite) incouraged and disingeniously mislead her citizens to intermarry with other races. Roman politicians sucessfully got their citizens to accept racial intermarrage with with a propaganda program. Let me see could this be a primative form of pre 20th century Multiculturalism! The emperors believed Latin culture would spread if Romans intermarried with with the primative non-Latin tribal peoples! Yes this does ring a bell Multiculturalism!

Well we see this sic pattern in all Latin Cultures! For instance look at the French! Where did they get the nickname "syphilitic Race" . And why did France even its heyday never endure! Remember Louis the 14th in his high heels. Throw in Metrosexuality too! Look at South and Central America. The Spanish intermarried with the American Indians! And As a result no great society was ever molded in South-Central America! History repeats itself over and over again! I rest my case! Multiculturalism has destroyed and has retarded the growth in many civilizations of the past!

[MovingForward]

I think "multiculturalism" is the buzzword--and reality--that has resulted from corporate globalization. One's culture is seen as "limited" if it is homogeneous, yet somehow more "liberated" or "interesting" if it is not. What I see is the sad dissolution of distinct cultures, all degenerating into a huge mess of increasingly disempowered workers, increasingly and obscenely enriched corporate structures, and an increasingly poisoned planet.

Speaking of poisoned planets and the murderous nature of "multinational corporations" (which require, ultimately, "multicultural" societies), here's one small example:

Black Bears Bulldozed in West Virginia « It’s Getting Hot In Here

or:

Prairie dogs eating the grass meant for cattle, cuz we just can't get enough of our meat??? No problem: Let's put poison down the prairie dog burrows (horrible, agonizing way to die, but who cares).

or:

Family farms a thing of the past? Well, of course: increased population, increased affluence, increased demand for meat--out with the family farms, in with the "efficient" factory farms (modeled after German concentration camps, by the way): Debeaking of chickens (no anesthesia, please); billions of male chicks thrown in dumpsters or crushed to death (what use do they have, anyway); chickens forced to live in such horrible conditions that they begin to cannibalize one another; cows hitched to a "rape rack," kept perpetually pregnant, forced to produce 10x the amount of milk nature intended her to produce, then shipped off to the horrors of the slaughterhouse when she outlives her "usefulness"; and her male calf torn from her side a few hours after birth, thrown into a pen too small for him to even lie down, fed an anemia-producing gruel in order to make his flesh "white" and "tender" (gotta' have that "veal," you know), the whole time crying for his mother, who meanwhile is grieving and is being "stubborn" in her refusal to produce enough milk. Pigs kicked and beaten. Cows and pigs and goats ROUTINELY sodomized. NOT an exception--the RULE, folks. Of course, with only 100 USDA agents who are supposed to supervise the "humane" treatment of animals in every pet shop, slaughterhouse, laboratory, feedlot, and factory farm in the country--uh huh, THAT'S gonna' happen, fer shur. But hey, you know: let's just hide it all behind a bunch of crap rhetoric (underwritten by the beef and dairy industry, of course--about how essential it is to eat meat and dairy--never mind that other cultures oddly remain perfectly healthy without consuming the flesh of other living creatures) and let's make sure that anybody who speaks out against this abomination against creation be labeled animal rights "terrorists." Yeah, we're a real civilized and compassionate people in this country. We've allowed corporations and the marketplace to dictate ethics and have closed our eyes to our own complicity in this horror.

Pesky little beavers threatening to flood our McMansions? No point in reassessing land-use policy, right? Let's just trap the little buggers (nobody needs to know that most of them don't die instantly, but rather suffer a horrible death by drowning for up to 20 minutes--and nobody certainly needs to know that we are making the ecological problem worse by killing them--too much money at stake for the developers).

Invasive species a problem (imported through trade, tourist, and immigration channels)? Choking off native habitats? No problem: let's just spray some poison everywhere to try and eradicate them. Yeah, okay, additional damage to ecosystems result--but who ever accused us of thinking our way through a problem, anyway?)

Millions and millions of uneducated immigrants (thanks to uncontrolled illegal immigration), most of whom come from a culture which thinks the inhumane treatment of women, animals, and the land is not only a problem, but their "cultural" birthright: no thanks.

I've about had it with do-good, knee-jerk liberalism, which blindly seeks to ignore the realities which are inconvenient or "politically incorrect" in order to indulge its self-righteous and self-aggrandizing crusade on behalf on merely one segment of the whole at the expense of the whole, out of some sophomoric sense of moral superiority. And I've about had it with myopic, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, blowhard, sometimes racist and/or xenophobic, right-wing rabble-rousers who, equally, can't think their way out of a box. They're both operating within the same paradigms of thought.

I don't know what the answer is, other than truly educating ourselves (not just reading selected mainstream and/or offbeat crap which reinforces our individual and collective limited visions). But I do know that unless Americans get a clue--and not just about illegal immigration--the country will go to rot in short order. Technology will not save us. "Multiculturalism" (a truly odious term) will not save us. And neither will our present leaders. Only Americans can save themselves and their country. And they can do this only, in my opinion, by making a sincere and focused effort to educate themselves on the issues and demand leaders with vision, not just promise. Take a chance on the oddball. If you're right-wing or left-wing--doesn't matter--open your mind to the other way of thinking--you have to, if you want to cut through the crap and get to the truth. Give up the destructive myths about what is or isn't or should or shouldn't be "America." Forget "Newsweek," or "Border Patrol Weekly" or "Take Back Our Nation from those Dirty Illegals," or "Multiculturalism: Ain't it Beautiful," etc. Read: biology, ecology, political science--in short, publications without an agenda. Discover the very REAL extent to which human political, economic and social policy impacts the land, and the very REAL dangers ahead for humankind as the result of our insistence on remaining blinkered about the extent to which our very survival depends on our treatment of the land and its inhabitants. Basic ecology knows that, sooner or later: "What we do to them, we do to ourselves." How arrogant--and tragic--to think that just because we can't see it happening, or because smooth-talking rich men in expensive suits lie about it in order to placate and distract (while they earn billions), it isn't happening. Because it is. Only when Americans have taken the time to learn to think rationally about what is really happening in their country, and on their planet--again, in my opinion--can we even hope to be able to secure a decent future for today's children. Because right now, it's not looking too good.

[andreabeth]

Originally Posted by sponger42

Actually, it's not a few screwball racists, but rather an overall aspect of instinctive human nature to group with one's own kind. I see this as a huge problem to multiculturalism, but I think it can be controlled and corrected by rational people, just as we control other instincts which are destructive to society.

Yes, it is human nature to want to be with others of one's own kind. I don't think you (collective 'you', not you personally) will ever be able to 'control' and 'correct' that completely. Nor am I sure that it should be eliminated. You see, the 'global tribal village' school of thought's view of the need to eliminate monocultural society reminds me of taking a fantastic 8 course meal, pouring the whole thing into a blender set on 'high' for a few minutes then ladling the resulting slop onto everybody's plate. Bon appetit!
Why should there not be an English culture? Or an Indonesian culture? Or a French culture? People enjoy travelling to France to see and experience the many wonderful things that are uniquely French. How is France having a French culture destructive to their society? Or America having an American culture? Maybe the South Sea Islanders like their culture and see no need to change.

Monoculturalism might have been fine for isolated hunter-gatherer-farmer communities when the world's human population was in the low millions.

How do you then explain a country like Japan which has always had an isolationist stance and yet is very culturally advanced and a First World nation? I think the majority of the world's countries are far more restrictive with regards to immigration than the US and hence have more of a homogenous culture.

People were isolated from other cultures and they did not posess weapons or industries capable of widespread destruction. As the population increased and humans harnessed more powerful energy sources, cultures met, clashed, and fought progressivly more destructive wars, ending with the cold-war standoff of MAD and the prospect of possible extinction.

Now, I see our species as trying to overcome the barriers of monoculturalism on our increasingly crowded planet. Can you imagine a total war like WWI or WWII fought today? I believe that is the alternate path to mixing the cultures.

Many wars are started by one group of people attempting to impose their culture on another group of peoples. How do you propose the achieve this mixing of the cultures without massive civil unrest? Sorry, but there is going to be a group of people who will not be willing to go along with this scheme voluntarily. If you mix all the cultures, won't you then have the very monculture you are saying is no good?

Yes, there are quite a few cultural aspects that I percieve as "backwards" or "repressive." Then again, these cultures did not evolve in a vacuume. There were environmental pressures that caused these beliefs to come into being. Remove the environmental pressures, and you see the more arcane and draconian aspects of most cultures fade.

How did environmental pressures cause sharia law?

The last question is quite difficult. Obviously, our society will not tolerate "honor killings" or other illegal activities. Nor should it. These are clear violations of human rights, whatever their cultural background.

But what about traditional schooling, veils, dress, intermarriage, tolerance? I think these things will sort themselves out. There will be holdouts in any culture--from hardline evangelical christians to radical muslim clerics--who both preach the same sort of hate and repression. But we must recognize them for what they are--holdouts and extremists.

There is no culture that I know of which has such a perfect system as to be able to completely control their children and force them to follow the "old ways" when the pressures that formed those "old ways" no longer exist in their new multicultural society. With each successive generation, the old ways fade into a few quaint ceremonial expressions. After all, no one gets burned at the stake for celebrating Halloween or tortured for working on the Sabbath.

Those are my thoughts. I look forward to your response.

Here we have in the US a large group of people who have seem to have no intention of assimilation to the US. They intend to reclaim their mythical homeland and are openly hostile to American citizens. And I'm supposed to celebrate this diversity?

[macmeal]

[quote=andreabeth;1332428

Here we have in the US a large group of people who have seem to have no intention of assimilation to the US. They intend to reclaim their mythical homeland and are openly hostile to American citizens. And I'm supposed to celebrate this diversity?[/QUOTE]

While I don't necessarily share your fearful views of the intentions of most illegals--(most of them whom I've known care little for politics---and "Aztlan" seems a concept most prominent on college campuses, among lefties of all ethnicities)---I will take note of your question. For it hits at the core of much of our present-day controversy. If you (or I) believe that our culture espouses the "good" and the "fair", then wouldn't "diversity" require that we also embrace the "bad" or the "unfair"---the same conundrum exists in the use of the term "tolerance". Just how "diverse", and how "tolerant" should we be, anyway? You never hear a clear-cut answer to this.....

[sponger42]

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.

Originally Posted by macmeal

But over in Europe, which shares similar roots to the founders of our nation, and is an area of "western" culture, things far more sinister are developing. Those folks seem to be in the process of invasion by an angry, hateful group that actually wants to kill its hosts. Our similarities lead me to wonder if the same thing might not happen here. And our own pro-immigration apologists may, at this point, just seem naive--but I ask myself, could they ever become as "nutty" as some of the Europeans, many of whom have apparently resigned themselves (in France, particularly) of literally allowing their nations to "go muslim" in the next century or so. Their calm acceptance of this just baffles me, but it seems to be genuine.

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?"

What's going to happen when our PRESENT illegals do become legal? Are they going to be satisfied with their second-class role? How, and by what means, are they going to assert their new clout? And wouldn't it be easier for the powers-that-be, instead of trying to help the new folks to "fit in" to society, to take this as an opportunity to simply chip away at ALL of our civil rights and privileges, so that NOBODY feels worse off than anyone else? Might this not be seen as "necessary", to reduce the rate of dissension and conflict in our "new" society? (and also things like the thousands of new "surveillance" cameras around the UK)--Does this sound too bizarre to come true?---I sure hope so, but somehow that doesn't reassure me.
Looking forward to your further input, sponger....

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.

Originally Posted by Dee62

If only educators, politicians, Businessmen, Media - Network newsreaders and the Drug addicts of Hollywood would analylize history instead of just reading it they would be able to see Multicultural socities do not endure for very long! Rome was a great society when it was racially Homogenious and its isolated geography prohibited Racial intermarriage with the Primative tribal peoples of other parts of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East! After several military conquests Romes' boundaries expanded beyond the Italic peninsular permitting her racially pure citizens to intermarry with the non-italic and non-Latin peoples! It is interesting to note the Roman government (emperors and Ruling elite) incouraged and disingeniously mislead her citizens to intermarry with other races. Roman politicians sucessfully got their citizens to accept racial intermarrage with with a propaganda program. Let me see could this be a primative form of pre 20th century Multiculturalism! The emperors believed Latin culture would spread if Romans intermarried with with the primative non-Latin tribal peoples! Yes this does ring a bell Multiculturalism!

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?

The Spanish intermarried with the American Indians! And As a result no great society was ever molded in South-Central America! History repeats itself over and over again! I rest my case! Multiculturalism has destroyed and has retarded the growth in many civilizations of the past!

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.

Originally Posted by andreabeth

Yes, it is human nature to want to be with others of one's own kind. I don't think you (collective 'you', not you personally) will ever be able to 'control' and 'correct' that completely. Nor am I sure that it should be eliminated. You see, the 'global tribal village' school of thought's view of the need to eliminate monocultural society reminds me of taking a fantastic 8 course meal, pouring the whole thing into a blender set on 'high' for a few minutes then ladling the resulting slop onto everybody's plate. Bon appetit!
Why should there not be an English culture? Or an Indonesian culture? Or a French culture? People enjoy travelling to France to see and experience the many wonderful things that are uniquely French. How is France having a French culture destructive to their society? Or America having an American culture? Maybe the South Sea Islanders like their culture and see no need to change.

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.

How do you then explain a country like Japan which has always had an isolationist stance and yet is very culturally advanced and a First World nation? I think the majority of the world's countries are far more restrictive with regards to immigration than the US and hence have more of a homogenous culture.

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.

Many wars are started by one group of people attempting to impose their culture on another group of peoples. How do you propose the achieve this mixing of the cultures without massive civil unrest? Sorry, but there is going to be a group of people who will not be willing to go along with this scheme voluntarily. If you mix all the cultures, won't you then have the very monculture you are saying is no good?

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.

How did environmental pressures cause sharia law?

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.

Here we have in the US a large group of people who have seem to have no intention of assimilation to the US. They intend to reclaim their mythical homeland and are openly hostile to American citizens. And I'm supposed to celebrate this diversity?

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.