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.
My native language is German and my wife's native language is Spanish. My 10-month-old kid will be educated to speak all three languages fluently.
If someone tells my family to stop speaking a foreign language, they better be prepared to defend themselves. People who fear foreign languages are dumb and racist. I bet you my English is better than 99% of people who hate foreigners.
Interesting mix. I took up French in high school. At the time my idea was "I might want to live in Quebec someday". I still try to practice it whenever I get a chance. Learning a language is like a muscle. If you don't use it, you'll lose it.
This fear of the foreign is nothing new. It went on when White immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and Italy were coming here.
For real, I consider any poster who wishes that the 1965 immigration changes never happened to be a true ethnocentrist
That's retarded. Was America 100% one ethnicity even in 1965? So how would not having mass global immigration started by that immigration act been beneficial to just one ethnicity? By that logic everyone who wants mass immigration is doing it for their ethnicity.
What is ethnocentric is wanting things that solely benefit your race affirmative action, forced integration and association etc without any regard or concern for the effects and wishes of others.
I would say the US has mostly been a shining success. Of course more work needs to be done, we need everyone to be included and invested in this country. More people able to afford a home for the first time, save for retirement, receive a better education are all things that should be reachable to the poorest in our society.
The Mayans, incas, and Aztecs we're doing just fine before the Spaniards and portugese TOOK them by force. You can't slam Latin America without slamming Colonialism .....
You inadvertently just made the case AGAINST multiculturalism. The Mayans, Incas and Aztecs had their own cultures. The arrival of the Spanish made them multicultural. Look how well that went for them.
While it's true that multiculturalism can lead to stronger genes, I see no evidence anywhere, anytime that it makes societies stronger. Multiculturalism injects reduces solidarity and leads to sectarian conflict over power and resources. Claiming otherwise is an exercise in ideological faith rather than empirical reasoning.
America is well beyond the point of "we're all in this together". We have been balkanized into special interest groups to the point that we can no longer relate to one another.
We are all familiar with the phrase "diversity is our strength." I would like to know what the historical basis for that is. Sure, US has always been "multi-cultural" but all of those cultures came from the same race/geographic area and were always forced to assimilate into one culture. Where did the idea that a society made up roughly equally of fiver different races would be better than a county of only one race?
I'm not trying to stir the pot here, just trying to learn. Thanks!
OP, you have a flawed understanding of US history. Before the founding, the US was multi-cultural. The native people of N. America were decimated by disease before the colonization. European colonials imported slaves from Africa. The southwest (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California) was Mexican before it was American. Chinese laborers immigrated in the 19th century to ports of call on the Pacific Coast.
Italian & Irish immigrants in the late 19th-early 20th century were not forced to assimilate: in many cases, their subcultures remain distinct today. It is fantasy to believe that there was ever assimilation to one culture in the US. It has always been a mishmash of many cultures.
OP, you have a flawed understanding of US history. Before the founding, the US was multi-cultural. The native people of N. America were decimated by disease before the colonization. European colonials imported slaves from Africa. The southwest (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California) was Mexican before it was American. Chinese laborers immigrated in the 19th century to ports of call on the Pacific Coast.
Italian & Irish immigrants in the late 19th-early 20th century were not forced to assimilate: in many cases, their subcultures remain distinct today. It is fantasy to believe that there was ever assimilation to one culture in the US. It has always been a mishmash of many cultures.
Um no, we have an identifying culture and language that most assimilated to with minority ones living among us, many who have not.
Um no, we have an identifying culture and language that most assimilated to with minority ones living among us, many who have not.
I don't where some of these people have the gall to tell us about American history that we lived and our relatives lived.
When I was young sometimes there were kids whose parents were European immigrants or 1st generation. The parents were fully integrated and usually at most might had an accent and their kids were as American as any other white American.
It's just preposterous to claim that America didn't have an identifying culture and NW Europeans followed by all Europeans don't assimilate more completely and quickly.
We are all familiar with the phrase "diversity is our strength." I would like to know what the historical basis for that is. Sure, US has always been "multi-cultural" but all of those cultures came from the same race/geographic area and were always forced to assimilate into one culture. Where did the idea that a society made up roughly equally of fiver different races would be better than a county of only one race?
I'm not trying to stir the pot here, just trying to learn. Thanks!
This country and others beat the nations preaching racial purity in the 1940's. Check out the history of the world it is fun to learn.
Russia is probably the only one that can be called a "success." Although I'm sure most of the people there would acknowledge that they are ruled with an iron fist. If it were truly democratic it would break up along ethnic lines within a generation (which is ultimately what I think will happen to US)
You'd be surprised to learn perhaps, that over 70% of people in the Soviet Union voted to stay together, when they've had the first democratic opportunity to vote. And this includes different ethnicities.
The cat is out of the bag - the USSR fell apart NOT because its inhabitants wanted it to happen, but because the US government wanted it to happen, and those on top in Russia at that point in time, played along.
Truth to be told - Russian culture is far more compatible with "ethnic cultures" than British culture ever will be. Plus Russians historically didn't have overseas colonies - they were assimilating people close to them.
With other words, the "multi-cultural society" is a ticking bomb, and it was more "ticking" in the US than in the S.U. That's why Clinton's government was busy destroying Russia - because of this and couple of other issues.
This country and others beat the nations preaching racial purity in the 1940's. Check out the history of the world it is fun to learn.
It's not about race but culture clash.
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.
