NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to know thoughts on this issue and if true what you think could be a possible course of action to curb this.

I don't think being American or not American has anything to do with it.
A better question would be "Are the majority of humans xenophobic?"

In which case I'd say we are. We fear what we don't understand, and what we largely don't understand are other cultures and the way they perceive us. And I mean this as everyone. Let's be honest: the average American associates Islam with "Lunatic world-desroying culture of Evil", whereas the Islamic world sees Americans as being "Lunatic world-desroying culture of Evil".

In short, people are stupid and ignorant. Always have been, always will be.

*throws another fox on the bbq*

I don't think being American or not American has anything to do with it.
A better question would be "Are the majority of humans xenophobic?"

Well said.

All monotheistic individuals are inherently xenophobic.
Polytheistic individuals have the potential to not be inherently xenophobic.
Atheists can go either way based on their own personal experiences.

*shrug* Most of the humans I know aren't, or at least make a concentrated effort to not be, but I don't claim to everyone. =)

All monotheistic individuals are inherently xenophobic.

Wow, stereotype much?

Wow, stereotype much?
Only on weekends, probably.

EDIT:
Dem, you know what's odd?
It always says you are offline in the little box in the corner, even when you clearly are since you've been replying to posts.

I don't think being American or not American has anything to do with it.
A better question would be "Are the majority of humans xenophobic?"

Yeah, it's a pretty well documented psychological theory that the majority of humans form in-group and out-group biases that at least boarder on Xenophobia, even when they understand the out-group. Membership to a specific group seem to be the primary factor more than understanding of the group of which you are not a member.

All monotheistic individuals are inherently xenophobic.
Polytheistic individuals have the potential to not be inherently xenophobic.
Atheists can go either way based on their own personal experiences.

This is an interesting concept care to elaborate?

I don't think being American or not American has anything to do with it.
A better question would be "Are the majority of humans xenophobic?"

It may be better in a general sense but since I live in America I wish to see what the view is of those nearest me. That is why I made the question more specific.

*shrug* Most of the humans I know aren't, or at least make a concentrated effort to not be, but I don't claim to everyone. =)

Hey Dem, I believe that the people you know try not to be, but it is very rare to find a human complete devoid of those kind of biases. Perhaps not rising to the level of a diagnoseable phobia, but having biases just the same. Many of those biases, we don't even realize until confronted with them. That whole "blindself" thing...

Hey Dem, I believe that the people you know try not to be, but it is very rare to find a human complete devoid of those kind of biases. Perhaps not rising to the level of a diagnoseable phobia, but having biases just the same. Many of those biases, we don't even realize until confronted with them. That whole "blindself" thing...

Biases and xenophobia are not the same. Everyone has biases, but those who recognize them cannot really be said to be xenophobic.

Well, you have to remember that treating outgroups poorly is a trait most primates share. Look at chimpanzees. They frequently "raid" other tribes of chimps.

Meanwhile, treating members of your ingroup well is something that most primates also share. Look at bonobos, the most socially "nice" primates around (and that includes humans, boys and girls!).

Humans tend to act like chimps towards outgroups and bonobos towards ingroups.

And the more isolated the ingroup is, the worse it treats outgroups. Take the American South, for example. They were economically and politically isolated almost 150 years ago, and there are elements here (I live in North Carolina) that still think "the South will rise again"! Geographically, economically and politically, the South is pretty isolated (although this is changing) and so they treat outgroups really poorly. Us poor "Yankee" transplants from "up North" are constantly harassed to some degree or another.

What's especially interesting about this phenomenon is that the farther south you go, the more territory is included in the "Yankee North". For example, where I live, if you are from north of the Yadkin River, you are a "Yankee". If you go 100 miles south, there's another boundary that defines what "Yankee" is. So those people who actually grew up in the American South, makinh jokes about Yankees are actually considered Yankees by people from farther south.

That's why you hear about the American South and the Deep South. There really is a difference. Different people draw the line between the South and the Deep South in different places, but there is a differences. Usually, the South is opening up to other regions economically and socially. The Deep South is still an isolated "backwater" area. Thus, Atlanta probably wouldn't be considered Deep South, even though it's pretty far south on the map.

Human relations are fascinating and I could go on and on, but I'll let someone else get a word in now.

_____________________
Coralius Askani
President of Mickonia

Wow, stereotype much?

Hardly. By accepting a belief structure in which there is only one truth, one god, and one set of politics defining what is good and evil, monotheists are by definition unable to accept cultures outside of their scope of acceptable politics. To accept a culture as a possible alternative truth to their own would be to say that perhaps their one god is not the only god possible. Religious faith prohibits this.

Oh sure, tolerance can be formed for other cultures, but in the heart of the monotheist, everyone outside their specific one-sided political structure is still not following the one acceptable truth and is alien and evil by default.

Polytheists have multiple gods and are able to accept multiple political structures under various dieties. Therefore they at least have the potential, but not necessarily the absolute ability to be more accepting of outside political groups.

Atheists tend not to make judgements based on supernatural politcal systems and make choices for themselves based on personal experience.

Biases and xenophobia are not the same. Everyone has biases, but those who recognize them cannot really be said to be xenophobic.

Not necessarily true. You can be a racist, know you are a racist, and not care. You are assuming anyone who CAN identify their biases and try to alleviate, suppress or otherwise "deal" with them WILL do so.

While you might do so, (and from what I've read that you've written in several places, I'd say you would) you can't project that goodwill onto others.

If you are surrounded by people who also do this, then you are truly blessed, and most likely living in a commune somewhere, because most people just don't like "forriners".

I am British and today I was accused of xenophobia because in a discussion about the French, I called them 'froggies'. I thought it was a mild term of affection in the context in which I used it.

Next time I shall call them garlic chewing, wine guzzling, cheese eating surrender monkies and see if that provokes a similar result.

Not necessarily true. You can be a racist, know you are a racist, and not care. You are assuming anyone who CAN identify their biases and try to alleviate, suppress or otherwise "deal" with them WILL do so.

While you might do so, (and from what I've read that you've written in several places, I'd say you would) you can't project that goodwill onto others.

If you are surrounded by people who also do this, then you are truly blessed, and most likely living in a commune somewhere, because most people just don't like "forriners".

True. I wasn't making that assumption so much as using it in answer to Personal's comment. Those that I know *do* attempt to alleviate or suppress their biases. In truth, I generally try not to associate with those who don't.

Hardly. By accepting a belief structure in which there is only one truth, one god, and one set of politics defining what is good and evil, monotheists are by definition unable to accept cultures outside of their scope of acceptable politics. To accept a culture as a possible alternative truth to their own would be to say that perhaps their one god is not the only god possible. Religious faith prohibits this.

Oh sure, tolerance can be formed for other cultures, but in the heart of the monotheist, everyone outside their specific one-sided political structure is still not following the one acceptable truth and is alien and evil by default.

Polytheists have multiple gods and are able to accept multiple political structures under various dieties. Therefore they at least have the potential, but not necessarily the absolute ability to be more accepting of outside political groups.

Atheists tend not to make judgements based on supernatural politcal systems and make choices for themselves based on personal experience.

I gotta go with Raust on this one. I don't know that Polytheists are all that more likely to be xenophilic, but there are some examples in history. The Hindus, the Romans, etc.

Monotheists, however, rarely get along with neighbors that have different beliefs. See the Christian Romans/Druidic Celts conflict for an example.

Hardly. By accepting a belief structure in which there is only one truth, one god, and one set of politics defining what is good and evil, monotheists are by definition unable to accept cultures outside of their scope of acceptable politics. To accept a culture as a possible alternative truth to their own would be to say that perhaps their one god is not the only god possible. Religious faith prohibits this.

Oh sure, tolerance can be formed for other cultures, but in the heart of the monotheist, everyone outside their specific one-sided political structure is still not following the one acceptable truth and is alien and evil by default.

Polytheists have multiple gods and are able to accept multiple political structures under various dieties. Therefore they at least have the potential, but not necessarily the absolute ability to be more accepting of outside political groups.

Atheists tend not to make judgements based on supernatural politcal systems and make choices for themselves based on personal experience.

You are still stereotyping. You assume that all monotheists believe that there is a single truthful belief structure and that theirs is absolutely and completely right, while all the others are absolutely wrong. This is a view only present in the fundamentalist versions of the various religions. In other words, it is a fairly minority view.

Biases and xenophobia are not the same. Everyone has biases, but those who recognize them cannot really be said to be xenophobic.

While this is partially true, if you give me a homogenious group of people, I can devide them into 2 groups and have them at each others throats over "perceived" differences in a relatively short period of time.

While xenophobic characteristics aren't displayed and one guards against them, under the right circumstances just about anyone will display them. Since it isn't an ongoing state under the present circumstances, it wouldn't be a diagnoseable phobia, but change the circumstances a little and those characteristics could easily reach the level of a diagnoseable phobia.

Next time I shall call them garlic chewing, wine guzzling, cheese eating surrender monkies and see if that provokes a similar result.

Interestingly enough, I have heard the leader of the Dominion of Ranveria (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01340/page=display_nation/nation=ranveria) call the French this on more than one occasion. I've always found it highly amusing.

Since i am no US citizen (i guess that was meant by Americans), but the xeno in this case, i found that they are less in the know about other cultures, compared to europeans. Less knowledge transfers into more carefullness/suspicion towards others. But hey, by the time someone from e.g. Kansas reaches a country border i would have traveled through countries already. Of course he is more fixated on his country. Too bad the average curriculum does not counter this but rather supports it. Its easier to be open towards others the more you know about his culture.

Well, you have to remember that treating outgroups poorly is a trait most primates share. Look at chimpanzees. They frequently "raid" other tribes of chimps.

Meanwhile, treating members of your ingroup well is something that most primates also share. Look at bonobos, the most socially "nice" primates around (and that includes humans, boys and girls!).

Humans tend to act like chimps towards outgroups and bonobos towards ingroups.

And the more isolated the ingroup is, the worse it treats outgroups. Take the American South, for example. They were economically and politically isolated almost 150 years ago, and there are elements here (I live in North Carolina) that still think "the South will rise again"! Geographically, economically and politically, the South is pretty isolated (although this is changing) and so they treat outgroups really poorly. Us poor "Yankee" transplants from "up North" are constantly harassed to some degree or another.

What's especially interesting about this phenomenon is that the farther south you go, the more territory is included in the "Yankee North". For example, where I live, if you are from north of the Yadkin River, you are a "Yankee". If you go 100 miles south, there's another boundary that defines what "Yankee" is. So those people who actually grew up in the American South, makinh jokes about Yankees are actually considered Yankees by people from farther south.

That's why you hear about the American South and the Deep South. There really is a difference. Different people draw the line between the South and the Deep South in different places, but there is a differences. Usually, the South is opening up to other regions economically and socially. The Deep South is still an isolated "backwater" area. Thus, Atlanta probably wouldn't be considered Deep South, even though it's pretty far south on the map.

Human relations are fascinating and I could go on and on, but I'll let someone else get a word in now.

_____________________
Coralius Askani
President of Mickonia


Part of the difference in the bonobo and chimp societies may be attributed to the fact that chimpanzees are male dominated while bonobos are female dominated.

My grandmother is from west Texas, I'm from Houston. She always criticized us for talking like Yankees. :p

You are still stereotyping. You assume that all monotheists believe that there is a single truthful belief structure and that theirs is absolutely and completely right, while all the others are absolutely wrong. This is a view only present in the fundamentalist versions of the various religions. In other words, it is a fairly minority view.

Or even a step beyond that, missing the possibility that a monetheistic religion could teach specifically that tolerance of others even while disagreeing is not only desireable, but necessary.

I have lots of experience with xenophobia, as I used to be incredibly xenopohbic myself.
I was about 13, and I hit puberty and all late, but I was already more than mentally mature. So I was cold and calculating and creepy and stuff, because I rather lacked emotion. I also had a habit of accepting certain things as absolute truths, like the Bible, and taking them to extremes. I was raised in a conservative Christian family, except with having no views from outside the Christian viewpoint, it seemed everything else was evil. So I thought blacks were inferior and gays and transsexuals were evil and all that. I sympathized with the Nazis and such. Luckily for me, I then hit puberty and realized that I liked guys some and that I was gender dysphoric, and within the space of about a day's worth of thinking and internet research totally changed my viewpoint.

That's my story.

You are still stereotyping. You assume that all monotheists believe that there is a single truthful belief structure and that theirs is absolutely and completely right, while all the others are absolutely wrong. This is a view only present in the fundamentalist versions of the various religions. In other words, it is a fairly minority view.

No more so than saying that all murderers should be tried for murder. Sure, some murder is justified in that it can be looked at as self-defense but this is only present in a small amount of actual homocides.

In other words, its a fairly minor occurance.

No more so than saying that all murderers should be tried for murder. Sure, some murder is justified in that it can be looked at as self-defense but this is only present in a small amount of actual homocides.

In other words, its a fairly minor occurance.
No, this is absolutely nothing like that. For that to be the case, it would have to be that all monotheistic religions were inherently xenophobic, but some had some justification for doing so.

No more so than saying that all murderers should be tried for murder. Sure, some murder is justified in that it can be looked at as self-defense but this is only present in a small amount of actual homocides.

In other words, its a fairly minor occurance.

You sound, well, almost xenophobic.

No more so than saying that all murderers should be tried for murder. Sure, some murder is justified in that it can be looked at as self-defense but this is only present in a small amount of actual homocides.

In other words, its a fairly minor occurance.

Are you really that obtuse? Your example doesn't even fit in the broadest possible sense. The *majority* of monotheists do not hold the views you describe.

Many monotheists don't even subscribe to a particular dogmatic reliigon. Still others find truth in a multitude of religions, while believing that there is a single God. Still others look at other religions as somewhat on the right track, but a little misguided (a view that would not, by any definition of the word, constitute xenophobia.)

Religion is a very personal thing and to state that any monotheist is inherently xenophobic is no different than saying any *insert ethnic group here* is inherently inferior.

No, this is absolutely nothing like that. For that to be the case, it would have to be that all monotheistic religions were inherently xenophobic, but some had some justification for doing so.

Actually, until fairly recently, all monotheistic religions WERE inherently xenophobic. Can you name one monotheistic religion that DIDN'T act xenophobic before, oh, say 1700 AD?

It's only with the advent of reliable and fast global communications that those ingroup/outgroup barriers are starting to come down.

Are you really that obtuse? Your example doesn't even fit in the broadest possible sense. The *majority* of monotheists do not hold the views you describe.

Many monotheists don't even subscribe to a particular dogmatic reliigon. Still others find truth in a multitude of religions, while believing that there is a single God. Still others look at other religions as somewhat on the right track, but a little misguided (a view that would not, by any definition of the word, constitute xenophobia.)

Religion is a very personal thing and to state that any monotheist is inherently xenophobic is no different than saying any *insert ethnic group here* is inherently inferior.

Again I say that this is a VERY recent development, only brought about by the things that cause xenophobia's demise, as well, i.e. cross-cultural education.

A lack of cross-cultural information flow is why fundamentalism is on the rise in the US, btw.

Considering how many Americans are first or second-generation immigrants, and considering that most Americans readily adopt elements from cultures not their own (can you say Kimchi Pizza Bagels?), and considering that Americans are doing more to actively improve the lot of other people around the world than any other country, I think the suggestion is completely ridiculous.

No, this is absolutely nothing like that. For that to be the case, it would have to be that all monotheistic religions were inherently xenophobic, but some had some justification for doing so.

Actually, it is exactly like that. Religions take what is empirically known by science and fills in the blanks with superstition and tales of the supernatural. It defines who is not acceptable by its own definition as to who is "good". It explains, based on true stereotyping, how a specific "evil behavior" affects people around them and reinforces it by saying they will be punished for it. Religion tells its people that it is ok to hate these people and that proselytization is somehow an act of good, when it is, in fact, intolerance at its most basic level.

Innocent people suffer, are imprisoned and die because religion told the true monsters it was ok to replace gaps in empirically obatained knowledge with superstition. Anyone who supports, promotes or follows that religion without making neccesary changes in its behaviour are no less monsters than the extremists that did the deed.

How do you define justification for an organization that breeds fear and hate and bloodshed on a continual basis?

What politics have changed within any monotheistic religious system that would lead you believe that anything has changed for the better since the last time that monotheistic political system was the cause of a human death?

I think, that humans by large are xenophobs. But not all. You cannot judge the whole human race by the majority, same as you cannot simply judge a nation by the majority. also what we persieve as the majority may not be the majority, but what we percieve as the majority due to xenophobia

xenophobia:fear OR hatred of STRANGERS or foreigners.
emphasis mine :) not screaming :)

How many times were you told as a child not to talk to stangers? I think Americans suffer most horribly from xenophobia though I think for most it is fear and not hatred though there are many who hate also.

Is xenophobia healthy? Should it be curbed?

Religion is a very personal thing and to state that any monotheist is inherently xenophobic is no different than saying any *insert ethnic group here* is inherently inferior.

Racial backgrounds are genetic. Religious politics are not. Are you really that obtuse?

xenophobia:fear OR hatred of STRANGERS or foreigners.
emphasis mine :) not screaming :)

How many times were you told as a child not to talk to stangers? I think Americans suffer most horribly from xenophobia though I think for most it is fear and not hatred though there are many who hate also.

Is xenophobia healthy? Should it be curbed?

In the words of the Wise One: Anger leads to fear. Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Follow the Jedi Code!

i feel we cannot judge others and fear them, untill we realise ourselves

Actually, it is exactly like that. Religions take what is empirically known by science and fills in the blanks with superstition and tales of the supernatural. It defines who is not acceptable by its own definition as to who is "good". It explains, based on true stereotyping, how a specific "evil behavior" affects people around them and reinforces it by saying they will be punished for it. Religion tells its people that it is ok to hate these people and that proselytization is somehow an act of good, when it is, in fact, intolerance at its most basic level.

Innocent people suffer, are imprisoned and die because religion told the true monsters it was ok to replace gaps in empirically obatained knowledge with superstition. Anyone who supports, promotes or follows that religion without making neccesary changes in its behaviour are no less monsters than the extremists that did the deed.

How do you define justification for an organization that breeds fear and hate and bloodshed on a continual basis?

What politics have changed within any monotheistic religious system that would lead you believe that anything has changed for the better since the last time that monotheistic political system was the cause of a human death?

Ah, we have found the only true xenophobe in this thread.

Racial backgrounds are genetic. Religious politics are not. Are you really that obtuse?

Irrelevant.

You sound, well, almost xenophobic.

The age old cry of the KKK when no one wants them holding a demonstration in their backyard.

Again I say that this is a VERY recent development, only brought about by the things that cause xenophobia's demise, as well, i.e. cross-cultural education.

Irrelevant. If it were inherent, then no amount of cross-cultural education would change it.

The age old cry of the KKK when no one wants them holding a demonstration in their backyard.
Ooh, I love the tactic of turning those who disagree with you into KKK memebers and Nazis!

Interestingly enough, I have heard the leader of the Dominion of Ranveria (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01340/page=display_nation/nation=ranveria) call the French this on more than one occasion. I've always found it highly amusing.

Trying to goad me, Mickonia? I know more derrogatory terms for your hometown that I can comfortably list here. :D

I will also patently refuse to admit to the fact I grew up mere miles from there makes my home in any way similar.

That county line makes a difference.

Follow the Jedi Code!

Damn right! :)

Ooh, I love the tactic of turning those who disagree with you into KKK memebers and Nazis!

Whatever. Just because you think because someone holds their own personal saviour in their back pocket, you think they support an organization that spreads nothing but love?

Christians thump bibles, Klansmen burn crosses. Just because the Klan's violence is more pronounced in the past century, do you honestly believe that a few dozen fools in white robes can compare their own brand of scare tactics to the mass murders and mayhem that people have done in the name of the one true god over the past two milleniums?

In my opinion, comparing a comment to the self-defense mechanism that the KKK uses whenever they want to march isn't nearly as bad as comparing someone's beliefs to Christians, Muslims, Catholics, etc, etc.

Who're the real monsters?

Isnt the percentage of Americans who own an international passport tiny?

Who're the real monsters?

Maybe the people who can't see past their own bigotry? Can you think of anyone like that? I sure can.

Isnt the percentage of Americans who own an international passport tiny?

I've got one! =)

(I've only used it to go to the Bahamas, but I have one. And I've had trips planned to Europe and Southeast Asia, they just fell through =(

(I've only used it to go to the Bahamas, but I have one. And I've had trips planned to Europe and Southeast Asia, they just fell through =(

Come to Britian!

I have heard though that the percentage of senetors that dont own an international passport is only 90%

I have heard though that the percentage of senetors that dont own an international passport is only 90%
Really?
Wow, that's surprising.

Whatever. Just because you think because someone holds their own personal saviour in their back pocket, you think they support an organization that spreads nothing but love?

Christians thump bibles, Klansmen burn crosses. Just because the Klan's violence is more pronounced in the past century, do you honestly believe that a few dozen fools in white robes can compare their own brand of scare tactics to the mass murders and mayhem that people have done in the name of the one true god over the past two milleniums?

In my opinion, comparing a comment to the self-defense mechanism that the KKK uses whenever they want to march isn't nearly as bad as comparing someone's beliefs to Christians, Muslims, Catholics, etc, etc.

Who're the real monsters?

Six words "Judge the religion, not the religious"

don't stereotype please. to say all americans r xenophobic is the same as saying all iraqis r terrorists. neither statement is correct. spread love, not hate. there's enuff of that goin around.

an it harm none, do what ye will....

don't stereotype please. to say all americans r xenophobic is the same as saying all iraqis r terrorists. neither statement is correct. spread love, not hate. there's enuff of that goin around.
Who exactly are you talking to?
I don't think anybody so far has said that all Americans are xenophobic. Then again, there has been some stereotyping going on.

Isnt the percentage of Americans who own an international passport tiny?


Yes, but probably not that much smaller than the percentage of Americans that can afford to go somewhere where you need a passport.

I mean, it's frustrating that some priviledged members of society don't take advantage of their wealth to travel around the world, like - oh, i dunno - our president, but the fact remains that a trip to Europe or Asia or elsewhere just isn't feasible for most people here. I grew up in a middle-class household. We weren't poor, but still couldn't afford a trip to Europe. My parents brought us to Montreal and Quebec City and Toronto.

"Are the majority of Americans xenophobic?"

No, but I suspect most of us are are a bit ethnocentric. :)

Six words "Judge the religion, not the religious"

Did you mean that the other way around?

Ooh, I love the tactic of turning those who disagree with you into KKK memebers and Nazis!


Thanks for coming to my defense Neo. This person seems bent on stereo-typing any who don't agree with him/her. That sounds pretty xenophobic to me.

Personnally, as an American I try to be more culturally aware just because of the stereotype that Americans don's know shit about the world. (and I do own a passport b/c I'm going to Germany this summer.)

I don't think we americans are xenophobic, but I do think alot of americans are idiots.

Whatever. Just because you think because someone holds their own personal saviour in their back pocket, you think they support an organization that spreads nothing but love?

Christians thump bibles, Klansmen burn crosses. Just because the Klan's violence is more pronounced in the past century, do you honestly believe that a few dozen fools in white robes can compare their own brand of scare tactics to the mass murders and mayhem that people have done in the name of the one true god over the past two milleniums?

In my opinion, comparing a comment to the self-defense mechanism that the KKK uses whenever they want to march isn't nearly as bad as comparing someone's beliefs to Christians, Muslims, Catholics, etc, etc.

Who're the real monsters?
To suggest that genocide and warfare are a result of the teachings of Christianity or Muslim faiths is to show a lack of understanding of world history. These conflicts have little or nothing to do with the teachings of a particular faith. They are almost always about the acquisition of wealth and power. They have been done by virtually every know world view from atheists (Stalin/Bolshivechs), poly-theism (Alexander the Great/Southern Europe, Middle East and Northern Africa), and as you have noted the mono-theistic religions as well. It is about inherently selfish people wanting power and wealth and yes, sometimes it gets done in the name of religion, but religion is not the causal factor.

Xenophobic? That really depends on what intensity of natural human xenophobia would make one special in that way.

Hey, I know this is my first post here, but why just americans? why not the world? I'm an athiest, and have seen one thing: If we are goin to use the americans as an example, then allow me to take the military. It is full of born-again Christians, who despise other religions because it is different to what they are used to. That is xenophobia.

If we are goin to use the americans as an example, then allow me to take the military. It is full of born-again Christians, who despise other religions because it is different to what they are used to. That is xenophobia.

You are so far wrong about this that it's almost incredible you would make such a statement. :headbang:

Isnt the percentage of Americans who own an international passport tiny?

I've got one. It has stamps from the UK, South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique, Croatia, Poland, France, Czech Rep. Slovenia, Slovakia and Austria so far. Hopefully, I'll be adding Brazil, Italy and Switzerland in the next year or two. Someday, I'd like to go to Australia, India, the South Pacific islands. I'd like to visit China, Tibet and a few other less accessable places, but I probably won't get a chance.

Yes, but probably not that much smaller than the percentage of Americans that can afford to go somewhere where you need a passport.

I mean, it's frustrating that some priviledged members of society don't take advantage of their wealth to travel around the world, like - oh, i dunno - our president, but the fact remains that a trip to Europe or Asia or elsewhere just isn't feasible for most people here. I grew up in a middle-class household. We weren't poor, but still couldn't afford a trip to Europe. My parents brought us to Montreal and Quebec City and Toronto.

It's actually not that much more expensive than traveling around the States. It just depends on where your priorities are...

It's actually not that much more expensive than traveling around the States. It just depends on where your priorities are...


Hmmm, trip to Seattle: $500-600 total.
Trip to Britain: $600 just for the plane ticket.
2 week trip to Southeast Asia: $~3000

I think you *might* be wrong here.

You are so far wrong about this that it's almost incredible you would make such a statement. :headbang:

Freedom of Speech. A basic human, and I believe U.S Constitutional, right. I can say what I believe. Personally, I haven't got anything against anyone especially Americans. I belive everyone deserves a fair chance in life, regardless of any other factor

Freedom of Speech. A basic human, and I believe U.S Constitutional, right. I can say what I believe.
He never said you couldn't say it, just that it's pretty far off.

Hmmm, trip to Seattle: $500-600 total.
Trip to Britain: $600 just for the plane ticket.
2 week trip to Southeast Asia: $~3000

I think you *might* be wrong here.

Actually, my wife is going to London, Croatia and Spain for about $800.00 total in the middle of March. Granted, she is mostly staying with friends, but it all depends on how you do things. As for South East Asia, yes it is more expensive. Most of the southern hemisphere is.

He never said you couldn't say it, just that it's pretty far off.

Yeah, I jumped the gun a little bit methinks. You must admit it does happen though

Irrelevant. If it were inherent, then no amount of cross-cultural education would change it.

Not irrelevant. Cross-cultural education weakens monotheism in general, in turn causing a weakening of its inherent xenophobia.

Monotheism is: The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Once the idea that your God may not be the right God gets into a culture, monotheism starts to disintegrate.

Also, your assertion that many monotheists are tolerant of others is unsupported. Where's your proof? I would be especially interested in pre-twentieth century information, if you could provide it. But we both know you can't, right?

Trying to goad me, Mickonia? I know more derrogatory terms for your hometown that I can comfortably list here. :D

I will also patently refuse to admit to the fact I grew up mere miles from there makes my home in any way similar.

That county line makes a difference.

Of course I'm trying to goad you, you lily-livered, yella-bellied Mercer County, city-slicker varmint. :gundge:

BTW, are you coming over this weekend? :p

Maybe the people who can't see past their own bigotry? Can you think of anyone like that? I sure can.

In what way is thinking that most monotheists are at least somewhat more xenophobic than the population they are embedded in bigotry?

To suggest that genocide and warfare are a result of the teachings of Christianity or Muslim faiths is to show a lack of understanding of world history.

Might I point out that both the Bible and Quran have EXAMPLES of genocide and warfare that they hold up as good things? If the Bible is the basis for the teachings of Christianity, and it contains accounts of the Christian God exhorting his followers to kill off entire populations of cities and tribes, how is this not suggesting that the results of Christian teachings are responsible for genocide and warfare?

I'll agree that most wars are fought for power, be it land, money, or what-have-you. But that doesn't mean that Christian and Muslim philosophy through the centuries hasn't encouraged it.

The Crusades, the destruction of the Druids, the Crusades, the tacit papal support of Nazi Germany, the Crusades, every jihad ever called, the Crusades...getting the picture here?

Not irrelevant. Cross-cultural education weakens monotheism in general, in turn causing a weakening of its inherent xenophobia.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Monotheism is: The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Once the idea that your God may not be the right God gets into a culture, monotheism starts to disintegrate.

What a completely absurd thing to say. Once the idea that your idea of God may not be right, your idea starts to change - that doesn't change the idea of monotheism - just your attitude towards it.

Also, your assertion that many monotheists are tolerant of others is unsupported. Where's your proof?

Society.
Being a monotheist.
Crazy thing like actually talking to people - you should try it.

I would be especially interested in pre-twentieth century information, if you could provide it. But we both know you can't, right?

I wasn't around pre-20th century. Pretty much every culture was xenophobic back then though, so why are we even discussing it?

In what way is thinking that most monotheists are at least somewhat more xenophobic than the population they are embedded in bigotry?

You apparently missed most of Raust's posts. The idea that "I'm right and anyone who doesn't agree with me exactly is insane/stupid/inferior," is bigotry.

Meanwhile, so is the view that monotheists are inherently more xenophobic than others. It is a stereotype - and not even remotely accurate one.

From what I've seen of the Europeans here, Americans could be considered tolerant! Of course, maybe it's just something about the internet wich attracts disproportionately xenophobic Europeans.

I don't think being American or not American has anything to do with it.
A better question would be "Are the majority of humans xenophobic?"
I believe so ... though I think it is a built in trait left over from earlier days (where the presence of "others" could mean a reduction in resources avaliable to you)

Are amercians Xenophobic?

Well. Just looking at my company, we have people from Central Asia, the ME, Europe, Africa, Turkey, Asia, South American, Central America,....

Are some areas of the US Xenophobic? Could be. Are some Americans Xenophobic? Of Course!

Yes, Americans are xenophobic. Perhaps the most xenophobic people on earth. Consider the fact that we allow no immigration into our country, and that we are very suspicious of anyone who doesn't look like us. If you don't have white, black, brown, red or yellow skin tone, straight, wavy, curly, or kinky hair, brown, blue, or green eyes, we know you're not one of us. Plus you foreigners with your weird religions, how can we trust you? In America we have only the normal religions, like christianity, judaism, baha'i, sihk, hindu, islam, wicca, pagan, buddhist, shinto, satanist, etc.

Yes, Americans are xenophobic. Perhaps the most xenophobic people on earth. Consider the fact that we allow no immigration into our country, and that we are very suspicious of anyone who doesn't look like us. If you don't have white, black, brown, red or yellow skin tone, straight, wavy, curly, or kinky hair, brown, blue, or green eyes, we know you're not one of us. Plus you foreigners with your weird religions, how can we trust you? In America we have only the normal religions, like christianity, judaism, baha'i, sihk, hindu, islam, wicca, pagan, buddhist, shinto, satanist, etc.
And how does that qualify us for most? I have seen this sort of thing all over the world
Personaly think it is a human trait (as stated before)

I would like to know thoughts on this issue and if true what you think could be a possible course of action to curb this.
No, and only some filthy furriner would ever say such a thing?

What's 'xenophobic' mean, anyway?

J/K

I reallly don't think we are much more than anyone else

I don't think that most Americans are xenophobic. Most aren't interested in what happens beyond the American coasts, but that doesn't make them xenophobic.

I don't think being American or not American has anything to do with it.
A better question would be "Are the majority of humans xenophobic?"
I disagree. I think that people are likely to be less xenophobic if they, or their country has frequent contact with the outside world.

And how does that qualify us for most? I have seen this sort of thing all over the world
Personaly think it is a human trait (as stated before)
I think drunk commies was being sarcastic. I mean, even the "conservative" leaders in America are pro-immigration!

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Then you must not hear very much.

What a completely absurd thing to say. Once the idea that your idea of God may not be right, your idea starts to change - that doesn't change the idea of monotheism - just your attitude towards it.

If you admit that your God isn't the right God, then your only options are to switch to another God or Gods, or stop believing in God(s) altogether. This half-way sorta pseudo-spiritual kinda-deistic agnosticism doesn't qualify as monotheism. It qualifies as a huge question mark.

Society.

Anecdotal evidence.

Being a monotheist.

Still anecdotal. Just because YOU are a monotheist who isn't xenophobic, doesn't mean MOST monotheists aren't more xenophobic than non-monotheists. And just because all your friends and acquaintances are the same way, STILL doesn't mean most monotheists aren't more xenophobic than non-monotheists.

Crazy thing like actually talking to people - you should try it.

I do. I also study the world and its history. You should try picking up a history book sometime.


I wasn't around pre-20th century. Pretty much every culture was xenophobic back then though, so why are we even discussing it?

I must disagree. There are plenty of examples of non-xenophobic ancient societies. The Greeks, the pre-Christian Romans, the Hindus, several others. Every one of these cultures welcomed contact with other cultures. And surprise, surprise surprise, they were all polytheists!

*Gasp!*

Could there be a pattern here?

You apparently missed most of Raust's posts. The idea that "I'm right and anyone who doesn't agree with me exactly is insane/stupid/inferior," is bigotry.

Meanwhile, so is the view that monotheists are inherently more xenophobic than others. It is a stereotype - and not even remotely accurate one.

Isn't that what you're doing, too, though, Dempublicents? You are saying Raust's wrong. Raust is saying you're wrong. You are both sticking to your guns. Why is he a bigot, but you're full of righteousness?

And it's not stereotypical if he can back his claims up. I think I've provided plenty of evidence that there's at least a possibility that he's right. All you've managed to do to refute is to wave your hands in the air, and go "Lawks! He's a bigot! Lawks! He's stereotyping! Lawks! Look at me! I'm a paragon of monotheistic virtue and I'm not like that so it can't be true!". Essentially, you're namecalling and throwing out anecdotal evidence. That's a pretty weak argument, if you ask me. I'm sorry if Rauks' statements got up your nose, Dem, but come on, be an adult about this.

I may not think Raust is a nice person, but I'm not going to dismiss his/her argument just because he/she may have been a bit abrasive about putting it forward. Stop with the ad hominem attacks, already.

Isn't that what you're doing, too, though, Dempublicents? You are saying Raust's wrong. Raust is saying you're wrong. You are both sticking to your guns. Why is he a bigot, but you're full of righteousness?



Because unlike Raust she does not think he is an idiot just because he does not agree with her (may think so because of other reasons but will not go into that) fundimental difference between believing you are right and believing you are right and all others are idiots

Because unlike Raust she does not think he is an idiot just because he does not agree with her (may think so because of other reasons but will not go into that) fundimental difference between believing you are right and believing you are right and all others are idiots

Umm....Dem started with the name-calling, actually. See post 30:

Are you really that obtuse?

Then see post 40:

Ah, we have found the only true xenophobe in this thread.

Then post 49:

Maybe the people who can't see past their own bigotry? Can you think of anyone like that? I sure can.

Compare this to Raust's only foray into snarkiness in post 37, a direct response to Dempublicents:

Are you really that obtuse?

Seems to me that Dempublicents has heard some unpleasant points that may hit a bit closer to home than he/she wants to admit to, especially since Dem got defensive first and started namecalling. In re-reading the thread, Raust has been a bit abrasive at times perhaps, but has hardly called anyone an idiot. He/she is making points, much like I have, and you have. I'm not sure why Dempublicents is so snarky about this, since I've seen him/her be much more polite to much less nice people. So, I think the bigotry label is a bit harsh. Raust is just as entitled to an opinion as you or I, even if you think it's wrong. And he has just as much right to state it. If that opinion is that monotheists have, in general, a bad reputation because of their historical activities, well, I can see where he/she would get that idea.

Can't you?

Because unlike Raust she does not think he is an idiot just because he does not agree with her (may think so because of other reasons but will not go into that) fundimental difference between believing you are right and believing you are right and all others are idiots

And another thing. Don't most monotheists think that anyone who disagrees with them is going to Hell, or Gehenna, or...well...take your pick of nasty places?

Isn't that essentially the same as thinking they're idiots?

And before you jump me, Dempublicents, YES, most American Christians and most Muslims everywhere, if asked, DO BELIEVE THIS. You will not find a reputable statistic that says otherwise.

Here's a good site to start your research, if you're actually interested in learning about what you're talking about: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hell_eva.htm

Specifically: Historically, the churches taught that many, perhaps the overwhelming majority of humans, would be punished there for all eternity, for sins committed during their life on earth.

and here's more from that site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hell_eva2.htm

Specifically the "Who Will Go To Hell?" section, that clearly points out what I have been saying, i.e. that until recently, the bulk of Christians thought anyone who disagreed with them was going to Hell.

Now that's bigotry, not someone implying that you are obtuse.