Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

This is how that differs from multiculturalism, which is multiple cultures in the same nation they are free to their own devices if they so chose and rightfully so. If they don't like the US mainstream culture they have their own nation they can be apart of.

How does an attitude like this help any sort of integration?

Well, you kinda got me there, because European settlers certainly did not integrate with the prevailing native culture when they arrived, right? So the Native Americans have their own nations distinct from the US nation and it's culture. That's the compromise that was made, because the multicultural model, so to speak, didn't work out so well. Immigrants now come from their own nations and if they prefer their native culture and are intolerant of the prevailing culture of another nation? Then they might consider staying home where they don't have to deal with other cultures.

I suppose you could take something from the historical experience of the Native Americans, about what happens when too many people of an alien and intolerant culture are introduced to your environs? You might end up feeling like a foriegner in your own country, to say the least.

[Capntastic]

You realize you're using a straight up genocide as the basis for your argument pertaining to how to best handle cultural integration, right?

[Montague]

You realize you're using a straight up genocide as the basis for your argument pertaining to how to best handle cultural integration, right?

No, that's just what you are trying to insinuate. I don't think requiring immigrants to tolerate and abide the culture of their adopted nation is paramount to "straight up genocide".

[G-Flex]

Immigrants today have their own nations as well and if they prefer their native culture and are intolerant of the prevailing culture of another nation? Then they might consider staying home, like Native Americans that chose to live on the rez.

Even people who move to this country because they like this country and appreciate what it stands for, want to live successfully within our society, etc., still will largely retain their own culture, by necessity. There is literally no other way to do it. Immigration is not some magical process that wipes your mind of all your native language, upbringing, and culture, replacing it with some sort of... American Mind Porridge. You have to accept that any immigrant will retain their native culture to a fair degree, that integration is an multi-generational process, that people of similar background will still coalesce into their own like-minded communities, and that none of this means that their people don't care to integrate, won't integrate over time, or that they don't care about or appreciate this country's strengths or culture.

For example: Where I grew up was a very ethnically French-Canadian area. It was largely populated in (roughly, I'm not entirely sure) the mid-late 19th century by immigrants from French-speaking Canada (Quebec and so forth). My grandparents still have a localized version of a French-Canadian accent, even, and were schooled in French as children. Obviously, those immigrants retained their culture, even their language, and existed in a very ethnic community. They still integrated. It just takes time. You cannot chide an immigrant for not immediately learning the language of their new nation or integrating into the new culture overnight. That shit doesn't happen. It just doesn't work that way. My point is that ethnic communities and fairly distinct cultures have existed in America before, always have, and have not been a significant barrier to integration except where those populations were ostracized or alienated in some fashion. For example, I used to work in an auto parts store near where I grew up, and a sign out front was in both Spanish and English. A customer one day walked in and got visibly and verbally upset there we dared to put the sign in both languages and not just English. There is a significant likelihood that his own ancestors (and definitely those of some of the people working there, including myself) were in the exact same situation as those hispanics no more than two or three generations ago in that same area, yet somehow they managed just fine.

You realize you're using a straight up genocide as the basis for your argument pertaining to how to best handle cultural integration, right?

No, that's just what you are trying to insinuate. I don't think requiring immigrants to tolerate and abide the culture of their adopted nation is paramount to "straight up genocide".

He's referring to you referencing the Native Americans, where our "integration policy" for a long time essentially was straight-up genocide... or at least forcing them more and more west against their will so we could take their lands, which caused enough death (of individuals and of culture) on its own.

I'd also like to know how you define "tolerate and abide". Isn't following the law enough? Do you intend to somehow force immigrants to do more than is legally required of the rest of us?

[Capntastic]

He's referring to you referencing the Native Americans, where our "integration policy" for a long time essentially was straight-up genocide... or at least forcing them more and more west against their will so we could take their lands, which caused enough death (of individuals and of culture) on its own.

I'm totally aware of this.  But the whole point was that it happened because of relatavism based on cultural discrimination.  By seeing them as lesser culture, they felt justified in genocide.  If they had, at the time, a developed sense of different cultures not being something to be forced to assimilate or die- to conform to a notion of 'us', they probably wouldn't have been treated like subhumans.

[G-Flex]

I know you're aware of it. You're not the one I was talking to there.

I completely agree with you, although to be fair, the Native Americans themselves weren't necessarily any more accepting, or at least certainly not in all cases.

[Montague]

Even people who move to this country because they like this country and appreciate what it stands for, want to live successfully within our society, etc., still will largely retain their own culture, by necessity. There is literally no other way to do it. Immigration is not some magical process that wipes your mind of all your native language, upbringing, and culture, replacing it with some sort of... American Mind Porridge. You have to accept that any immigrant will retain their native culture to a fair degree, that integration is an multi-generational process, that people of similar background will still coalesce into their own like-minded communities, and that none of this means that their people don't care to integrate, won't integrate over time, or that they don't care about or appreciate this country's strengths or culture.

For example: Where I grew up was a very ethnically French-Canadian area. It was largely populated in (roughly, I'm not entirely sure) the mid-late 19th century by immigrants from French-speaking Canada (Quebec and so forth). My grandparents still have a localized version of a French-Canadian accent, even, and were schooled in French as children. Obviously, those immigrants retained their culture, even their language, and existed in a very ethnic community. They still integrated. It just takes time. You cannot chide an immigrant for not immediately learning the language of their new nation or integrating into the new culture overnight. That shit doesn't happen. It just doesn't work that way. My point is that ethnic communities and fairly distinct cultures have existed in America before, always have, and have not been a significant barrier to integration except where those populations were ostracized or alienated in some fashion. For example, I used to work in an auto parts store near where I grew up, and a sign out front was in both Spanish and English. A customer one day walked in and got visibly and verbally upset there we dared to put the sign in both languages and not just English. There is a significant likelihood that his own ancestors (and definitely those of some of the people working there, including myself) were in the exact same situation as those hispanics no more than two or three generations ago in that same area, yet somehow they managed just fine.

Right, the process of intergration doesn't happen overnight and I don't mean to imply that it does. It takes a couple generations but it also requires that the immigrants accept or at least tolerate the new culture to some degree and do not try to force concessions in the law or prevailing culture to their own. It doesn't mean the immigrants have any right to alienate the natives either.

He's referring to you referencing the Native Americans, where our "integration policy" for a long time essentially was straight-up genocide... or at least forcing them more and more west against their will so we could take their lands, which caused enough death (of individuals and of culture) on its own.

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had two distinct cultures existing in the same place, both refusing to intergrate with the other- multiculturalism, basically.

[G-Flex]

Right, the process of intergration doesn't happen overnight and I don't mean to imply that it does. It takes a couple generations but it also requires that the immigrants accept or at least tolerate the new culture to some degree and do not try to force concessions in the law or prevailing culture to their own. It doesn't mean the immigrants have any right to alienate the natives either.

Define "concessions in the prevailing culture". What exactly does this mean? Does it mean immigrants aren't allowed to speak their own language? Does it mean a Jewish community can't only shop at kosher grocers? What exactly do you mean by this?

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had multiculturalism, basically.

No, you didn't. That was not "multiculturalism" in any sense in which modern people mean it. That was a case of cultures existing side-by-side and being rather intolerant of one another's very existence, never mind their culture. Modern multiculturalism (in the real world, not whatever definition you've made up in your head) relies on acceptance and peaceful coexistence. That is the entire point. So no, you didn't have "multiculturalism" back then. "Multiculturalism" here means a hell of a lot more than "two cultures".

[Capntastic]

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had multiculturalism, basically.

I can't tell what words you're straining most to try to reach for a point.

I mean, you're literally trying to conflate "acknowledge and respect other cultures" with an actual racial genocide.

This was apparently motivated by an unsubstantiated anecdote about colored paper.

[Montague]

Define "concessions in the prevailing culture". What exactly does this mean? Does it mean immigrants aren't allowed to speak their own language? Does it mean a Jewish community can't only shop at kosher grocers? What exactly do you mean by this?

I mean immigrants should not try to force any changes on their host nation and impose on the people already living there. You can't immigrate to Saudi Arabia and demand that you be permitted to buy and sell alcohol and pork chops because that's part of your cultural identity. You have to make concessions to the prevailing culture there, not the other way around. If your wine and pork chops are that important to you, why the hell did you move to Saudi Arabia? This doesn't mean I'm advocating that the Saudis should genocide you or whatever because you like pork chops.

you didn't. That was not "multiculturalism" in any sense in which modern people mean it. That was a case of cultures existing side-by-side and being rather intolerant of one another's very existence, never mind their culture. Modern multiculturalism (in the real world, not whatever definition you've made up in your head) relies on acceptance and peaceful coexistence. That is the entire point. So no, you didn't have "multiculturalism" back then. "Multiculturalism" here means a hell of a lot more than "two cultures".

Peaceful coexistence between two distinct different cultures is much more difficult to achieve, especially in the long run, then we'd like to think. It's tenuous at best and you know the worse it can result. We can barely keep peace between different nation states when they differ so much in outlook. Hence the failure of multiculturalism, It's probably human nature. School spirit on a larger scale. Why I favor intergration.

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had multiculturalism, basically.

I can't tell what words you're straining most to try to reach for a point.

I mean, you're literally trying to conflate "acknowledge and respect other cultures" with an actual racial genocide.

This was apparently motivated by an unsubstantiated anecdote about colored paper.

I'm sure you are misunderstanding something, but I can't quite identify it. The colonization of North America is a historical example of what can happen with a culture clash. Obviously tolerance and respect for other cultures didn't apply to either side of that and thats how it turned out the way it did.

Why can't you just admit that the colored paper rule was crossing the line?

[G-Flex]

I mean immigrants should not try to force any changes on their host nation and impose on the people already living there. You can't immigrate to Saudi Arabia and demand that you be permitted to buy and sell alcohol and pork chops because that's part of your cultural identity. You have to make concessions to the prevailing culture there, not the other way around. If your wine and pork chops are that important to you, why the hell did you move to Saudi Arabia? This doesn't mean I'm advocating that the Saudis should genocide you or whatever because you like pork chops.

Except all you're talking about here is following the law. Do you have a non-legally-oriented example? You sure seemed to imply you did.

Peaceful coexistence between two distinct different cultures is much more difficult to achieve, especially in the long run, then we'd like to think. It's tenuous at best and you know the worse it can result. We can barely keep peace between different nation states when they differ so much in outlook. Hence the failure of multiculturalism, It's probably human nature. School spirit on a larger scale. Why I favor intergration.

... Except you identified the colonist/native situation as multiculturalism despite the obvious fact that no attempt at multiculturalism had even been made between them. Do you not see why this is disingenuous?

I'm sure you are misunderstanding something, but I can't quite identify it. The colonization of North America is a historical example of what can happen with a culture clash. Obviously tolerance and respect for other cultures didn't apply to either side of that and thats how it turned out the way it did.

In other words, it's an absolutely atrocious example to use. You cannot use that situation to prove that multiculturalism doesn't succeed, because multiculturalism was not even attempted. The exact opposite was attempted: Total annihilation of the opposing culture.

Why can't you just admit that the colored paper rule was crossing the line?

I also won't admit that NASA faking the moon landings was crossing the line, or that Hitler ingesting a power dot and eating the ghosts of former Soviet and American leaders was crossing the line. Because those things didn't happen. Don't expect people to remark upon ridiculous, sensationalistic, unsubstantiated rumors. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Sheb]

Fun Fact: What Montague is referring to as "European Style Multiculturalism" (Immigrant keeps their culture intac and form communities) is know in Belgium/France as "Anglo Saxon Multiculturalism".:p

[Montague]

Ok, I think there is a fundamental cultural misunderstanding at work here so I'm just going to concede my argument since I think I argued my point to it's end and I've run out of arguments worth mentioning. I admit the Native American comparison does suck now its been pointed out. Should'a stuck with the Yugoslavia example. I still assert that multiculturalism is a failure and intergration is the way to go.

Let's 'celebrate our diversity' by arguing about something else.

[Leafsnail]

The weirdest thing about that anecdote is that there isn't even anything inherently wrong about giving people coloured paper.  It sounds exactly like the kind of story the Daily Mail might make up via the following process:

- A preschool classroom somewhere got its students to use coloured paper because they thought it looked nicer
- Some parent got outraged and assumed it was to do with POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
- The teacher denied this but at some point they'd said their favourite colour was black and that clearly supported the idea!
- The whole thing blew over and nobody cared because nothing bad had happened
- 5 years later the Daily Mail digs it up and makes a massive fuss over nothing

[Nadaka]

I do not that some kindergarden teachers have been trying to teach that blue is not the only favorite color allowed for boys and pink is not the only favorite color allowed for girls and you shouldn't make fun of someone for liking a different color.

But that is as close as I can possibly come to the anecdote that Luke Prowler brought up.