Immigration?

[Blowtus]

Thats "nice" and all, except this is not the String Cheese Incident forum, but The Philosopher. You'll find very strong rebuttals of most things "pan" lol, especially some notion of "pan-humanism".

The view of humanity as "one", that, above all difference, shares some common ground that is foundational enough to overcome differences in geography, ethnicity, culture, and history is an ideology and a very tempting one. It is also very dangerous and presumptive.

Why is it dangerous and presumptive?
All (fully functional) humans function on similar instinctual foundations. All are capable of using their brain to take a more long term view than 'the present moment'. The benefits of peace and understanding amongst humans are the same no matter where you come from. All that stands in the way is wrong, thus both personally and globally, damaging beliefs. Conquering that would clearly be no mean feat, but what are the alternatives? Immigration would seem a driving factor for understanding, and the tearing down of false belief, to me. Short term turmoil would seem moderately inevitable, I see no reason for anyone to assume it would continue down that path though.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Why is it dangerous and presumptive?
All (fully functional) humans function on similar instinctual foundations. All are capable of using their brain to take a more long term view than 'the present moment'. The benefits of peace and understanding amongst humans are the same no matter where you come from. All that stands in the way is wrong, thus both personally and globally, damaging beliefs. Conquering that would clearly be no mean feat, but what are the alternatives? Immigration would seem a driving factor for understanding, and the tearing down of false belief, to me. Short term turmoil would seem moderately inevitable, I see no reason for anyone to assume it would continue down that path though.

This notion that everyone could break down barriers and all come to love and respect eachother can be seen as an experiment that started in the 60s and, over time, has come to be clearly proven to have the very opposite of the desired outcome. This is hardly surprising since we cannot escape from nature, and nature dictates that variety of strategy and variety of form is required. Evolution is a story of the divergence of groups from their original groups. This fact plus the scientific fact that we are biologically programmed by our "selfish genes" to help those most simillar to ourselves and to view others as competitors, means that we have to work with this knowledge to achieve the best situation we can, and stop trying to function on the basis that water flows uphill (metaphorically speaking).

 

[Blowtus]

This notion that everyone could break down barriers and all come to love and respect eachother can be seen as an experiment that started in the 60s and, over time, has come to be clearly proven to have the very opposite of the desired outcome. This is hardly surprising since we cannot escape from nature, and nature dictates that variety of strategy and variety of form is required.

We clearly have differing ideas of clearly proven. I have no knowledge of any such 'experiment' that was undertaken in a concerted global effort, nor do I see the clear failure of such an experiment. I do not see how you would begin such an experiment, other than as a subtle push, gradual snowball of understanding, and the turmoil inherant in any such major societal shift in belief / understanding. Perhaps some actions in the 60's can be viewed as the beginning of the experiment - but 45 years is a trifle in the scheme of societal advancement. If any such 'failure' was concluded, it could just as easily be argued it was a failure of actions, not of ideology.

Aside from pushing for enhanced human understanding, what realistic options are there available to us? People do not give up their ideas of liberty / freedom happily... I would suggest we are beyond any point of return as far as ethnicity is concerned, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

 

[Norsemaiden]

We clearly have differing ideas of clearly proven. I have no knowledge of any such 'experiment' that was undertaken in a concerted global effort, nor do I see the clear failure of such an experiment. I do not see how you would begin such an experiment, other than as a subtle push, gradual snowball of understanding, and the turmoil inherant in any such major societal shift in belief / understanding. Perhaps some actions in the 60's can be viewed as the beginning of the experiment - but 45 years is a trifle in the scheme of societal advancement. If any such 'failure' was concluded, it could just as easily be argued it was a failure of actions, not of ideology.

Aside from pushing for enhanced human understanding, what realistic options are there available to us? People do not give up their ideas of liberty / freedom happily... I would suggest we are beyond any point of return as far as ethnicity is concerned, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

The race mixing is not liberty it is tyranny that is brutally enforced. Most white people have always been opposed to mass immigration into our countries, but it has been forced upon us. Even in the US, the Black Panthers were successfully helping Black people to have pride in their race and to value their differences - while the state fought back by flooding Black areas with drugs and:

The activities of the Black Panthers came to the attention of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Hoover described the Panthers as "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" and in November 1968 ordered the FBI to employ "hard-hitting counter-intelligence measures to cripple the Black Panthers".

In the early hours of the 4th December, 1969, the Panther headquarters in Chicago was raided by the police. The police later claimed that the Panthers opened fire and a shoot-out took place. During the next ten minutes Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were killed. Witnesses claimed that Hampton was wounded in the shoulder and then executed by a shot to the head. The panthers left alive were arrested and charged with attempting to murder the police. Afterwards, ballistic evidence revealed that only one bullet had been fired by the Panthers whereas nearly a hundred came from police guns.

and

The committee looked at the case of Fred Hampton and discovered that William O'Neal, Hampton's bodyguard, was a FBI agent-provocateur who, days before the raid, had delivered an apartment floor-plan to the Bureau with an "X" marking Hampton's bed. Ballistic evidence showed that most bullets during the raid were aimed at Hampton's bedroom.

Black Panthers
The police and FBI assassinated more than 20 Black Panther members.

It is certainly not just white people who wish to keep an ethnic identity and be separate - but just look what happens to movements that attempt to go against the enforced miscegenation.

Adaptive radiation

Adaptive radiation describes the rapid speciation of a single or a few species to fill many ecological niches. This is an evolutionary process driven by mutation (heritable/genetic variation) and natural selection.

Adaptive radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is how nature works. Despite decades attempting to bring about racial harmony in formerly white countries, this goal remains elusive and in fact there are increasing racial tensions.

Fearful of blame and electoral unpopularity, they tried to sell their failed experiment as intentional and desirable 'diversity' and 'enrichment'. This enabled them to hush critics up by accusations of being narrow, intolerant, insular etc. But, like I say, I'm probably too cynical. It takes an idealist to believe that having competing cultures, languages and religions in a society can make it more 'rich' and cohesive.

BBC NEWS | Magazine | What does multiculturalism mean?

If you google: "multiculturalism experiment failed" you will find that this is a widespread conclusion - including books on the subject.

 

[bcmetalforces]

"Wrong."

In your opinion.This is not a bilateral discussion.

"Ethnocentricity is actually the only possible way to have peace. But while there are any sort of rivalries there will be violence."

Ethonocentricity promotes rivalry.
"eth·no·cen·trism –noun 1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.


"If you have rival ethnocentric communities/nations they will fight. So basically: the more homogenous the nation is the less IN fighting there is - but fighting outside rivals is a possibility although it will not be constant."

Most nations in the world are made up of different ethnic groups.That doesn't necessarily mean there's a preponderance of infighting.

"When you mix up the communities with "multiculturalism" you have a dangerous brew that, before long, results in constant aggression, the utter loss of the urge to help your compatriots, disunity, etc. History bears out this truth."

I'm canadian. Afraid you can't sell me on that. We are one of the most peaceful nations in the world. And there are plenty of other nations the same as us. Switzerland for instance.

"Britain is being Balkanised now so that a war between Muslims who want to take over swathes of the country seem inevitable. If the British had been more ethnocentric they would have not accepted such dangerous levels of foreigners into the country. "


Who are you working for GWBush?? SOUND THE ALARM! BE AFRAID!
We are approaching dangerous levels of 'brown people"!!
Again, Canada was built from immigrants.


All of Europe faces the fate of internal wars lasting for hundreds (if not thousands) of years as a result of this -and the whole world is set to be plunged into a "dark age" (which is a reference not to skin colour but to a time when there is such chaos that even history cannot recall the details of what went on)."

The whole world has been fighting for years. Mostly due to the attitude of ' you are not like us, you do not belong, I am afraid. Therefore you must die, or at least live behind the fence"
That is ethnocentricity in practice.

"We may effectively be sent back to the stone age. But if and when, we eventually have returned to the level of sufficient ethnic separation to allow for technological progress to start again,"

You're stating technology is being affected by immigration? How? Are the 'dark people ' coming to take away our computers?
What you are blaming on immigrants should be blamed on corporations and corrupt governments.


"we will find that natural resources like metals have all been used up already. We are to be stuck on this wasted planet forever with no chance of the space travel that would now have been commonplace had WWII not set the course for our disaster."

Metals have been used up by the immigrants? Where are you going with this?

We are stuck on this planet because of the overwhelming greed by corporations, government and cartels. So something perhaps we agree on.
In practice you would never have been on a space ship anyhow. Because certainly the teams would have had to be inter-racial.Or were you thinking of a "white's only' colony on the moon?


"It is indeed greed that has caused all of the major wars in history - and the ethnocentricity of those greedy individuals, who cynically contrive to sell arms to (and make stock market profits from) nations that they contrive to set at eachothers throats. The dysgenic effect on said nations' population makes the people all the more ripe to be enslaved."

Methinks you are forgetting all about the religious aspect of wars.( ie spanish inquistion, the crusades - it's actually religious ethnocentricity)
People are enslaved by adhering to social customs that are out of date and are based on inaccurate portrayals of others. Easy to do when you control the media and the media is the people's opiate.
Stop being absorbed by fake 'societal values' instilled by constant tv watching and worship of the famous.
Think for yourself.
Above all, do not let fear run your life.

All you've done in this post is prove my point.

 

[derbeder]

great post. i wouldn't bother discussing this stuff here though.

 

[Blowtus]

The race mixing is not liberty it is tyranny that is brutally enforced. Most white people have always been opposed to mass immigration into our countries, but it has been forced upon us....

...If you google: "multiculturalism experiment failed" you will find that this is a widespread conclusion - including books on the subject.

How on earth is it brutally enforced? The only enforcement possible would be to prevent it, immigration itself is a process that would happen without outside intervention if there were no enforcement.

I have no doubt many people have reached similar conclusions as yourself - whether those conclusions are rationally valid, or products of a certain mind, growing up in a certain society, with certain views and problems associated with other races, is another matter entirely.

 

[OldScratch]

"Wrong."

Most nations in the world are made up of different ethnic groups.That doesn't necessarily mean there's a preponderance of infighting.

I'm canadian. Afraid you can't sell me on that. We are one of the most peaceful nations in the world. And there are plenty of other nations the same as us. Switzerland for instance.

Again, Canada was built from immigrants.

Lets go point for point:

1) Most nations in the civilized world were made-up of largely homogeneous ethnic groups until perhaps, several decades ago. Moreover, those with differing ethnicities, such as the US or Canada were overwhelmingly racially similar.

2) Are you suggesting the tiny nation of Switzerland is multi-ethnic or multi-racial? If so, that is patently false - if not, what then is your point?

3) Which "immigrants" specifically are you suggesting built Canada? By the latest data I have seen even today, Canada has a "minority" population that is not even 15%! And the majority of those are rather recent emigres. It would seem the "immigrants" who built Canada may beg to differ with your conclusion.

 

[OldScratch]

great post. i wouldn't bother discussing this stuff here though.

Why then persist in posting on this thread at all? You have already been asked directly to support or even articulate your own position and have failed to do so.

 

[bcmetalforces]

Lets go point for point:

1) Most nations in the civilized world were made-up of largely homogeneous ethnic groups until perhaps, several decades ago. Moreover, those with differing ethnicities, such as the US or Canada were overwhelmingly racially similar.

Depends what you mean by 'nation'. I meant 'country'. Countries were originally formed from tribes right? They banded together against common enemies and for trade purposes. I'm not denying that people have emigrated more in recent years.
I have to disagree with you on the US and Canada. All nations sent people to North America. Plus there was already an indigenous population that was diverse.


2) Are you suggesting the tiny nation of Switzerland is multi-ethnic or multi-racial? If so, that is patently false - if not, what then is your point?

I chose Switzerland off of the top of my head as I've been there and have had experience with different languages there. But here are some stats from msn's encarta -not that i love msn...was just the first i found Anyhow..i'd say that they are racially diverse.

"Ethnic groups
Total population:
German 65 percent
French 18 percent
Italian 10 percent
Romansch 1 percent
Other 6 percent "



3) Which "immigrants" specifically are you suggesting built Canada? By the latest data I have seen even today, Canada has a "minority" population that is not even 15%! And the majority of those are rather recent emigres. It would seem the "immigrants" who built Canada may beg to differ with your conclusion.

The population of Canada _today_ are not the original builders of the nation.
In any case - also from encarta since i like facts to prove opinions

"Canada is a nation of people who came from somewhere else. All but the indigenous people arrived there within the past 400 years, most within the past few generations. For that reason most Canadians still feel some attachment to their old homelands. The majority of the population is of European descent, but the proportion of Asians is increasing. Nearly 60 percent of all immigrants in the decade from 1991 to 2001 came from Asia, and Chinese is the fastest-growing mother tongue in Canada. As ethnic groups intermarry, however, ethnic identities are becoming more blurred; more than one-third of Canadians report multiple ethnic origins. Indigenous peoples make up about 3 percent and blacks about 2 percent of the population."

And the 'racial' stats:
"Ethnic groups*
Canadian origin 37 percent
English origin 8 percent
French origin 6 percent
Chinese origin 5 percent
German origin 4 percent
Italian origin 4 percent
Scottish origin 3 percent
Irish origin 3 percent
Other 30 percent
*Percentages based on census respondents claiming only one ethnic origin"


And we are still pretty peaceful! Also we have a large french population and are a bi-lingual country.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

Say what you will about any other nation, Canada is basically proving that multiculturalism is possible. For how long is a totally different story.

Derbeder, what exactly makes you so "frightened" at the prospect of one of us becoming involved in a policy-making body? The difference between you and the people on this board is that here there is no fear of exploring controversial viewpoints. If something that everyone parades as being "acceptable" is failing, why should us (or you for that matter) be afraid to explore some alternatives? This is what separates the philosophical mind from the common mind; the ability to analyze critically the tenets of all ideologies without fear of repercussions from politically correct dimwits.

There are plenty of publications from the academic community showing that multiculturalism is largely a failure. This has nothing to do with racism or being afraid of black people or Mexicans, it's simply a fact.

 

[OldScratch]

The population of Canada _today_ are not the original builders of the nation.
In any case - also from encarta since i like facts to prove opinions

"Canada is a nation of people who came from somewhere else. All but the indigenous people arrived there within the past 400 years, most within the past few generations. For that reason most Canadians still feel some attachment to their old homelands. The majority of the population is of European descent, but the proportion of Asians is increasing. Nearly 60 percent of all immigrants in the decade from 1991 to 2001 came from Asia, and Chinese is the fastest-growing mother tongue in Canada. As ethnic groups intermarry, however, ethnic identities are becoming more blurred; more than one-third of Canadians report multiple ethnic origins. Indigenous peoples make up about 3 percent and blacks about 2 percent of the population."

And the 'racial' stats:
"Ethnic groups*
Canadian origin 37 percent
English origin 8 percent
French origin 6 percent
Chinese origin 5 percent
German origin 4 percent
Italian origin 4 percent
Scottish origin 3 percent
Irish origin 3 percent
Other 30 percent
*Percentages based on census respondents claiming only one ethnic origin"


And we are still pretty peaceful! Also we have a large french population and are a bi-lingual country.

Yes, but I already acknowledged that the US and Canada were largely populated by differing enthnic groups - but overwhelmingly similar in racial make-up...at least until recently. Additionally, as in America, apart perhaps from the language factor, Asians(praticularly from northern regions - ala Japan, China, Korea)have assimilated rather well into western culture, as their own cultures are often not dissimilar on a variety of levels. Asians are commonly finacially stable, driven by high education standards and very socially conservative, thus keeping a "low-profile" of sorts in the multi-culti sweepstakes.

 

[derbeder]

I tend not to discuss political issues with many people, certainly not with those who seem really unreasonable politically. There is usually not much good political reasoning one can do with such people. There is something called good sense, and it is not really taught by argument. Lack of it can be detected sometimes more in how someone expresses their belief than the belief expressed. If anyone seems to lack that good sense, it may be futile to argue with them. It is also not a good idea to let them be the people who are in a position to make political decisions. Unfortunately, many politicians are made of that fabric but that is another matter.

 

[OldScratch]

I tend not to discuss political issues with many people, certainly not with those who seem really unreasonable politically. There is usually not much good political reasoning one can do with such people. There is something called good sense, and it is not really taught by argument. Lack of it can be detected sometimes more in how someone expresses their belief than the belief expressed. If anyone seems to lack that good sense, it may be futile to argue with them. It is also not a good idea to let them be the people who are in a position to make political decisions. Unfortunately, many politicians are made of that fabric but that is another matter.

A colossal cop-out. "Good sense?" Nonsense! It is not enough to fail to support or argue your position(whatever that may be) but now you insinuate that those with whom you apparently disagree must lack sense or reason?
If you have no desire to "discuss political issues" here, then why interject an opinion at all - what reason is there in that?

 

[derbeder]

It is natural for one to react to some political opinion that one finds odious with a few words. Which is what I did. If some of those opinions are right, I should not be mingling with you guys here (I'm from Turkey). Perhaps that implication is ugly enough not to merit more in the way of response.

 

[Horus]

But there is no such thing as a right opinion. Opinions are subjective and able to be changed and effected. You can't actually prove an opinion to be correct or incorrect, because if you could, then Opinions wouldn't even exist. It would only be a world of Facts.

 

[OldScratch]

It is natural for one to react to some political opinion that one finds odious with a few words. Which is what I did. If some of those opinions are right, I should not be mingling with you guys here (I'm from Turkey). Perhaps that implication is ugly enough not to merit more in the way of response.

What implication is that? I have only asked that you explain what specifically you object to so strongly and why. Surely you aren't suggesting that your being from Turkey makes your opinion unwlecome - given the subject matter, it is probably more valuable than some.
In the west, in Europe and North America, an official orthodoxy has developed whereby so-called multiculturalism must be praised, diversity lauded and a polyglot, balkanized society embraced, regardless of how it really harms any party involved(immigrant or native)and how successful it is in reality - not on paper. Moreover, any dissent from this officially sanctioned position is merely dissmissed as "bigotry" or "intolerance" rather than debated or refuted. This is my concern here - you speak of odious assertions but continually fail to explain why your position is valid while others are "unreasonable" etc. Show us where we are wrong.


I am sure there are various elements of Turkish culture you would wish preserved, and you must know that the fewer Turks that reside in Turkey, the less likely that preservation becomes. Some may see nothing wrong with that - but some do.
To speak plainly, I am simply curious why so many insist that virtually unchecked immigration from every corner of the globe is positive thing in any nation that wishes to remain a nation at all, rather than a plot of land, occupied by hopelessly disparate people unified by nothing more than a few laws, rules and a TV program or two.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

It is natural for one to react to some political opinion that one finds odious with a few words. Which is what I did. If some of those opinions are right, I should not be mingling with you guys here (I'm from Turkey). Perhaps that implication is ugly enough not to merit more in the way of response.

Translation: "I have no opinions of my own that I can adequately defend without being made to look like an idiot, so I'm just going to go for a passive aggressive ad hominem attack instead."

 

[derbeder]

lol

 

[Horus]

To speak plainly, I am simply curious why so many insist that virtually unchecked immigration from every corner of the globe is positive thing in any nation that wishes to remain a nation at all, rather than a plot of land, occupied by hopelessly disparate people unified by nothing more than a few laws, rules and a TV program or two.

Beautful.

lol

Translation: "I have nothing to say, because I know that if I admit defeat, then I'll look weak, so to prevent myself from doing so, I'll pretend to be closed minded and shake off the oposing argument with a simple lol."