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.
The "fear" if that is what you want to call it is from our national identity/culture changing due to illegal immigration and legal immigration when there are two many being allowed in from one national/ethnic group. How would Mexicans feel if there were hordes of Chinese coming to their country in that manner and changing the identity of Mexico from a Hispanic nation to an Asian one in identity and language? You now how they would feel and rightly so but you probably won't admit it.
I have no problem with natural subtle change which is the way it worked in the past but what is happening above today is neither natural, lawful nor subtle. There are no more diversity quotas which aided in assimilation. Instead what is happening is colonization. Yet we are the bad guys for objecting to that?
I guess you call Europeans getting off of boats, slaughtering Indians, importing African slaves to work on plantations, Chinese to work on railroads and mines, Japanese, Filipinos and Mexicans to work on western farmland, all the while doing as much as possible to deny these people their civil rights and full economic, social, and political opportunities until the middle to latter part of the 20th century as natural.
The only reason your pissed is the latest round of immigrants don't have WHITE SKIN.
I guess you call Europeans getting off of boats, slaughtering Indians, importing African slaves to work on plantations, Chinese to work on railroads and mines, Japanese, Filipinos and Mexicans to work on western farmland, all the while doing as much as possible to deny these people their civil rights and full economic, social, and political opportunities until the middle to latter part of the 20th century as natural.
The only reason your pissed is the latest round of immigrants don't have WHITE SKIN.
I never said our political principles don't change. They evolve, just like everything else. The principle of equality didn't apply originally to anyone but white male property holders. The political principles changed because the foundations of our culture dictated that they must change. As we came to accept that white males that weren't property holders had a stake in our society. As we came to understand that men who weren't white had a stake in our society. As we came to understand that women as well as men had a stake in our society. The principle of equality dictated that we evolve politically. These hallmarks of American culture are not just political principles. They are, as I stated yesterday, the heart and soul of American culture.
Equality as a principle, in the restrained and sensible form present at our founding, didn't arise out of thin air. It had an historical, religious and cultural context. That context defined the purpose of equality (something we should be thinking about today) and the limits of its application. Eliminate the context, and the deracinated principle will "evolve" into something fanatical and ideological. Welcome to America 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Whether it's good for people who live together in the same place to share the same language, customs, morality and religious faith isn't the question, is it?
It absolutely is the question. Cultural unity is a fundamental good - not the highest good, but a good nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The question would seem to be is it bad for people who live together in the same place to speak multiple languages, to practice different customs and traditions, to worship differently? Is that bad?
It's certainly a defect. No, it's not the end of the world, but it does create lots of problems.
Let me give you just one example among thousands that might be given. I'm a rather typical white American with mixed European bloodlines, chiefly Scandinavian and English. In college I was introduced to the Vietnamese refugees and fell in love with that culture. In fact, I felt I had more in common with them than Americans my own age. I studied with them, partied with them, taught them English, and married one of the best of them 21 years ago.
One of the differences between the Vietnamese and American cultures is that, in Vietnamese culture, it's a sign of disrespect to look one's elders in the eye. In American culture it's just the opposite: when a young person is being addressed by an elder, it's a sign of disrespect to look away. In college, I took an engineering-level calculus class with some Vietnamese classmates and an older white American professor. The professor asked one of the students a question. The student didn't understand the question, not speaking English well, and in humility he averted his eyes. The professor asked the question again, this time more loudly. The Vietnamese student remained silent, bowed his head, and looked down. The professor then practically shouted the question a couple more times, and finally in anger he took his chalkboard eraser and threw it at the poor kid like a fastball.
Cultural diversity may be justified at times, but you can't deny that it creates real problems. Working through the potential conflicts of just two different cultures - just two - is a lifetime project. In Los Angeles county there are 224 languages spoken. Think about the problems that kind of situation creates, the lack of trust, the misunderstandings, the confusion, the lack of common purpose, the neighbors who will never be friends, etc. - nevermind the sheer economic cost of dealing with the inefficiencies!
But this thread was not really begun with immigration or foreign cultures in mind. Take away immigration altogether and American culture is still falling apart. Immigration is not the cause of it. We've adopted an anti-cultural philosophy of life. We don't share religion, morality, or common values with our neighbors anymore, so we don't really know them and don't want to know them. Our public celebrations are on the most superficial level imaginable. We don't even speak the same language in the sense that language means understanding each other. The exploding and mind-numbing number of choices means that little groups of Americans who don't know each other form around increasingly esoteric interests, and that's the extent of the "community" they enjoy.
What I really loved about the Vietnamese in the 1980s was their passion for becoming Americans. They were poor as dirt, had been through indescribable tragedies and hardships, but were happy to be alive and to be free from communism. At the same time they had a real culture of their own, and I envied them for it. In fact they helped me discover, for the first time, the culture that Americans were in the process of forgetting and neglecting, and which they wanted so much to be a part of.
Which leads me to my final point. A country with a defined, guarded, and substantive culture of its own will attract immigrants who want to become a part of it. A "multicultural" country - like the non-culture or materialistic anti-culture we are fast becoming - will attract only those immigrants who want to profit from being here in some other way.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 08-16-2012 at 03:18 PM..
Equality as a principle, in the restrained and sensible form present at our founding, didn't arise out of thin air. It had an historical, religious and cultural context. Eliminate the context, and the deracinated principle will "evolve" into something fanatical and ideological. Welcome to America 2012.
It absolutely is the question. Cultural unity is a fundamental good - not the highest good, but a good nonetheless.
It's certainly a defect. No, it's not the end of the world, but it does create lots of problems.
Let me give you just one example among thousands that might be given. I'm a rather typical white American with mixed European bloodlines, chiefly Scandinavian and English. In college I was introduced to the Vietnamese refugees and fell in love with that culture. In fact, I felt I had more in common with them than Americans my own age. I studied with them, partied with them, taught them English, and married one of the best of them 21 years ago.
One of the differences between the Vietnamese and American cultures is that, in Vietnamese culture, it's a sign of disrespect to look one's elders in the eye. In American culture it's just the opposite: when a young person is being addressed by an elder, it's a sign of disrespect to look away. In college, I took an engineering-level calculus class with some Vietnamese classmates and an older white American professor. The professor asked one of the students a question. The student didn't understand the question, not speaking English well, and in humility he averted his eyes. The professor asked the question again, this time more loudly. The Vietnamese student remained silent, bowed his head, and looked down. The professor then practically shouted the question a couple more times, and finally in anger he took his chalkboard eraser and threw it at the poor kid like a fastball.
Cultural diversity may be justified at times, but you can't deny that it creates real problems. Working through the potential conflicts of just two different cultures - just two - is a lifetime project. In Los Angeles county there are 224 languages spoken. Think about the problems that kind of situation creates, the lack of trust, the misunderstandings, the confusion, the lack of common purpose, the neighbors who will never be friends, etc. - nevermind the sheer economic cost of dealing with the inefficiencies!
But this thread was not really begun with immigration or foreign cultures in mind. Take away immigration altogether and American culture is still falling apart. Immigration is not the cause of it. We've adopted an anti-cultural philosophy of life. We don't share religion, morality, or common values with our neighbors anymore, so we don't really know them and don't want to know them. Our public celebrations are on the most superficial level imaginable. We don't even speak the same language in the sense that language means understanding each other. The exploding and mind-numbing number of choices means that little groups of Americans who don't know each other form around increasingly esoteric interests, and that's the extent of the "community" they enjoy.
What I really loved about the Vietnamese in the 1980s was their passion for becoming Americans. They were poor as dirt, had been through indescribable tragedies and hardships, but were happy to be alive and to be free from communism. At the same time they had a real culture of their own, and I envied them for it. In fact they helped me discover, for the first time, the culture that Americans were in the process of forgetting and neglecting, and which they wanted so much to be a part of.
Which leads me to my final point. A country with a defined, guarded, and substantive culture of its own will attract immigrants who want to become a part of it. A "multicultural" country - like the non-culture or materialistic anti-culture we are fast becoming - will attract only those immigrants who want to profit from being here in some other way.
I'm sorry, but the story about the professor that you characterize as a problem, I see as an opportunity. You learned that tidbit about Vietnamese culture, and it allowed you to see the events as they progressed in a different way than the others in the class. And there was an opportunity for you to share your insights with the professor and the class, the same way you've shared them here. The same way I share similar experiences with the people around me.
I see diversity as opportunity. Just like when you related why you loved the Vietnamese in the 1980's, because they gave you a different perspective. You don't get that in the homogenous society you are arguing for. Just as when you are a child, and the world is filled with wonder. We lose that wonder as we get older and more jaded. But when we share our world with someone who hasn't had our same experiences, who comes from a different culture, then we can share our world and their perspective and be filled with wonder all over again.
I remember a foreign exchange student describing what she felt like when she first entered an American supermarket. The things we take for granted, we are reminded are not just givens when we get to see them from a different perspective. And I remember traveling in Mexico, and the first time I entered a Mexican supermarket. Diversity within our society, travel outside our society, and education are all meant to broaden our perspectives, to grow, and be more tolerant.
The problem is not diversity or multi-culturalism or whatever you want to call it. The problem is and always has been intolerance.
I'm sorry, but the story about the professor that you characterize as a problem, I see as an opportunity. You learned that tidbit about Vietnamese culture, and it allowed you to see the events as they progressed in a different way than the others in the class. And there was an opportunity for you to share your insights with the professor and the class, the same way you've shared them here. The same way I share similar experiences with the people around me.
I see diversity as opportunity. Just like when you related why you loved the Vietnamese in the 1980's, because they gave you a different perspective. You don't get that in the homogenous society you are arguing for. Just as when you are a child, and the world is filled with wonder. We lose that wonder as we get older and more jaded. But when we share our world with someone who hasn't had our same experiences, who comes from a different culture, then we can share our world and their perspective and be filled with wonder all over again.
I remember a foreign exchange student describing what she felt like when she first entered an American supermarket. The things we take for granted, we are reminded are not just givens when we get to see them from a different perspective. And I remember traveling in Mexico, and the first time I entered a Mexican supermarket. Diversity within our society, travel outside our society, and education are all meant to broaden our perspectives, to grow, and be more tolerant.
The problem is not diversity or multi-culturalism or whatever you want to call it. The problem is and always has been intolerance.
Whom are we suppposedly intolerant of today? We allow in more legal immgrants annually than any other country in the world.
Whom are we suppposedly intolerant of today? We allow in more legal immgrants annually than any other country in the world.
WE aren't intolerant. Americans tend to be very tolerant. Americans in general seem to embrace diversity. Then there are those who argue that diversity is a problem. And when asked for specifics, they describe instances when cultural boundaries are violated. And as I stated, I think those instances are opportunities for us to learn more about one another, to increase our understanding of one another. The only way those instances can be turned into problems is when those involved are rigid and intolerant, and choose to each reject the other's point of view. That's the lack of understanding. It's not caused by cultural differences, but by intolerance.
Diversity is an opportunity, but it's not merely an opportunity. Like anything else there are costs as well as benefits. From a policy perspective, it's important to understand what is being lost as well as gained. Are the losses important? I think they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Just like when you related why you loved the Vietnamese in the 1980's, because they gave you a different perspective. You don't get that in the homogenous society you are arguing for.
It's not that the perspective I gained was different, but that it was better than the one I previously had. I was coming from a liberal, multicultural, believe-nothing milieu and observing, in the Vietnamese, the benefits of belonging to a single cohesive and authoritative culture with defined limits. That's what they had and that's what I was missing - or didn't know I had, at any rate. There's security and peace in that, in knowing who you are and who your people are.
You see, you don't really respect other cultures if you don't acknowledge that what makes them work - what gives them life and vitality - is their very exclusivity and non-diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The problem is and always has been intolerance.
Time for another Chesterton quote - "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
Diversity is an opportunity, but it's not merely an opportunity. Like anything else there are costs as well as benefits. From a policy perspective, it's important to understand what is being lost as well as gained. Are the losses important? I think they are.
It's not that the perspective I gained was different, but that it was better than the one I previously had. I was coming from a liberal, multicultural, believe-nothing milieu and observing, in the Vietnamese, the benefits of belonging to a single cohesive and authoritative culture with defined limits. That's what they had and that's what I was missing - or didn't know I had, at any rate. There's security and peace in that, in knowing who you are and who your people are.
You see, you don't really respect other cultures if you don't acknowledge that what makes them work - what gives them life and vitality - is their very exclusivity and non-diversity.
Time for another Chesterton quote - "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
I think I've made it pretty clear here and on numerous other threads, I'm a person of great conviction. Th
And I agree with you that our choices with regards to diversity have costs as well as benefits. What we lose may be important, but in the context of this thread and your many other threads, I think that it can be seen that what you perceive as a loss isn't a perception shared by everyone. You talk about a greater homogeneity with regards to religion as being a plus. I think that your desire flies in the face of freedom of religion. You often talk about the ills of modern society in the context of women being less dependent on men. I think that the society you desire would be a living hell for most of us. And that the only way to impose such a culture would be through the sort of authoritarianism that is prevalent in North Korea.
I can respect you and your perspective. That is tolerance. I could not sit by and see such a society constructed in the United States. I would fight it. That is conviction.
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.
Fail
