NationStates Jolt Archive

Good, I'm glad that the majority of people in this poll agrees with me. I hope that the leaders will obey their voters (in democratic countries), as democracy is all about the will of majority.

I havent been in NSG for very long but I also note that the majorities in this poll are so different than the majority here. Not surprised though, this is a left leaning, mostly teen and American forum, so I guess that's a no brainer.

Anyway, good article, discuss and those of you who keep repeating "ebil racizt!!11!one!1!" in immigration debates, try being smarter please...


Immigration, loss of culture worry nations

By Jennifer Harper
October 5, 2007

Americans are not the only people on the planet who are wary of immigration and protective of their national culture. So is everybody else.

A wide-ranging "global attitudes" survey of more than 45,000 people in 47 countries released yesterday by the Pew Research Center finds assorted populations are warm to the benefits of global trade. But they're cool — downright chilly in some cases — toward the toll it could exact on their national identities.

Majorities in every country agreed that international trade was positive — ranging from a low of 59 percent in the U.S. to an enthusiastic 90 percent and more in China, Israel and seven other countries.

Nagging concerns persist, though.

"In today's rapidly changing world, people from nations rich and poor worry about losing their traditional culture. In 46 out of 47 countries, majorities say their traditional way of life is getting lost," the poll said.

Some are more worried than others.

While 73 percent of American respondents fretted about the trend, the sentiment was more pronounced in Britain, France, Germany and Spain. It was more than 90 percent in South Korea and Bangladesh. Concern for loss of tradition, however, was less strident in many Middle Eastern countries, at 51 percent among Palestinians and 53 percent in Jordan.

Sweden, at 49 percent, was the lone exception to the finding.

Should each country guard their innate culture and lifestyle? The answer was a rousing "yes" — again in 46 out of 47 of the countries. In the U.S., 62 percent said we should protect our way of life. Those sentiments were more pronounced among Republicans (71 percent) than Democrats (60 percent).

The number was just more than half in Britain, France and Germany, but 90 percent in Egypt, Indonesia and India.

Perils of immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries, where the majority of respondents said immigration should be more restricted in their homelands.

Only Japanese, South Koreans and Palestinians were comfortable with their immigration policies. Three-quarters of the American respondents wanted more restrictions; similar findings were revealed in Spain, Britain and Russia.

But Yankee hospitality also persists.

"Americans and Canadians continue to be generally more welcoming to newcomers than Europeans," the survey said. In the immigration popularity poll, Asians are more welcome in the U.S. than those from Latin America, 61 percent to 57 percent.

God also is welcome in many spots. When asked whether people "must believe in God to be moral," 57 percent of Americans agreed — along with strong majorities in the Middle East (except Israel), Africa, the Far East (with the exception of Japan and China) and South America (except Argentina). Less than a majority agreed in all European countries — with only 10 percent agreeing in Sweden.

The survey was conducted April 3 to May 23 and had a margin of error of three percentage points.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071005/NATION/110050075/1001

"Only Japanese, South Koreans and Palestinians were comfortable with their immigration policies." And that's a no brainer since these countries receive little immigration. And that's despite Japan and Korea being rich with declining workforce.

When asked whether people "must believe in God to be moral," 57 percent of Americans agreed

That disturbs me.

Anyway, the problem is when there is not a distinct culture to protect. Then it just seems to become a question of 'teh ebil racestz'.

Damn Sweden - do they have to be the lone, sane exception to everything?

Every time!

That disturbs me.

Anyway, the problem is when there is not a distinct culture to protect. Then it just seems to become a question of 'teh ebil racestz'.

I agree with you on both accounts. I am an atheist, and I am moral. Instead of whatever to do to get into a good afterlife, I am moral because it helps other people. Anyways, the basic logic is that when humans interact, their ideas get shared. With immagration that is on a much larger scale, all all cultures have good things and bad things about them, and the good things can be integrated to make a better society.

It seems for racists, they've learned a new trick. Say "culture" instead of race and it'll stall judgements of racism.

For a few seconds.

I don't care what the majority of people think in this matter. They can't stop it, they can only slow it down. Technology breakthroughs, free trade and immigration; globalisation is happening and will continue to until there is a fairly homogeneous world culture. Then there will be (more) peace.

The reason I love multiculturalism is because the better we get along with each other and the better we mix the sooner the barriers between us will break down and the sooner there will be a monocultural world.

Good, I'm glad that the majority of people in this poll agrees with me.

About what exactly does the majority allegedly agree with you?

Having some vague misgivings about immigration in their respective countries?

Or the fear many have that free trade with disrupt traditional culture?

I hope that the leaders will obey their voters (in democratic countries), as democracy is all about the will of majority.

Hopefully leaders of democratic countries will recognize that there is more, far more, to a free and peaceful socieity than the tyranny of the majority. Protections of rights and minorities, for example.

Anyway, good article, discuss and those of you who keep repeating "ebil racizt!!11!one!1!" in immigration debates, try being smarter please...

If you can keep away from your usual racist statements, then noone should be forced to call you an ebil racizt!!

Oh, and a few things, New Great German Reich.

You are claiming that nations should base their policies off the will of the majority. True enough, for democratic nations. But you're implying that policies should actually be dictated by the results of international polls, because of democracy.

Well, democracy doesn't work like that. Even if it did, "45,000 people in 47 countries" does not, in any way, constitute a majority of voters.

Even if every poll response was 100% "agreeing with you" as you put it, it's not a majority. And it certainly wasn't 100% anyway.

Nice try though. Keep using the word "culture" and say very little and people might not ever guess that you are in fact, quite racist.

Please explain to me how a person is racist for wanting to preserve their national culture, language and way of life. Sorry to say that, in my opinion, multiculturalism and free trade have sown the seeds of their own demise and they will reap the fruits of their labor eventually. Hopefully sooner than later.

Nations should base their policies on what is best for the nation and it's citizens, not what is best for other nations and its citizens. The U.S. Government's job is to take care of America, not Mexico or Canada or Spain or China. Even in a Republic, the majority tend to rule. Recalls and referenda's are just some of the ways this is done when the will of the majority, or minority, isn't heeded by those in power. It usually boils down to who wants it more. And of course "taking care" of America(ns) is subjective; I am aware of this.

Calling a person a racist, however, when there is no proof to back that up is a sad card to pull; Ad Hominem's will never win you a legit debate, though they win over the uninformed and the others who rely on feeling and name calling. Despite your deepest wishes, I'm not racist for taking pride in my country, its culture and langauge and wanting to protect it.

Please explain to me how a person is racist for wanting to preserve their national culture, language and way of life.

I think for this case, a guy who's chosen essentially the Fourth Reich as his account name, I don't really have to demonstrate this.

Sorry to say that, in my opinion, multiculturalism and free trade have sown the seeds of their own demise and they will reap the fruits of their labor eventually. Hopefully sooner than later.

Multiculturalism is simply tolerance of other cultures. The fact that you and others tend to vehemently argue against it strikes me as a sign of an intolerant, hostile and bigoted attitude.


Calling a person a racist, however, when there is no proof to back that up is a sad card to pull

Of course there's proof. Check out the dude's posting history. And do note my skepticism concerning worrying about one's "national culture."

; Ad Hominem's will never win you a legit debate

True enough. But I'm not making any argument that depends on an ad hominem fallacy. Just calling someone (for example) a racist doesn't automatically translate to a logical fallacy.

Despite your deepest wishes, I'm not racist for taking pride in my country, its culture and langauge and wanting to protect it.

Oh? What country is this, that has only one culture? Or did you get rid of all those evil multicultural immigrant invaders with their anti-whatever attitudes and their strange funny foreign ways already.

If we are going to debate this, we should debate the poll results from the Pew Foundation, not an editorial about that poll from the Washington Post.

Here. (http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid30571.aspx)

It's not written in advanced mathematics or anything. It just has less doublespeak. And the Pew Foundation is the primary source, there isn't a damn thing in the Post article which didn't come from it.

Interesting thread subject. This one has goforwardness I think, and NMG might consider putting the source in the OP. If I actually got the source right, of course ...

Why wasn't I born a Swede?

I can't speak for other nations, but as for the United States, poor people coming here for opportunity and a better life for their children or to escape oppresion, with the occasional crook and smuggler thrown in, IS our culture.

And I ask myself, if a majority of citizens in the democratic countries are opposed to immigration at current levels (and yes, that is relevant. Quite small changes in rates make a big difference to perceptions) ... why don't the democratically-elected governments reflect that?

"PC conspiracy" doesn't cut it. Why would these conspirators leave such a huge contituency for their deadly enemies, racists and reactionaries?

So here's my guess: those people polled in democratic countries included a huge constituency who like to whinge and blame the darkies ... but they're too fucking useless to vote.

If that is so, to hell with the poll. Democratic governments do not, and should not, represent those too apathetic to get off the couch on election day. It's their choice not to be represented. Let 'em watch Fox I say ...

Anyway, good article, discuss and those of you who keep repeating "ebil racizt!!11!one!1!" in immigration debates, try being smarter please...


Achtung Minen!!!!! Verboten Drei-Kaiserbund und Sturm und Drang!!!111!!!!

I can't speak for other nations, but as for the United States, poor people coming here for opportunity and a better life for their children or to escape oppresion, with the occasional crook and smuggler thrown in, IS our culture.

Here, here! I'll speak for Australia and say that's so for us as well. Despite being apparently crushed, the native culture had an effect as well ... beginnings are very sensitive times.

The survey was conducted April 3 to May 23 and had a margin of error of three percentage points.

And they used a survey to calculate the margin of error?

This is so ridiculous and most of you just eat what is being served, even disgusting food.

Every election I see the same things happen again and again. Some professional companies specialized in election predictions use surveys to sell their 'truth'. And most of the time they fail.

Surveys are not trustable at all. And I have some knowledge about those things. I'm a usability engineer and I use surveys to create personas (= user profiles).

I can manipulate a survey in such way that I get the answers I want.

By instance, for any question the first answer will get a special treatment. Odds are high that people select this one and will not read the other answers. It's not a personal feeling, there's empirical evidence for this, cognitive psychologist detected this decades ago.
(To fight this, the position of the answers are displayed at random for each user of the survey).

However, it's rare that I see a poll that's using this knowledge.

Secondly, people lie. Sure in surveys. One said: "There are lies, big lies and surveys"

They don't answer the truth, 'cause in general people like to see themselves better than they are. A survey is a tool to enhance their feel good attitude.

Some magazine was doing a survey about sexuality and polled 100 couples. One of the questions was: "How many times you have sex each week?".

The males had 4 times more sex as the females. Or they are cheating at a high level their wives or their macho attitude is appearing in front of the window.

In my personal surveys I use for my work, people often lie about their education. They make it better than it is, just 'cause they do not want to feel stupid.

Surveys just give a hint, but they are not trustable at all.

yes, the trends say that we're slowly but surely progressing towards a state of human unity. And doesn't that just leave you shaking in your nationalist jackboots?

The survey was conducted April 3 to May 23 and had a margin of error of three percentage points.

And they used a survey to calculate the margin of error?

Well duh, that's what you do - you poll a number of random people, making sure to get as many different people as possible (not an easy task). You then use statistics to figure out how they would reflect the world (in this case).

In a country such as the US, you can poll 3000 people and have opinions with a margin of error at about 2-3%, assuming you got a good sample.

I can manipulate a survey in such way that I get the answers I want.

Indeed you can. That's why you have companies trying their best to become reputable, because if they can do that, then they can get more business and respect from everyone.

Ask a person what their national culture is, and they'll answer that they don't know. Ask them whether it is threatened, and they'll say yes.

It's not exactly new, guys.

The survey was conducted April 3 to May 23 and had a margin of error of three percentage points.
This text is not found anywhere on the actual survey website (http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid30571.aspx). The margin of sampling error for the full sample in each country ranges from plus or minus 2 percentage points to plus or minus 4 percentage points..

And they used a survey to calculate the margin of error?
No, they did not.

This is so ridiculous and most of you just eat what is being served, even disgusting food.
No, you just misunderstood the sentence.

Every election I see the same things happen again and again. Some professional companies specialized in election predictions use surveys to sell their 'truth'. And most of the time they fail.
They aren't trying to sell their 'truth', they're trying to accurately represent the public's opinion.

Surveys are not trustable at all. And I have some knowledge about those things. I'm a usability engineer and I use surveys to create personas (= user profiles).

I can manipulate a survey in such way that I get the answers I want.
Yes, one can manipulate a survey to get the answers one wants. But polling companies will generally not do this. If they did and it got out they'd lose all their clients. They need to maintain a reputation of accuracy in order to stay in business. It's not in their interest to falsify their results.

By instance, for any question the first answer will get a special treatment. Odds are high that people select this one and will not read the other answers. It's not a personal feeling, there's empirical evidence for this, cognitive psychologist detected this decades ago.
(To fight this, the position of the answers are displayed at random for each user of the survey).
And if you, an engineer, know how to solve this problem, don't you think that a statistician would too?

However, it's rare that I see a poll that's using this knowledge.
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

Secondly, people lie. Sure in surveys. One said: "There are lies, big lies and surveys"
Which is why a lot of people are surveyed.

In my personal surveys I use for my work, people often lie about their education. They make it better than it is, just 'cause they do not want to feel stupid.
Which is why questions are posed in the most neutral matter possible.

Surveys just give a hint, but they are not trustable at all.

Pffft. Yours might not be.

I'm losing it, fritzing out once again. I'll be silent for a few days at least.

I really don't know if the Pew Foundation is good science or some bogus ginger group. But the PDF of their survey questions looks roger a-ok to me. Well, I'd be more impressed by samples of 2000 per question, but 1000 is still useful. Comparisons across countries are weakened by translations of the questions.

Never mind the reputation of the OP, or the trivialization and very selective focus of the Wishingbone* Post ... tell me that no debate on Muslims and their attitude to women couldn't be enlightened by answers from Moslems in 16 countries to the question "do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree, that women should have the right to decide if they wear a veil?"

Hint: the answer is a deafening holler of "FUCK YEAH" except in Ethiopia. Nigeria was half-and-half.

It's worth at least a bookmark (favourite for you IE'ers)

Pfshtinking PDF of the Pew Foundation results, question by question. (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf)

(If Adobe PDF doesn't work from NSG, there's a link to it near the bottom the page I and Ifreann linked to: Pew Foundation, Global Attitudes Report 2007, 4 Sept '07 (http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid30571.aspx)

*Damn that's funny! I doubt I invented it, probably seeping into my head when I was crashed in front of the telly.

Culture doesn't need to be "protected" by the government.

If people want to preserve their own culture, they can do it themselves.

If their culture starts to change or be replaced, it's because people prefer the new to the old. Who is government to come in and stop them?

Why wasn't I born a Swede?


Because I was before you in the queue. :D

You know.... I don't even really know what my culture is. oO I don't have any ethnic background at all. My family has been here at least 3 generations... So... what is my culture? Canada is such a big country, that culture changes with every province, and every region within provinces, even when one doesn't look at the ethnic population. So~ Does my culture boil down to stereotypes? Traditions? Most Canadians don't even know what our two national sports are.

Honestly, I think I'd go crazy if I was forced to live in a monotone culture. It's why I love travelling, why I love having international friends, why I love having people from other countries visit and yes live here. I don't think anything is being lost in that. Whatever my culture is, it's still here. It's just being enriched and supplimented.

Also, I find it very sad that it's nearly impossibly to get Japanese citizenship ;_; (compared to getting Canadian citizenship, that is) I'd love to live there perminently, or for an extended period of time, but their immigration policies are very discouraging v.v

You know.... I don't even really know what my culture is. oO I don't have any ethnic background at all. My family has been here at least 3 generations... So... what is my culture? Canada is such a big country, that culture changes with every province, and every region within provinces, even when one doesn't look at the ethnic population. So~ Does my culture boil down to stereotypes? Traditions? Most Canadians don't even know what our two national sports are.

That's a really weird paragraph. Thought provoking ...

I don't know exactly what my culture is either! The idea seems rather contrary to individuality -- am I really the way I am by personal choice, as my ego demands? Or am I a product of a culture?

I cannot deny that my origins (my individual origins, my upbringing) have shaped me ... but here's the rub. I identify those influences not as a national culture. The national culture is a distant shell of my individual culture ... in a sense I am protected from this national culture by the more significant (to me) shells of a city culture (we're different from Brisbanites or Wagga-Waggans), a political culture (idealistic left-wing, but kind of primitivist too), a CLASS culture (intellectual Anglophile, ruling class if you will), an aesthetic culture, a work culture, an ethical culture, a relationship culture, a family culture. Even closer than that, there is an emotional shell of culture, of cultivating mood but it's around here I can longer reliably seperate my culture from my self.

For each of these shells, there is an inside ("my culture") and an outside ("their culture"). I'm not necessarily hostile to what is outside, particularly for the more distant, less important ones. And it's important to note that the closer shells are not subsets of the more distant ones. If I share a liking for Alice in Wonderland with someone, it does not follow that that person must be Australian.

So who can say what people are thinking of when asked about their "national culture"? They might identify the town they have never been away from as "their nation" ... since it is all they have direct experience of. They may not be relying on their experience at all, but rather a perception of what their country is which has been mediated for them by television. They might be thinking of one of two famous people or of the national sport.

As Neu L succinctly put it above: ask people what their national culture is and they probably don't know. Ask them if it is threatened, they will probably say "yes." In a lot of cases, they are probably clearer about what they DON'T like about the unknown, than what they DO like about the familiar.

Hmm. Time and space dimensions ... familiarity (and affection for the familiar) is no bad thing, it's a positive engagement with the world. But it can also become a bad thing, for people who are disappointed in life, because as their view of the world becomes bleaker, they can easily blame anything they perceive as driving change.

But what to say of people whose primary allegiance is to their country? They hate the guy next door, they're suspicious of the folks from the neighbouring county, but have unquestioning loyalty to something they cannot possibly have experience of, their "national culture." That's ... weird.

It makes me wonder when people are stridently nationalist. Are they lacking in closer shells? Are they really 'just an Australian'? More likely, it seems to me, they cannot distinguish between their closer shells and their actual self. In a sense, they ARE their family and their mates, their footy team, their social class. I'm a bit afraid of that. An actual human being, with all their potential for good and harm, but it can't distinguish what is itself and what is not. A juggernaut.

If it's just a matter of respecting their footy team, I can talk to such people. If I have to be a "good Aussie" I'm a lot more nervous because I have to listen carefully and try to work out what arbitrary definition of "Aussie" that person is using. Then I have to fake it! (or more likely, let them be pissed off at me.)

I don't pretend to be perfect. My most significant in-or-out shells are the closest ones, so I'm gentle on strangers but strict with my friends, sometimes really hurting them for the sake of aesthetics or some small point of ethics or intellectual enquiry. I have a lot of growing up to do yet.

Honestly, how can your nationality be the most important thing? How can any citizen of a large country identify with their millions of fellow citizens primarily? I mean, I identify with Australians, I feel some things in common with all of them, but I feel far more allegiance to a lefty from Florida than that dickhead who works weekends in my local hardware shop. The political shell is simply more important to me than whether we live on the same island under the same government.

It's tempting to just say "nationalists are just plain dumb" or that they are such puny little followers that the only gang they feel safe in is millions strong, with jets and submarines to keep the rest of the world at bay.

So the first reaction I have when asked "what is the Australian culture" is to shrug and say "who gives a damn?"
Is it threatened? Only in the sense that traditions are always threatened by change. Fixing existing problems, even at the cost of making new ones, I hold to be good even if it's a zero-sum thing. If I were to live and die in a society which had not changed one whit, would I even have lived?

Sure, it's a pretense that the change occurring around me is my doing. But it's a gratifying pretence, and the more I participate in culture in its different forms, the more aware I am of change. As Gandhi said in several different wordings, change is the rule of life.

Honestly, I think I'd go crazy if I was forced to live in a monotone culture. It's why I love travelling, why I love having international friends, why I love having people from other countries visit and yes live here. I don't think anything is being lost in that. Whatever my culture is, it's still here. It's just being enriched and supplemented.

Nice. Culture is something one participates in ... how could more options be a bad thing?

Also, I find it very sad that it's nearly impossibly to get Japanese citizenship ;_; (compared to getting Canadian citizenship, that is) I'd love to live there perminently, or for an extended period of time, but their immigration policies are very discouraging v.v

Now you've gone weird again! Isn't strict immigration control what you'd expect of a "monotone culture"? I'm not calling the Japanese national culture that, mind you (how would I know?) ... it just seems a little contradictory with the paragraph above it.

Because I was before you in the queue. :DDamn, I knew I should have push you out of my way!

Let me offer a bit of a contrast here.

I can actually see a non-racist point of view when people say that their culture is threatened. When one speaks of a "national" culture, one can point out various ideas and practices that one has that is similar to others around them and unique to that area. It may not be "national" but more regional, but that doesn't make any difference that it is a culture of an area, shared by people who identify with a common group. Because many of you would rather not identify with certain groups you may actually be a part of, does not mean that others should not identify with any groups either.

For thousands of years, culture has helped to develop various wandering groups of people into the nations that we have today. It's not just a geographical thing, folks. Either through force or osmosis, nation-states have developed a culture that the great majority of people within that state take part in. It may be harder to see in some states than others, especially "melting pot" nations such as the US and Canada, but it's there.

Also, a great part of diversity is protection of cultures, even the prevailing culture in one's homeland. If minority cultures in every state were to over-run what once was the majority culture, there would be no identifying distinctions left. For example, if the various minority groups in France were to all-of-a-sudden decide to band together in one large group and outlaw the production of wine because they don't believe in drinking alcohol, that would be a major blow to what we would consider to be French culture. If that continued to other institutions that developed in France, those elsewhere who identified with those institutions would no longer have that reference point for their culture. French culture would no longer be French. There would be no more opportunity for innovation within that culture, because there would be no more base for that culture.

On one more point, I find it hypocritical of many to decry the loss of native cultures in former colonial countries, then say it is perfectly OK for them to come into other countries and not make any attempt to adapt to our cultures. I do agree that there should be open cultural policies, which allow for minority AND majority cultures to be protected, but it is tough when cultures have conflicting issues on the same matter that cannot be resolved, and in those cases, I feel that the majority culture, no matter where it is, should win out. It would be unfair for the adherents of the majority culture to all of a sudden change that aspect of their way of life because a minority culture does not like it. That's tyranny of the minority.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the wiping out of indigenous cultures is wrong as well. What was done to them was horrible, and in those times was an example of tyranny of the minority, and in some places, still is today. I just want to ensure that it does not happen to ANYONE again.

I don't care what the majority of people think in this matter. They can't stop it, they can only slow it down. Technology breakthroughs, free trade and immigration; globalisation is happening and will continue to until there is a fairly homogeneous world culture. Then there will be (more) peace.

The reason I love multiculturalism is because the better we get along with each other and the better we mix the sooner the barriers between us will break down and the sooner there will be a monocultural world.

Which is bad. I don't want my Italian culture to be assimilated into one giant blob of monoculturalism. I also assume you'd want people to mix to the point we all looked the same. That'd be terrible. No more blond or redhead girls for me to chase.

Go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Culture doesn't need to be "protected" by the government.

If people want to preserve their own culture, they can do it themselves.

If their culture starts to change or be replaced, it's because people prefer the new to the old. Who is government to come in and stop them?
In a democracy, if a majority say that the government should protect their culture then that's what the government should do.

Let me offer a bit of a contrast here.

I can actually see a non-racist point of view when people say that their culture is threatened. When one speaks of a "national" culture, one can point out various ideas and practices that one has that is similar to others around them and unique to that area. It may not be "national" but more regional, but that doesn't make any difference that it is a culture of an area, shared by people who identify with a common group. Because many of you would rather not identify with certain groups you may actually be a part of, does not mean that others should not identify with any groups either.

For thousands of years, culture has helped to develop various wandering groups of people into the nations that we have today. It's not just a geographical thing, folks. Either through force or osmosis, nation-states have developed a culture that the great majority of people within that state take part in. It may be harder to see in some states than others, especially "melting pot" nations such as the US and Canada, but it's there.

Also, a great part of diversity is protection of cultures, even the prevailing culture in one's homeland. If minority cultures in every state were to over-run what once was the majority culture, there would be no identifying distinctions left. For example, if the various minority groups in France were to all-of-a-sudden decide to band together in one large group and outlaw the production of wine because they don't believe in drinking alcohol, that would be a major blow to what we would consider to be French culture. If that continued to other institutions that developed in France, those elsewhere who identified with those institutions would no longer have that reference point for their culture. French culture would no longer be French. There would be no more opportunity for innovation within that culture, because there would be no more base for that culture.

On one more point, I find it hypocritical of many to decry the loss of native cultures in former colonial countries, then say it is perfectly OK for them to come into other countries and not make any attempt to adapt to our cultures. I do agree that there should be open cultural policies, which allow for minority AND majority cultures to be protected, but it is tough when cultures have conflicting issues on the same matter that cannot be resolved, and in those cases, I feel that the majority culture, no matter where it is, should win out. It would be unfair for the adherents of the majority culture to all of a sudden change that aspect of their way of life because a minority culture does not like it. That's tyranny of the minority.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the wiping out of indigenous cultures is wrong as well. What was done to them was horrible, and in those times was an example of tyranny of the minority, and in some places, still is today. I just want to ensure that it does not happen to ANYONE again.

My friend, you hit the nail on the head. Brilliant.

Isn't it hypocritical to be for multiculturalism and diversity yet in the same breath call people racist for wanting to preserve their own cultures?

My friend, you hit the nail on the head. Brilliant.

Isn't it hypocritical to be for multiculturalism and diversity yet in the same breath call people racist for wanting to preserve their own cultures?

No, because when I say "preserve culture" with respect to native populations and their invading, imperial, colonial overseers, I refer to the systematic, genocidal and forceful subjugation of that culture by the overseer. An example is my grandmother who, as a native american, would be subjected to beatings in federal boarding school if she "acted Indian," spoke her own language, etc.

And when you say "preserving culture," you tend to refer to 'native' populations who are afraid of immigrants and want to keep immigrants out. This is different from the above situation. Colonizing and invading a continent and killing most of its population is not the same as people immigrating to a nation.

The fact that some people seem to want to equate one with the other, belies either simple xenophobic paranoia, or an inability to be reasonable, or both. And yes, quite possibly racism - not that racism exists, in this forum or the world.

So, nope. Not hypocritical.

Now you've gone weird again! Isn't strict immigration control what you'd expect of a "monotone culture"? I'm not calling the Japanese national culture that, mind you (how would I know?) ... it just seems a little contradictory with the paragraph above it.

I think... I understand your confusion >.O My desire to live in Japan is one based on experiencing a whole new culture. For the most part it does lack the diversity of Canada, but it's so different from here that I think that alone would make up for the lack of cultural diversity. For a while anyway ;)

Good, I'm glad that the majority of people in this poll agrees with me. I hope that the leaders will obey their voters (in democratic countries), as democracy is all about the will of majority.

I havent been in NSG for very long but I also note that the majorities in this poll are so different than the majority here. Not surprised though, this is a left leaning, mostly teen and American forum, so I guess that's a no brainer.

Anyway, good article, discuss and those of you who keep repeating "ebil racizt!!11!one!1!" in immigration debates, try being smarter please...


http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071005/NATION/110050075/1001

"Only Japanese, South Koreans and Palestinians were comfortable with their immigration policies." And that's a no brainer since these countries receive little immigration. And that's despite Japan and Korea being rich with declining workforce.

I'm not a fan, at least in the USA of proposing we even HAVE a national culture... It's an amalgamation of other cultural influences. For me, I attempt to my best to keep my historic culture alive here in the US... My ancestors have been here alot longer than many of the people attempting to suppress it over the years (I have Cadien (Cajun) ancestry)... And if someone doesn't like it... Je ne donne pas un merde.

And, of course, this sort of poll ignores third culture kids, who are surprisingly common. What's the national culture of a guy who was born in Pakistan to American and English parents, and then travelled to Nepal before he was a year old, spent time living in America, visited Costa Rica, and had moved into the UK, before he was 10?

A friend of mine who grew up with something similar calls himself mid atlantic kid - fairly accurate.

But because of this sort of upbringing I don't have a national culture (and there's a lot of other effects, many negative :( ).

Anyway, that aside, it's effectively useless to pull your nation out of the world today, unless you want to fall totally behind. The US trying it is particularly crazy, as it's effectively built on the idea of constant immigration.

And, of course, this sort of poll ignores third culture kids, who are surprisingly common. What's the national culture of a guy who was born in Pakistan to American and English parents, and then travelled to Nepal before he was a year old, spent time living in America, visited Costa Rica, and had moved into the UK, before he was 10?

A friend of mine who grew up with something similar calls himself mid atlantic kid - fairly accurate.

But because of this sort of upbringing I don't have a national culture (and there's a lot of other effects, many negative :( ).

Anyway, that aside, it's effectively useless to pull your nation out of the world today, unless you want to fall totally behind. The US trying it is particularly crazy, as it's effectively built on the idea of constant immigration.

It's even more ridiculous when you consider the fact that what someone may define as "US Culture" is different depending on WHERE in the US you're from... Virginia is not Maine, New York is not Los Angeles, Chicago is not Austin, and Philadelphia is not New Orleans.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13145616']In a democracy, if a majority say that the government should protect their culture then that's what the government should do.

Wrong.

The proper role and scope of government action is independent of the form of government.

If the form of government leads to government acting outside its proper role, then the form of government needs to change.

-snip-
Nice.

Isn't it hypocritical to be for multiculturalism and diversity yet in the same breath call people racist for wanting to preserve their own cultures?
Not necessarily. Accepting diversity doesn't mean I have to like everything, it just means I accept the existence of it and tolerate it.

More to the point: if a racist says "I won't talk to blacks", I don't like it but I tolerate it. If a racist says "I'll get elected and throw out all those blacks" - then suddenly that's a whole different ballgame. No one gets hurt by the guy not talking to black people, but a whole lot of people get hurt when state violence (or any other kind, for that matter) is used to advance bigotry.

As Linus and Lucy said, there is no scope for government to protect cultures, people can do that themselves if they want.

As Linus and Lucy said, there is no scope for government to protect cultures, people can do that themselves if they want.

What do you mean by "no scope?" There's certainly precedent if that's what you're referring to. And certainly there is precedent for governments to attack and destroy cultures... I feel if a government has that power it certainly has the power to protect cultures as well.

Which is bad. I don't want my Italian culture to be assimilated into one giant blob of monoculturalism. I also assume you'd want people to mix to the point we all looked the same. That'd be terrible. No more blond or redhead girls for me to chase.

Go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

I've read it and that has absolutely no relevance to what we are talking about it and to even imply so is either incredibly stupid or hideously dishonest.

And yes I do want humans to mix to the point that we all look similar. You miss out on chasing specific ethnicities, but a possibly billions of people miss out on being killed unnecessarily. Hmm... Hard decision but I'm afraid I stick by it.

I feel if a government has that power it certainly has the power to protect cultures as well.
Government operates on that presumption: "we can destroy, therefore we can protect".

I'm not sure that's always correct. And besides, what does "protecting a culture" actually mean? Cultures are the shared beliefs, practices and artifacts of a bunch of people - if they start changing their beliefs or practices, the only thing the government can do is force them not to. And even then all you do is produce a bunch of people who must act as though they have a certain culture but actually don't. It's like Iranian women with headscarves.

If you use the logic that it's ok to have culture change then what europe did to the rest of the world is
good.

Racism is in and of it's self a lie. We are all humans are we not? Black people and whiter people are of the same HUMAN race yes?

Nice.


Not necessarily. Accepting diversity doesn't mean I have to like everything, it just means I accept the existence of it and tolerate it.

More to the point: if a racist says "I won't talk to blacks", I don't like it but I tolerate it. If a racist says "I'll get elected and throw out all those blacks" - then suddenly that's a whole different ballgame. No one gets hurt by the guy not talking to black people, but a whole lot of people get hurt when state violence (or any other kind, for that matter) is used to advance bigotry.

As Linus and Lucy said, there is no scope for government to protect cultures, people can do that themselves if they want.

So we had no right to stop the nazi culture? There own people could have done that. RIIIIGHT....

Government operates on that presumption: "we can destroy, therefore we can protect".

I'm not sure that's always correct.

I'd rather the government try to protect than destroy. I'm just saying since it seems every government is willing to do the latter, why not let them do the former to somewhat balance out?

And besides, what does "protecting a culture" actually mean? Cultures are the shared beliefs, practices and artifacts of a bunch of people - if they start changing their beliefs or practices, the only thing the government can do is force them not to.

I see it as more of an extension of protecting individual rights, not maintaining a status quo or forcing stagnation. Rather things like protecting the bunch of people themselves. Should the government do that anyway? of course, but allowances have to sometimes be made because some groups or cultures face different situations.

What do you mean by "no scope?" There's certainly precedent if that's what you're referring to.
Doesn't make it right.

And certainly there is precedent for governments to attack and destroy cultures...
Doesn't make it right.

I feel if a government has that power it certainly has the power to protect cultures as well.

There's a difference between practical power/ability and legitimate authority.

There's a difference between practical power/ability and legitimate authority.

Yes, one is official and the other is not. Makes little difference though in terms of outcome. People killed by smallpox-infected blankets don't discern between the official-ness of their murderers.

Yes, one is official and the other is not. Makes little difference though in terms of outcome. People killed by smallpox-infected blankets don't discern between the official-ness of their murderers.

Quite.

Which is bad. I don't want my Italian culture to be assimilated into one giant blob of monoculturalism. I also assume you'd want people to mix to the point we all looked the same. That'd be terrible. No more blond or redhead girls for me to chase.

Go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

What's it about? :D


Nice.

It's nice to be wred. That spheres thing started out as an analogy and went sick on me ... so I wasn't counting on it.



I'm not sure that's always correct. And besides, what does "protecting a culture" actually mean?
I think it means limiting immigration more, doesn't it?
*consults Political Correctness for Dummies*

Cultures are the shared beliefs, practices and artifacts of a bunch of people - if they start changing their beliefs or practices, the only thing the government can do is force them not to. And even then all you do is produce a bunch of people who must act as though they have a certain culture but actually don't.


One could imagine a "culture market" arrangement, where citizens are (magically I'm afraid) free to adopt whatever culture they like. Cultures which were successful would attract people trying to adopt the shared beliefs and practices which obviously were working for those who were already of that culture.

No need for anyone to get displaced from their beliefs or practices, or have those aspects of their culture taken away from them. The only sticking point is the artifacts.

One of the artifacts of a national culture might be the land of its nation's territory. (I don't really consider it so for Australia, but obviously some do). More immigrants means population growth means a smaller share of the physical land per person. But that makes the private land which people already own more valuable, whereas those who don't already own any are in the same position as the immigrants: facing higher purchase costs for land.

Hmm, so does immigration lead to greater division between haves-and-have nots?

:p Of course it does! It's a free market, isn't that what it's supposed to do? :p

The loss of a nation's culture has little to do with how many immigrants it has. The United States' culture is merely enriched with other cultures; it has not lost its identity as a country. For example, the mere fact that the U.S has a large population of Mexican immigrants has had absolutely no impact whatsoever in the traditional north american customs, such as the celebration of the 4th of July.
Putting this aside, U.S citizens have many different cultural traditions depending on the region: Hawaii and Alaska, for example.
Finally, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been U.S property for over a hundred years and we have a very strong sense of our identity. However, we have enriched our culture with North American celebrations, such as the incorporation of Santa Clause to our Christmas celebrations. Despite this, anyone who has ever visited our country can tell you there isn't anything quite like a Puerto Rican Christmas. We are still unique and different from our metropolis. And in case anyone's forgotten, we are U.S citizens too, which means English is spoken here as a second language and the currency is the dollar-the same ones North Americans use.

http://www.ausschaffungsinitiative.ch/images/banner.png

It's all the rage these days...

So we had no right to stop the nazi culture? There own people could have done that. RIIIIGHT....
I think the Nazi ideology (though I suppose "culture" could be applicable too) was quite heavily based on state violence. As I said, that changes things, because my tolerance ends where people initiate the use of force against others for spurious reasons (like being different, being rich or poor, disagreeing with your opinion etc).

I've read it and that has absolutely no relevance to what we are talking about it and to even imply so is either incredibly stupid or hideously dishonest.

And yes I do want humans to mix to the point that we all look similar. You miss out on chasing specific ethnicities, but a possibly billions of people miss out on being killed unnecessarily. Hmm... Hard decision but I'm afraid I stick by it.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't stand by while my culture is absorbed into a big, brown blob. Especially when you have arguably the greatest empire in history as part of my culture.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't stand by while my culture is absorbed into a big, brown blob.
Define your culture.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't stand by while my culture is absorbed into a big, brown blob. Especially when you have arguably the greatest empire in history as part of my culture.

Good for you. I'd like to see you stop it.

culture is always, always evolving.
people need to grow up and see realize they do not do or see things exactly as their parents or grandparents did.
sure somethings they may "come back to" or reevaluate and pick up on as good.
but children are never carbon copies of their parents, gparents, etc...
that too is cultural change.
for good or bad, it always happens,
and has NEVER not happened.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't stand by while my culture is absorbed into a big, brown blob. Especially when you have arguably the greatest empire in history as part of my culture.

that sounds really creepy and, i don't know what it is referring to, but hopefully not something racist.

there is no honor in empire.
never was, never will be, because there isn't

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't stand by while my culture is absorbed into a big, brown blob. Especially when you have arguably the greatest empire in history as part of my culture.

You cannot stop the giant brown blob, only join it. Soon all shall be brown.

I hope Lenny comes back. I detect a proto-racist, a person who hasn't thought the matter through well enough to rise above fear of the unknown.

Definitely tractable. And if not, easy meat. :D

"Sweden, at 49 percent, was the lone exception to the finding."

"God also is welcome in many spots. When asked whether people "must believe in God to be moral," 57 percent of Americans agreed — along with strong majorities in the Middle East (except Israel), Africa, the Far East (with the exception of Japan and China) and South America (except Argentina). Less than a majority agreed in all European countries — with only 10 percent agreeing in Sweden."

I am so fortunate to live here, and so many things remind me of that daily. Kudos, homeland. Kudos. :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KR3wGlRcUKo

lolz...:p:p

"Sweden, at 49 percent, was the lone exception to the finding."

"God also is welcome in many spots. When asked whether people "must believe in God to be moral," 57 percent of Americans agreed — along with strong majorities in the Middle East (except Israel), Africa, the Far East (with the exception of Japan and China) and South America (except Argentina). Less than a majority agreed in all European countries — with only 10 percent agreeing in Sweden."

I am so fortunate to live here, and so many things remind me of that daily. Kudos, homeland. Kudos. :)

Being right-thinking must be easy for you, what with being Swedish and all!

Is the data any good, do you reckon?

Is the data any good, do you reckon?

How could I reckon? It's just a silly poll. I don't need it to know we're better than you. :p

How could I reckon? It's just a silly poll. I don't need it to know we're better than you. :p

Arm wrestle, or game of chess? Your choice ... :p