NationStates Jolt Archive

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic

Shouldn't.

Why should people assimilate?


Because resistance is futile.

Am I just losing my mind, or was this just a thread about environmentalism?

At any rate...

Assimilation is a process that someone should undertake to a limited degree in order to function sucessfully in a society that one emigrates to.

Anything other than that, is asking too much.

Picking up the local culture is just fine, but sacrifing one's own sucks. I'm a Scot by heritage, and proud of it. I like bagpipes and Celtic fiddle music. I also like System of a Down.

If anyone has any further questions, just watch the episode of The Simpsons entitled Much Apu About Nothing.

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic

Now, you're just messing with me.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

They should "assimilate" only to the degree that people belonging to their demographic who do not want to live in their culture have the option of leaving.

To function in the new society, what kind of assimilation must be undergone?

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?
Assimilating causes a lot less stress and frustration in the long run.

I already do. Protecting the environment simply makes economic sense, no matter which angle you look at it. However, I do support nuclear power as part of a near future post-fossil energy portfolio:

I think it would look something like this 20% wind, 15% solar, 10% tidal/wave, 13% geothermal/hydroelectric, 6% biomass, 4% miscellaneous renewables and 32% nuclear.

Nuclear's purpose is for load stabilization, at least until electricity grids are advanced enough to allocate intermittent sources to fill in the gaps. The percentage of renewables could be even higher as the technology matures and distributed generation grids become commonplace.
Mikesburg isn't the only one who thinks this is about environmentalism...

They should "assimilate" only to the degree that people belonging to their demographic who do not want to live in their culture have the option of leaving.
That's a bit confusing...so, if peole from a similar cultural background don't want to live that culture in the new land, they should be able to leave....and letting them leave is the extent of the assimilation required of the ethnic group as a whole?

Am I just losing my mind, or was this just a thread about environmentalism?

At any rate...

Assimilation is a process that someone should undertake to a limited degree in order to function sucessfully in a society that one emigrates too.

Anything other than that, is asking too much.

No. I saw that too. Something weird just happened.

Assimilation. This all depends upon the numbers of immigrants involved. If there are enough to create a viable community, then there is no need for assimilation, but if there are not, then just to not feel too isolated there is a great deal of internal psychologicalpressure to adapt to the culture.

However, where there are large numbers of immigrants that choose not to assimilate, they run the risk of being targetted as scapegoats for anything that goes wrong in the wider community.

Because if they don't, then they have more allegiance to another nation. This is not good for the nation that harbors the people who refuse to assimiliate.

That's a bit confusing...so, if peole from a similar cultural background don't want to live that culture in the new land, they should be able to leave....and letting them leave is the extent of the assimilation required of the ethnic group as a whole?

Yes. If they want to keep their culture, they have that right - as long as they aren't interfering with anyone else's rights, which I suppose should be another condition.

Sorry Vetalia;)

To function in the new society, what kind of assimilation must be undergone?

Really, for first generation immigrants, they need to be able to speak the language on a basic functional level and contribute to society in an economic sense. Odds are that the next generation will be fluent in the native tongue.

Unsuccesful nations segregate these communities to the point that successive generations do not feel that they are part of the society.

Observe France.

Mikesburg isn't the only one who thinks this is about environmentalism...

I briefly saw a thread entitled "What does it take to get you off your ass and do something about the environment" or something very close to this, by Sinuhue, which was then replaced by this one. Very strange. :eek:

I briefly saw a thread entitled "What does it take to get you off your ass and do something about the environment" or something very close to this, by Sinuhue, which was then replaced by this one. Very strange. :eek:
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

LOL. So it wasn't just the beer talking. I can ignore the pink elephants now.

I think AB's idea about having enough immigrants to form a viable community meaning assimiliation is less necessary. I suppose I should ask then, what purpose does assimilation serve?

Be able to communicate in one of the major languages (enough to order in resteraunts, ask for help, have a basic conversation) and if there is something in their revious culture which is illegal in the new nation then that too. So basic communications and don't break laws... well the important ones.

I think at the very least they should try and learn the native language and some of its basic customs; for example, if you are a native English speaker and immigrate to Germany and are intending to live there permanently it makes sense to learn German and some of the German cultural conventions in order to better acclimate to the new nation even if most Germans know a decent amount of English.

Willingly keeping yourself culturally isolated from the rest of the country seems unfair and rather selfish; the only thing that comes from isolation is economic disadvantage and hostility on all sides.

Willingly keeping yourself culturally isolated from the rest of the country seems unfair and rather selfish;

What's unfair and selfish about it? If I want to live in a certain culture, what's wrong with me doing so?

the only thing that comes from isolation is economic disadvantage

A price I might choose to pay in trade for the culture I like best.

and hostility on all sides.

I don't think that's a necessary aspect of multiculturalism.

I think AB's idea about having enough immigrants to form a viable community meaning assimiliation is less necessary. I suppose I should ask then, what purpose does assimilation serve?

In essence I would argue that it is the difference between symbiosis on the one hand and predation or parasitism upon the other. If you enter a society without either ability or intention to become part of it then you are either predator, parasite or victim.

When I am older, I plan to isolate myself amongst people of my own culture, and hopefully be surrounded by a language that is not an official language of Canada. How is that selfish?

In essence I would argue that it is the difference between symbiosis on the one hand and predation or parasitism upon the other. If you enter a society without either ability or intention to become part of it then you are either predator, parasite or victim.
So the purpose of assimiliation is to achieve symbiosis? That isn't really realistic...many people are still perceived as belonging to a certain ethnicity because of their looks/skin colour.

I think if you isolate yourself from the culture of the wider society, it's rather rude. Like thumbing your nose at the culture of the country that has taken you in, as an immigrant, and basically saying their culture is inferior to yours. No problem with maintaining your own culture, but it should be common courtesy to learn and participate in to a certain extent of the country that you migrate to. Also, if you are isolated from the majority of society, it makes it rather difficult to contribute to the well being of the wider society.

Mikesburg isn't the only one who thinks this is about environmentalism...weird. this is what I saw and what I replied to.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n37/junii2k/Sinuhue.jpg

I checked my history with the back button, and sure enough, the title was "What is it going to take for you to get off your ass and worry about the environment?"

and this is not photoshoped or altered, this is a screen cap. for those that also saw what I saw, try check your "Back" button history...

Crazy people making up threads...:eek:

What's unfair and selfish about it? If I want to live in a certain culture, what's wrong with me doing so?

It's unfair to come to another country and make no effort to integrate yourself with their culture even though they make an effort to accomodate yours. Cultural mixing is a vital part of a healthy society; it enables people to understand and appreciate each others' culture and to adopt parts of different cultures in to their own. Even the concept of "living in a certain culture" is flawed because every culture has been shaped by those it comes in to contact with.

Most places where there are a lot of people that are unassimilated also tend to have a lot of economic and social problems as well as ethnocentrism or even racism amongst the "natives" against the immigrants and vice versa.



A price I might choose to pay in trade for the culture I like best.

That economic disadvantage eventually breeds hostility that results in people lashing out, just like they did in France last year. Even worse, it creates a sense of fear on both sides due to the lack of dialogue and contact between the groups and an "us vs. them" mentality that can result in destabilizing or even violent consequences.


I don't think that's a necessary aspect of multiculturalism.

No, but it's one that plays itself out over and over again.

When I am older, I plan to isolate myself amongst people of my own culture, and hopefully be surrounded by a language that is not an official language of Canada. How is that selfish?
It's not selfish. There's nothing at all wrong with it because presumably you aren't going to try to impose the ways of your own culture on the rest of Canada. This is because you have assimilated into mainstream Canadian culture. On the other hand, an ethnic or religious group that does not assimilate will be inevatebly hostile to mainstream culture, and may even want to overthrow it.

I think if you isolate yourself from the culture of the wider society, it's rather rude. Like thumbing your nose at the culture of the country that has taken you in, as an immigrant, and basically saying their culture is inferior to yours. No problem with maintaining your own culture, but it should be common courtesy to learn and participate in to a certain extent of the country that you migrate to. Also, if you are isolated from the majority of society, it makes it rather difficult to contribute to the well being of the wider society.

I think this is the difficulty that multi-cutural societies face; trying to balance tolerance and promotion of multiple cultures while trying to maintain the 'original' national identity.

This is a problem that is more prevalent in Europe, I believe, then it is in North America. Try telling European immigrants to Canada that there is such a thing as Canadian culture and you'll be laughed out of the room.

When I am older, I plan to isolate myself amongst people of my own culture, and hopefully be surrounded by a language that is not an official language of Canada. How is that selfish?

In the short term or in the long term? In the long term your subculture (& note that within the context of a nation your ethnic group is a subculture rather than a culture) will stagnate and die because of that isolation and you will make your descendents victims by virtue of their ignorance of the outside world. In the short term you are weakening the fabric of your nation by doing this - unlike nations that are based on ethnic ties immigrant societies are as much an ideology as a nation that work best when tied by bonds of culture and language. In deliberately spurning those ties that bind you would place yourself in the position of injuring your nation for the sake of your ego and your personal gratifications.

When I am older, I plan to isolate myself amongst people of my own culture, and hopefully be surrounded by a language that is not an official language of Canada. How is that selfish?

It's not.

Crazy people making up threads...:eek:
Normally I would agree, but since two others also replied in the vein of an Environmental issue... and the nature of their replies would fit the op...

I swear to you that pic is a screen cap and not altered in any way shape or form. :confused:

So the purpose of assimiliation is to achieve symbiosis? That isn't really realistic...many people are still perceived as belonging to a certain ethnicity because of their looks/skin colour.

And how does perceiving people in that way hinder symbiosis at all? Would you argue that a citizen of the Federation is possessed of a healthy mind if he cannot distinguish between Vulcan, Ferengi or Klingon? Note that perceiving people upon that level did not hinder cooperation between them. The ability to perceive differences only matters if such perception leads to irrational hostility.

It's not selfish. There's nothing at all wrong with it because presumably you aren't going to try to impose the ways of your own culture on the rest of Canada. This is because you have assimilated into mainstream Canadian culture. On the other hand, an ethnic or religious group that does not assimilate will be inevatebly hostile to mainstream culture, and may even want to overthrow it.
I do want to overthrow it. At least, to the extent where my people are given sovereignty over their lands.

Because resistance is futile.

WE ARE THE BORG. LOWER YOUR SHIELDS AND SURRENDER YOUR SHIPS.

In the short term or in the long term? In the long term your subculture (& note that within the context of a nation your ethnic group is a subculture rather than a culture) will stagnate and die because of that isolation and you will make your descendents victims by virtue of their ignorance of the outside world. In the short term you are weakening the fabric of your nation by doing this - unlike nations that are based on ethnic ties immigrant societies are as much an ideology as a nation that work best when tied by bonds of culture and language. In deliberately spurning those ties that bind you would place yourself in the position of injuring your nation for the sake of your ego and your personal gratifications.
I am an aboriginal. My culture precedes all the immigrant cultures to these lands. My culture did not stagnate and die before colonialism, why would you think it would stagnate and die now? I don't care about this nation, I care about our nations. Living apart from the rest of you is the only way we will maintain our traditions, and regain our sovereignty.

It's unfair to come to another country and make no effort to integrate yourself with their culture even though they make an effort to accomodate yours.

"Accomodating yours" hardly requires an effort, merely simple tolerance. I would put the same obligation on those immigrating to another nation. Tolerance, however, does not imply assimilation.

Cultural mixing is a vital part of a healthy society; it enables people to understand and appreciate each others' culture and to adopt parts of different cultures in to their own.

That's why I believe in cultural diversity and in permitting people to live according to whatever cultures they please.

Even the concept of "living in a certain culture" is flawed because every culture has been shaped by those it comes in to contact with.

So what? The fact that cultures do assimilate to a degree does not mean that there is something wrong with them moving slowly in the process, or even not engaging much in it at all.

Most places where there are a lot of people that are unassimilated also tend to have a lot of economic and social problems as well as ethnocentrism or even racism amongst the "natives" against the immigrants and vice versa.

And I tend to think that advocating assimilation in those circumstances is often nothing more than a convenient shield for the real problem - which is not the failure of the immigrant cultures to assimilate, but a refusal of the majority culture to permit them to.

That economic disadvantage eventually breeds hostility that results in people lashing out, just like they did in France last year.

I tend to think that when the problem is that severe, there's something more to it than the simple failure of an immigrant population to choose to assimilate.

Even worse, it creates a sense of fear on both sides due to the lack of dialogue and contact between the groups and an "us vs. them" mentality that can result in destabilizing or even violent consequences.

Dialogue and contact hardly amounts to "assimilation." I would agree that having two groups with no ties between them is not a circumstance conducive to a working society.

Would you argue that a citizen of the Federation is possessed of a healthy mind if he cannot distinguish between Vulcan, Ferengi or Klingon?
Sorry, this reference caused my head to explode.

I do want to overthrow it. At least, to the extent where my people are given sovereignty over their lands.

I believe that in the case of your people, assimilation shouldn't be posed as a necessity. Your people didn't immigrate. We did.

(You might have a hard time telling us to learn Cree though. It is Cree right?)

I believe that in the case of your people, assimilation shouldn't be posed as a necessity. Your people didn't immigrate. We did.

(You might have a hard time telling us to learn Cree though. It is Cree right?)
Hey, Cree is pretty easy compared to most aboriginal languages. Seriously. Dene has sounds you probably can't even hear.

But others would argue your point, saying we don't deserve any special consideration, being as we are a minority.

Hey, Cree is pretty easy compared to most aboriginal languages. Seriously. Dene has sounds you probably can't even hear.

But others would argue your point, saying we don't deserve any special consideration, being as we are a minority.

Not one of those people myself. It would make perfect sense to me to have to have someone who spoke Cree to do business on Cree land. But that's just me.

When I am older, I plan to isolate myself amongst people of my own culture, and hopefully be surrounded by a language that is not an official language of Canada. How is that selfish?

You are not following soceity lead and becoming an ignorant sheep. Bad Sinuhue... baaaaaaaaad.

You are not following soceity lead and becoming an ignorant sheep. Bad Sinuhue... baaaaaaaaad.

I think Sinuhue's situation is different from an immigrant's situation...

I don't think it's unfair to ask that immigrants should eventually assimilate to some degree into the society of their adopted nation. I don't think history has been kind to patchwork nations of divergent culture. North America has largely given up on the idea of a 'North American' culture, so multi-culturalism seems a little easier to handle.

How is it possible in nations that identify themselves by culture? How does France, Germany, or any European nation deal with the idea of multi-culturalism?

"Accomodating yours" hardly requires an effort, merely simple tolerance. I would put the same obligation on those immigrating to another nation. Tolerance, however, does not imply assimilation.

That's true. It's probably most accurate to say that tolerance fosters assimilation; for example, compare the first generation immigrants and their second or third-generation descendants.

Assimilation is a gradual process anyway, so it's probably impossible for a first-generation immigrant to truly assimilate anyway.

That's why I believe in cultural diversity and in permitting people to live according to whatever cultures they please.

As long as they abide by the laws of their new country, I have no problem with that. However, it is going to hurt them economically and put them at a disadvantage in other areas of society.

So what? The fact that cultures do assimilate to a degree does not mean that there is something wrong with them moving slowly in the process, or even not engaging much in it at all.

No, there's nothing wrong with it. It's more of an attack against the attitude of ethnocentrism than can develop on either side.

And I tend to think that advocating assimilation in those circumstances is often nothing more than a convenient shield for the real problem - which is not the failure of the immigrant cultures to assimilate, but a refusal of the majority culture to permit them to.

That's what I was getting at with the concept that cultural contact is a vital part of a healthy society; if you don't make an attempt to understand the cultures of the immigrants than you are more of a barrier than the actual language or culture itself.

I tend to think that when the problem is that severe, there's something more to it than the simple failure of an immigrant population to choose to assimilate.

It's a circle; the immigrants are rioting because they don't have jobs or opportunities, but that's because they have failed to assimilate to their new culture. However, a lot of their failure to assimilate is due to hostility from the "natives" towards the immigrant culture, and in turn that hostility is rooted in ethnocentrism or racism.

Dialogue and contact hardly amounts to "assimilation." I would agree that having two groups with no ties between them is not a circumstance conducive to a working society.

It's a kind of assimilation; if two cultures can overcome their differences and appreciate each other's cultural traditions enough to accept each other for who they are I would say that they are pretty well assimilated. The term "cultural assimilation" is very relative, so it's hard to explain what I mean by it when I use it.

I am an aboriginal. My culture precedes all the immigrant cultures to these lands. My culture did not stagnate and die before colonialism, why would you think it would stagnate and die now? I don't care about this nation, I care about our nations. Living apart from the rest of you is the only way we will maintain our traditions, and regain our sovereignty.

But... but... you have a sexy culture we just want a little bit....

I am an aboriginal. My culture precedes all the immigrant cultures to these lands. My culture did not stagnate and die before colonialism, why would you think it would stagnate and die now? I don't care about this nation, I care about our nations. Living apart from the rest of you is the only way we will maintain our traditions, and regain our sovereignty.

But... but... you have a sexy culture we just want a little bit....

But... but... you have a sexy culture we just want a little bit....

You can look, but you can't touch.



Without permission.

I don't think we disagree very much, since I don't object to most of what you said in your post.

As long as they abide by the laws of their new country, I have no problem with that. However, it is going to hurt them economically and put them at a disadvantage in other areas of society.

I would agree that it's wise for them to attempt to assimilate to the degree where economic integration is easy. I just don't think they have some sort of moral obligation to do so.

In the long term, such assimilation tends to occur - though there are still likely to be considerable cultural differences, and there's nothing wrong with that. A monocultural society is if anything less preferable than a multicultural one, as long as the multicultural one is integrated enough for to function coherently.

I am an aboriginal. My culture precedes all the immigrant cultures to these lands. My culture did not stagnate and die before colonialism, why would you think it would stagnate and die now? I don't care about this nation, I care about our nations. Living apart from the rest of you is the only way we will maintain our traditions, and regain our sovereignty.

Yeah, that's why reservations are such the thriving hotbeds of hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity that they are today, because they had such healthy nonstagnant cultures . Before you screw up your life in the manner you've proposed please take a moment to read this.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1639127.htm

Like it or not, if you think it gets much better in other "aborginal" enclaves you will only be kidding yourself. Honestly, which of your traditions do you deem so weak that only isolation can save them?

If you are going to move into another nation, then you should be ready to accept its culture. You should speak their language, as they didn't beg you to come there, you came yourself. Therefore, you shouldn't expect them to speak your language in their country. No, it should be the other way around.

I'm an American, and I live in Florida. We have a "problem" with illegal immigration here. Do I really care? No. Every immigrant i've met (legal or otherwise) has been very kind and friendly. Most speak even a little english, though it's the ones who demand that we cater to them that bug me. You're in my country, learn my language. I can speak Spanish, but I would expect you to know some english to fill the gaps between us.

Sorry, this reference caused my head to explode.

Whoops! My bad! :eek:

[Scoops up the fragments of Sinuhue's head, reassembles them, and put it back on her neck].

Hope that helps. ^_~

Yeah, that's why reservations are such the thriving hotbeds of hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity that they are today, because they had such healthy nonstagnant cultures . Before you screw up your life in the manner you've proposed please take a moment to read this.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1639127.htm

Like it or not, if you think it gets much better in other "aborginal" enclaves you will only be kidding yourself. Honestly, which of your traditions do you deem so weak that only isolation can save them?

You just gave Sin her dream post!! Yee-hoo, I'm gonna look forward to this one... tomorrow after I sleep off the devil's drink.

G'night y'all.

I don't think we disagree very much, since I don't object to most of what you said in your post.

I would agree that it's wise for them to attempt to assimilate to the degree where economic integration is easy. I just don't think they have some sort of moral obligation to do so.

No, there isn't a moral obligation; that would assume that the foreign culture is inferior, which is just a quick path to ethnocentrism or even xenophobia. It's as dangerous to make assimilation a perogative as it is for us to allow cultures to remain independent to the point where they can't function coherently.

In the long term, such assimilation tends to occur - though there are still likely to be considerable cultural differences, and there's nothing wrong with that. A monocultural society is if anything less preferable than a multicultural one, as long as the multicultural one is integrated enough for to function coherently.

I agree.

People should assimilate for their own benefit. For example, I live in America. Try to get a good job as a lawyer, doctor, politician, professor, etc. without knowing English. Try driving. In order to do your personal best you have to work on learning and being a part of the culture that you are living in. An appreciation of American values, tradition, and culture will serve an immigrant well in making the most of their lives insofar as money, relationships, learning, and fitting in are concerned.

People should assimilate enough to keep from looking like an ass when they don't intend to. Cultures have lots of little quirks and ways to offend that outsiders may bump into unintentionally, causing hostility where there none was intended or expected. Enough understanding of the other cultures to avoid that makes things go smoother all around, not just economically.

And if a people get *invaded,* that's a whole different story than if the immigrants come in peace. Then it's not the newbs who assimilate, that's for the loser to do. That, or insurgency...

Indeed, let us reflect on the story of Mel Martinez. He was born in Cuba in 1946. He was a refugee from Cuba during the 1960's and got his citizenship right away. He came alone at 16. His parents could only come after years of him wiring money. He was trapped in a series of low end jobs that paid less than $2 an hour. Then he learned English. He worked his way through a small college, got his masters in law. Today he is a distinguished Republican Senator from Florida. He made it to the top of the social chain, and he gives credit to his willingness to assimilate. Just as Florida is not Cuba, and New York is not Iran........Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California ARE NOT MEXICO.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic
For the very reason it is a country.
Sure they should bring their culture i would be most disappointed without Chinese, Thai or Indian food readily available.
I don't hate Chinese New year either.
Hmmmmm Fortune Cookies...

Yeah, that's why reservations are such the thriving hotbeds of hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity that they are today, because they had such healthy nonstagnant cultures .

Ha. You do the traditional bigoted trick of judging a culture by the environment and political situation it is in. Unless of course you maintain that reservations only difference, geographically/economically/environmentally/politically from non-reservations is that they are inhabited by what you might term "injuns."

I suppose you might consider "African culture" to be inferior to European, what with the lack of "hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity," but I should point out that Africa is indeed a place of "healthy, nonstagnant" culture. Which is therefore evidence against your implied point that one can judge cultural values by such things as "boozefree civility."

People should assimilate for their own benefit. For example, I live in America. Try to get a good job as a lawyer, doctor, politician, professor, etc. without knowing English.

"knowing English" is not the same as "assimilating."

Try driving.

You know, it's all those fucking doctors and lawyers, etc, who are the shitty drivers on the road. They have their cell phones glued to their ear and cut me off like a bunch of high school cretins. Try driving, indeed.

In order to do your personal best you have to work on learning and being a part of the culture that you are living in. An appreciation of American values, tradition, and culture will serve an immigrant well in making the most of their lives insofar as money, relationships, learning, and fitting in are concerned.

What are American values, tradition and culture?

Cuz you see, Republicans and Democrats seem to disagree as to what these are. Unless you mean platitudes like "freedom," which is hardly meaningful in this context.

Because resistance is futile.
I am Locutus of Borg...

But seriously, I think in a culture of diversity like the US or Canada, assimilation is beneficial, but shouldn't be nesseciary. I mean, come one, what does American society have culture-wise? Hollywood, Baseball/Football and bad porn videos ^.^ :p :fluffle:

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic


Yes, I'm so glad you asked this question. I live in Vancouver and the same question has occured to me also -- I am immigrant, though. In college, I used to go to the cafe and everyone would be in groups -- the Chinese together, the Iranians together, the Canadians together, etc. -- and everyone would be seperated. However, there were always some people from those groups who were willing to mix and talk to different people from other cultures without being afraid. This is the strength of multiculturalism, that no matter your background, you can interact and learn from those that are different fom you. The problem for some -- especially the older generation -- is that if cultures mix, then cultural traditions might get lost. For me, I'm not afraid of this, I think cultures should mix and not be scared of creating something new. Let's learn each others language and culture, have kids and create something new. Isn't this what this experiment is all about? I think it is exciting and interesting.

Ha. You do the traditional bigoted trick of judging a culture by the environment and political situation it is in.

Isn't it typical of Leftists like Trostia that they would be afraid to judge by results? :)

I suppose you might consider "African culture" to be inferior to European, what with the lack of "hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity,"

The way Europe is becoming Eurabia? :p Sorry, but one Marxist dominated pesthole is pretty much like another. :D

but I should point out that Africa is indeed a place of "healthy, nonstagnant" culture."

Yeah, that's why they're doing such a great job of feeding themselves. :rolleyes:

Isn't it typical of Leftists like Trostia that they would be afraid to judge by results? :)

Isn't it typical of small-minded cyberpundits such as yourself that you can only think of people as being "Leftist" or "Right?" You don't know jack shit about my political views, but out comes the label anyway just because that's the only response you have to rational argument. "I know, hmm, I'll call them libs/Leftists/Marxists/commies! YEAH! That'll teach 'em!"

;)


The way Europe is becoming Eurabia? :p Sorry, but one Marxist dominated pesthole is pretty much like another. :D

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this statement - doesn't really counter anything I've said, but I notice you pulled out all the stops and added a :D along with a quib about Marxism. I suppose you think I AM a Marxist and will be offended.

Sigh.


Yeah, that's why they're doing such a great job of feeding themselves. :rolleyes:

I see you *still* don't know the difference between culture, economics, or politics. But hey, I guess you're conserving your brain power or something.

Isn't it typical of small-minded cyberpundits such as yourself that you can only think of people as being "Leftist" or "Right?" You don't know jack shit about my political views, but out comes the label anyway just because that's the only response you have to rational argument. "I know, hmm, I'll call them libs/Leftists/Marxists/commies! YEAH! That'll teach 'em!"

;).

It's also typical of Leftists that they should always be the sort to flee from their own identity. And I notice that you weren't able to bring yourself to deny that you are afraid to judge by results. :)




I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this statement - doesn't really counter anything I've said, but I notice you pulled out all the stops and added a :D along with a quib about Marxism. I suppose you think I AM a Marxist and will be offended.

Sigh. .

Not my fault if you didn't notice that I had agreed with you. European culture, to the extent that it is dominated by the Left, is becoming stagnant and primitive.



I see you *still* don't know the difference between culture, economics, or politics. But hey, I guess you're conserving your brain power or something.

And I doubt that you even know what a culture is but that's OK. :)

I will however give you a hint: Politics and economics are merely subsets in the framework that a culture provides. If the culture sucks then the politics and economics of that culture will also suck. Sad but true.

It's also typical of Leftists that they should always be the sort to flee from their own identity. And I notice that you weren't able to bring yourself to deny that you are afraid to judge by results. :)

I notice you haven't got a single argument left, and are still just blurting out "leftist! leftist!" in some sort of vain attempt to get back at me for ass-raping your bullshit statements the first time around. :) :)


Not my fault if you didn't notice that I had agreed with you. European culture, to the extent that it is dominated by the Left, is becoming stagnant and primitive.

I never said that European culture is stagnant or primitive. Are you intentionally trying to be retarded?

And I doubt that you even know what a culture is but that's OK. :)

More smiley-put-downs. :) :) :) It's almost as if you're flirting with me. Sorry, I'm not a pedophile.

I will however give you a hint: Politics and economics are merely subsets in the framework that a culture provides. If the culture sucks the politics and economics will of that culture will also suck.

I'll give you a hint too. "teh suck" is not a rational way of looking at either economics, politics or culture, and the fact that it seems to make up your entire paradigm belies a need to compare which 'culture' is superior or inferior to others, most likely out of feelings of personal inadequacy and lack of confidence or ability to think critically. In other words you're an idiot. :) :) :)

I notice you haven't got a single argument...:)

Of course I don't have a single point because I have multiple points that you have failed to address. Not my fault that you are afraid of them all. :)


I never said that European culture is stagnant or primitive. Are you intentionally trying to be retarded?.)

Why would I choose to rob you of your chosen role? :)

You said Europe and Africa are at the same level. I merely agreed with you and pointed out both the implication and the reason why. If you don't like the implication that can only be because you care more about Europe than I do. :D


More smiley-put-downs.

Isn't it interesting that the leftists who are the quickest to insult others should be the most sensitive on the subject of perceived insults? Funny how that works. :D

In any event, I am not responsible for the fact that you don't understand emoticons and don't know how to deal with someone in a cheerful mood. Don't worry, when I decide to flame you you will know that you have been flamed. :p


I'll give you a hint too. "teh suck" is not a rational way of looking at either economics,... :)


Oh good! So if you or your parents become jobless in a depression and you die in a gutter because you don't have any money you'll just feel as if the economy is just as good as one where everyone is making good money and eating well, right? :p

4|_|_ /\/\4r><15+5 r |\|0085! ^_____^

Of course I don't have a single point

True enough.

Why would I choose to rob you of your chosen role? :)

Ah, how clever. "I'm rubber and you're glue."

You said Europe and Africa are at the same level.

No, I didn't. Find me the quote where I said that, or where you seem to think I did. You won't be able to do it, because you pulled that one out of your asshole.


Isn't it interesting that the leftists who are the quickest to insult others should be the most sensitive on the subject of perceived insults? Funny how that works. :D

Who says I'm SENSITIVE about it? (This is, again, assuming I'm a "leftist," something I think the actual 'leftists' on this board would most likely object to.)

If you'll notice, I'm actually just rating the quality of your 'insults' as very low, very typical, dull and frankly so stupid that I'm surprised you apparently feel the need to blurt them out. It's a disappointment, and a sign you need to either try harder, or stop trying so hard.

In any event, I am not responsible for the fact that you don't understand emoticons and don't know how to deal with someone in a cheerful mood. Don't worry, when I decide to flame you you will know that you have been flamed. :p

Try me, Mr Internet Tough Guy. :) I think you'll know when you've been flamed too, but then I have already made the mistake of overestimating your knowledge. ;)


Oh good! So if you or your parents become jobless in a depression and you die in a gutter because you don't have any money you'll just feel as if the economy is just as good as one where everyone is making good money and eating well, right? :p

...

What does me "feeling good" have to do with the fact that economic health is not cultural superiority? What a strawman you've created. And sadly that's your best 'argument' yet.


4|_|_ /\/\4r><15+5 r |\|0085! ^_____^

Grow up.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic


Assimilate to the point of being good citizens.

Anything less? Toss 'em out.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?


They should assimilate in order to function effectively in this society. For this reason they should assimilate to the minumum level they need to. The reason for this is to not unessecarly disturb or offend the sensablitiles of those who already live in that country.

Whatever happened to integration?

They shouldn't. It's a free country.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

They should "assimilate" to the extent that they respect and observe the laws of the nation in which they live.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic
To keep the peace in a society. Countries like France which have not accepted or assimilated immigrants have had terrible problems with them.

However, they should not assimilate to the point wher they discard their own culture. The integration of a new culture makes the host nation a richer place.

Not my fault if you didn't notice that I had agreed with you. European culture, to the extent that it is dominated by the Left, is becoming stagnant and primitive.

European society is the pinnacle of human civilisation. The only way is up.

If you are going to move into another nation, then you should be ready to accept its culture. You should speak their language, as they didn't beg you to come there, you came yourself. Therefore, you shouldn't expect them to speak your language in their country. No, it should be the other way around.

I'm an American, and I live in Florida.

I assume, then, that you speak a Native American language? After all, your ancestors moved into a Native American nation, you should be ready to accept its culture. You should speak their language, as they didn't beg you to come there, you came yourself. Therefore, you shouldn't expect them to speak your language in their country. No, it should be the other way around.

To keep the peace in a society. Countries like France which have not accepted or assimilated immigrants have had terrible problems with them.


You do know, I hope, that France's policy is a lot more assimilationist than the policies of most English-speaking countries, which focus more on integration? Are you saying that the concept of assimilation is flawed, and that it should be discarded in favour of integration (a word which, surprisingly, hasn't been mentioned much in this thread)?

To keep the peace in a society. Countries like France which have not accepted or assimilated immigrants have had terrible problems with them.

However, they should not assimilate to the point wher they discard their own culture. The integration of a new culture makes the host nation a richer place.

France has arguably failed because they have offered their immigrants only two options: assimilate completely or be marginalized. If they really tried an integration approach they would probably learn how much richer it would make their nation.

They should "assimilate" to the extent that they respect and observe the laws of the nation in which they live.

To play the devil's advocate. Is obedience to the laws of the nation sufiicient? Unwritten norms of behaviour are probably as or possibly even more important to the functioning of a society than the written laws. So to what extent are immigrants required to accept the unwritten norms of their host country? What role can they play in changing these norms? Are they required (as suggested above) to defer to the "sensibilities" of existing citizens? Or does that approach just try to freeze a culture in time?

European society is the pinnacle of human civilisation. The only way is up.

[Blinks]

I hope you were speaking satirically. If something is at a pinnacle then by definition the only way left for it to go is down... :eek:

You just gave Sin her dream post!! Yee-hoo, I'm gonna look forward to this one... tomorrow after I sleep off the devil's drink.

I was looking forward to it as well. :( Intelligent opponents are a joy to have.

Oh well, maybe tomorrow! ^_~

Yeah, that's why reservations are such the thriving hotbeds of hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity that they are today, because they had such healthy nonstagnant cultures . Before you screw up your life in the manner you've proposed please take a moment to read this.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1639127.htm

Like it or not, if you think it gets much better in other "aborginal" enclaves you will only be kidding yourself. Honestly, which of your traditions do you deem so weak that only isolation can save them?

That article was long on anecdotal evidence and value judgements, short on supporting facts.

On the other hand, an ethnic or religious group that does not assimilate will be inevatebly hostile to mainstream culture, and may even want to overthrow it.

How do you figure? In the U.S. there is a Catholic minority that has never assimilated to Protestantism, but that has not made them hostile to the mainstream culture.

Yeah, that's why reservations are such the thriving hotbeds of hightech, boozefree civility and prosperity that they are today, because they had such healthy nonstagnant cultures . Before you screw up your life in the manner you've proposed please take a moment to read this.

Like it or not, if you think it gets much better in other "aborginal" enclaves you will only be kidding yourself. Honestly, which of your traditions do you deem so weak that only isolation can save them?

These are signs of the effects of cultural dislocation and over a century of failed attempts at forced assimilation. They are hardly signs of "cultural stagnation".

Seriously ... what traditions of yours do you deem so weak that they are threatened by aboriginal assertions of sovereignty and cultural integrity, and their refusal to assimilate?

People should integrate, not assimilate. Integration is the beneficial method of cultural mixing, where two different cultures blend, and the good parts of each culture are the one's that come to the surface. Maximizes efficiency and productive growth.

So people immigrate to your country, willingly, unwillingly, as workers, refugees, whatever, legally and illegally. Why should they assimilate and to what extent?

hahaha Mikesburg...you must have hallucinated that topic
people shouldn't. integration is fine but expecting an immigrant to drop the culture of their country of origin and fully adopt the culture of their new home is pointless and completely futile.

People should integrate, not assimilate. Integration is the beneficial method of cultural mixing, where two different cultures blend, and the good parts of each culture are the one's that come to the surface. Maximizes efficiency and productive growth.

*hands you a cookie for writing the post I was going to write*

Andaluciae... Doing all the work, so you don't have to.

*hands you a cookie for writing the post I was going to write*

Andaluciae... Doing all the work, so you don't have to.
Thank you. Thank you very much!

Because resistance is futile.

And it only took two posts!