Immigration?

[OldScratch]

Sure, genetics plays a fundamental part in how we look, how well we can develop various attributes, etc. I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that back somewhere. For me to be convinced of the 'race' argument, I would need to see evidence that genetics plays a fundamental role in the development of human values, and if so, that the value differences between the various races this leads to are substantially larger than the value differences between individuals within a particular race. Ie, the bell curve of 'human values' is focused around substantially different points on the hypothetical 'human values' axis for different races. The data would of course need to be gathered in a statistically valid manner, so you couldn't just wade in and survey folks in their already majority racial culture. I would find such evidence both interesting and surprising, but I have no fundamental belief / desire that would cause me to dislike or try to ignore such evidence.

I guess I do not see such a fundamental diversity between races as you and others do. I find myself with a dramatically different view of the world to many of my race, and I find some in other races who have similar views to me.

I am not yet certain what you mean by human values(this seems awful nebulous as a criteria for statistical research). Thus, I apologize in advance if I am off in a wrong direction here. Nevertheless, I cannot see how anyone could deny race/ethnicity(genetics) as a major factor in what any given society values one way or the other. Aside from the profound and obvious differences we can see between cultures of the African Bush or Scandinavia, just look at those within a multi-racial, multicultural nation. Behold the American ghetto! Is this a community that values the same things at the same intensity that one might in Idaho? Montana? What accounts for the profound differences in murder rates from poverty stricken areas of Appalachia to poverty stricken areas of Los Angeles? What explains the obvious difference in value placed on human life? What about out-of-wedlock births in the urban sector? It is estimated some 80+% of Afro-American births in the inner-cities are are to unwed mothers - it is 70% nationally. Compare this to rates in the relatively poor rural mid-west or agrarian south. Clearly the values of people in these areas differ radically, despite even economic similarities.

And what of Asain culture? Why is the culture of Japan and what they value, clearly unlike that of Haiti or Afghanistan?
It just seems like we are avoiding the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room to suggest that race/ethnicity doesn't play a huge role in determing values and culture. One could certainly argue that one set of values is no better than the next I suppose - but I suspect everyone would find one set of values more agreeable to the other. And yes, folks of various backgrounds CAN adapt to other value-systems...but in great numbers do they?

Returning for a moment to the American ghetto, to hear it told here, this way of living is a source of cultural pride for Blacks. Despite crime and murder rates that horrify most of White America, Blacks continue to brazenly reject "Whiteness" in favor of the glories of the urban mean-steets. Yet still, you would honestly contend that race/ethnicity plays no meaningful part in forming human values. I truly don't understand...

 

[Blowtus]

I don't see that you can assess the whole situation of environment, history, race, and extrapolate from there that race is a defining aspect of someones values? I realise 'values' are a pretty tricky area to quantify, but the attempt would seem more worthwhile than operating on a base assumption, as it sounds like you are doing?

I am not denying cultural differences, I am seeking a rationale for the belief that the genetics of humans have changed sufficiently within specific races that people from different races, given the same circumstances, would operate in a fundamentally different manner - more than would someone from the same race.

If cultural differences are the problem, then target them with your arguments and not race, until you can show that race implies culture. I bear no particular racial sensibilities - this isn't about political correctness or some such load of rubbish, just justification of points

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't see that you can assess the whole situation of environment, history, race, and extrapolate from there that race is a defining aspect of someones values? I realise 'values' are a pretty tricky area to quantify, but the attempt would seem more worthwhile than operating on a base assumption, as it sounds like you are doing?

I am not denying cultural differences, I am seeking a rationale for the belief that the genetics of humans have changed sufficiently within specific races that people from different races, given the same circumstances, would operate in a fundamentally different manner - more than would someone from the same race.

If cultural differences are the problem, then target them with your arguments and not race, until you can show that race implies culture. I bear no particular racial sensibilities - this isn't about political correctness or some such load of rubbish, just justification of points

The crux of the matter is that you acknowledge there are these cultural differences but do not wish to accept that the cultural differences reflect the genetic predispositions of the populations who created these cultures.

I doubt that there is any direct scientific evidence that could prove that culture is a result of group biology, but neither has their been any studies proving the reverse. It surely seems extremely probable that culture is racially defined however, and OldScratch gives some good examples of why this seems to be true - such as the way that most Blacks identify with the ghetto culture rather than seeing it as horrific.

Some telling examples imo are little things like how, in Rwanda, black Catholic nuns enthusiastically joined in the masacre with their machetes (excuse my prejudice - if that is what it is - but I can't imagine white Catholic nuns even considering partaking in such behaviour)
Telegraph | News | Nun is jailed over Rwanda genocide

and then there is the culture in Guatemala, that really frightens me as I believe multiculturalism will eventually bring this kind of situation even to northern Europe, where it is at present unthinkable that it could be tolerated in the present day.
Beasts of prey - Sunday Times - Times Online

And in Thailand

Thai men go to brothels in increasing numbers. Several recent studies show that between 8o and 87 percent of Thai men have had sex with a prostitute. Up to 90 percent report that their first sexual experience was with a prostitute. Somewhere between 10 and 40 percent of married men paid for commercial sex within the past twelve months, as have up to 50 percent of single men. Though it is difficult to measure, these reports suggest something like 3 to 5 million regular customers for commercial sex. But it would be wrong to imagine millions of Thai men sneaking furtively on their own along dark streets lined with brothels: commercial sex is a social event, part of a good night out with friends. Ninety-five percent of men going to a brothel do so with their friends, usually at the end of a night spent drinking. Groups go out for recreation and entertainment, and especially to get drunk together. That is a strictly male pursuit, as Thai women usually abstain from alcohol.

The New Slavery excerpted from the book Disposable People New Slavery in the Global Economy by Kevin Bales

prostitution has never been popular amongst the germanic and nordic peoples

In fact, if you look at the traditional treatment of women throughout the world you find that there are huge differences, and I believe these to be reflections of racial differences. The issues of feminism have always been an irrelevance to germanics/nordics until recent decades, as women have always enjoyed an equal status with men (albeit somewhat different roles, as befits our sex).

 

[Blowtus]

I see only examples of the environment influencing both genetics and culture... I do not see that one is necessarily tied to the other.

 

[Norsemaiden]

OMG! I made a mistake at the start of my last post - there actually is direct scientific evidence that could prove that culture is a result of group biology!

The thing is that in order to prove this we must consider that animals, as well as humans, have "culture" - which they do have in a very simple way.

The first stage of adaptive radiation (leading to cladogenesis) is that some members of a sub-species, or race, adapt to a change in their environment whereby those individuals who happen to have a particular genetic mutation suddenly find that this mutation gives them a survival advantage. This new branching off from the original population results in changes of habit, appropriate to surviving in the changed habitat. Different nests, or webs, or other living quarters become the norm, and all sorts of different behaviours, such as courtship rituals, etc.

Just as skin colour has evolved in humans to cope with the sun's rays, so cultural behaviour has evolved because this particular behaviour resulted in greater reproductive success.

The kind of behaviour needed to survive through the iceages was very different to that required in warmer climates. Cooperativeness, for example, was needed and feckless or unhelpful individuals would tend to die.

Likewise, sexual morality would inevitably result (although this isn't necessarily how it did evolve) due to the rigours of going through a time of mass death or infertility brought on by sexually transmitted disease.
Ie. only the most "prudish" and selective people survived.

So it would not be that these people just so happened randomly to decide to behave so carefully and to be disgusted by indiscriminate mass promiscuity, but rather that they have that response biologically built into them. This would explain the Scandinavian attitudes compared to the African attitudes.

It has nothing really to do with "values" in a universal sense, because all cultural values can be seen as adaptions to environment.

Richard Dawkins says:

We are indeed a very uniform species if you count the totality of genes, or if you take a truly random sample of genes, but perhaps there are special reasons for a disproportionate amount of variation in those very genes that make it easy for us to notice variation, and to distinguish our own kind from others. These would include the genes responsible for externally visible “labels” like skin colour. I want to suggest that this heightened discriminability has evolved by sexual selection, specifically in humans because we are such a culture-bound species. Because our mating decisions are so heavily influenced by cultural tradition, and because our cultures, and sometimes our religions, encourage us to discriminate against outsiders, especially in choosing mates, those superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us. No less a thinker than Jared Diamond has supported a similar idea in The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. And Darwin himself more generally invoked sexual selection in explanation of racial differences.

random genetic differences simply accumulate on opposite sides of a language or religion barrier, just as they might on opposite sides of a mountain range. Subsequently, according to the strong version of the theory, the genetic differences that build up are reinforced as people use conspicuous differences in appearance as additional labels of discrimination in mate choice, supplementing the cultural barriers that provided the original separation

American Renaissance News: Race and Creation

So, what few genetic differences there are between races have presumably accumulated into different geographically separated groups.

Just one more thing, as regards the few genetic differences between races ( everyone knows how we are nearly 99% genetically identical to chimps, and more than half identical to moths)

If a group of genes is the same in the DNA of a fruit fly, a mouse, a rat and a human, one can assume that those genes are essential to a process crucial to survival. However, that does not mean that the genes perform the same tasks in all organisms. "The controlling elements and the level to which the gene is expressed and when the gene is expressed will all affect the final outcome," said Dr. Sodergren. "If the controlling region looks different, but the structure is the same, it may be playing a different role in humans than in mice.

EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: chimps

In other words, all humans could be genetically over 99% identical but there are other factors affecting how the genes are expressed.
Conclusion: genes will tend to accumulate in a distinct group and the group, living in the environment to which they have adapted, will have been subjected to natural and sexual selection, resulting in the honing of "cultural" behaviours aiding their survival over a matter of thousands of years. (Although I can see how such a change could potentially happen over as little as a century - for example by an enforced killing of certain types of people by a tyranical regime. The killing of artists and intellectuals during the Chinese Cultural Revolution must have depleted the number of these creative genes in the population and put limits on future cultural development).

 

[Blowtus]

That first quote you provided only weakens your 'cause' that I can see? It is suggesting that the genetic coding for the 'superficial' elements of skin / hair / eye colour / shape / etc, has been enhanced / selected out of proportion with all the other elements, purely for the ability to recognise 'insiders' and 'outsiders'.

Your point re the ice ages still makes sense as an environmental factor in culture.

I see that the way we are built, our genetics, has the potential to influence our value judgements. Heck, given long enough periods of racial evolution in differing circumstances, we could become different species. I just do not see the evidence that this has occurred - that first quote of yours handily points out that the external differences are far greater than the internal.

Imagine an African embryo was somehow genetically altered so it looked 'Scandinavian'. You contend that even if it were raised as a Scandinavian mother's own child, it would exhibit differences substantial enough to prevent it's happy / useful / valid integration into Scandinavian society? I simply do not see it.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That first quote you provided only weakens your 'cause' that I can see? It is suggesting that the genetic coding for the 'superficial' elements of skin / hair / eye colour / shape / etc, has been enhanced / selected out of proportion with all the other elements, purely for the ability to recognise 'insiders' and 'outsiders'.

Your point re the ice ages still makes sense as an environmental factor in culture.

I see that the way we are built, our genetics, has the potential to influence our value judgements. Heck, given long enough periods of racial evolution in differing circumstances, we could become different species. I just do not see the evidence that this has occurred - that first quote of yours handily points out that the external differences are far greater than the internal.

Imagine an African embryo was somehow genetically altered so it looked 'Scandinavian'. You contend that even if it were raised as a Scandinavian mother's own child, it would exhibit differences substantial enough to prevent it's happy / useful / valid integration into Scandinavian society? I simply do not see it.

So you think that had Martin Luther King been born in Hitler's body and into Hitler's family and envioronment, he would have turned out to behave exactly as Hitler did?

If not, then is it not something INTERNAL that makes him very different? This has nothing to do with race as such - but only the idea that you can get people who are internally (ie mentally) incapable of behaving the same way as others. If it works with individuals then why not between races? All that it would take is for a certain genotype to be more conducive to survival and reproduction in a particular geographic area than another. Inevitably this must have happened.

 

[OldScratch]

That first quote you provided only weakens your 'cause' that I can see? It is suggesting that the genetic coding for the 'superficial' elements of skin / hair / eye colour / shape / etc, has been enhanced / selected out of proportion with all the other elements, purely for the ability to recognise 'insiders' and 'outsiders'.

Your point re the ice ages still makes sense as an environmental factor in culture.

I see that the way we are built, our genetics, has the potential to influence our value judgements. Heck, given long enough periods of racial evolution in differing circumstances, we could become different species. I just do not see the evidence that this has occurred - that first quote of yours handily points out that the external differences are far greater than the internal.

Imagine an African embryo was somehow genetically altered so it looked 'Scandinavian'. You contend that even if it were raised as a Scandinavian mother's own child, it would exhibit differences substantial enough to prevent it's happy / useful / valid integration into Scandinavian society? I simply do not see it.

This may be entirely futile at this rate, as I see no evidence we are going to find common ground here. Nevertheless, I have to ask, what exactly do you think detrmines culture and all its attendant values in the first place? This is an accident of geography?
You continue to contend that you "just don't see it" with regard to race and ethnicity heavily dictating cultural norms and the like, yet we have offered example after example of just that. Suggesting that culture or values are the influence on genetics or racial-types stands Nature on its head! Again, who or what created, nurtured, perfected, and mainted these cultures in the first place?

I agree with you that a dominant culture can override race or ethnicity to some degree(at least for a time) - to say otherwise would be dishonest and ignore the modest successes to that end seen in places like Canada or the US. However, one must also consider the the rigid social indoctrination and engineering; the clanking Leviathan of government-enforcment machinery required to realize these successes. Moreover, one must acknowledge to staggering degree to which the grand Diversity experiment has failed in spite of the herculean efforts to theoretically guarantee success.

In many areas of America, society is in fact more racially segregated NOW than it was decades ago! (there are some recent exceptions in suburban areas, but it is far too early to determine how successful this will be). But this is not due to white "discrimination" as many might automatically believe, so much as stubborn minority racial/ethnic solidarity, thumbing their collective noses at the idea of assimilation. There is no act of social heresy so great in the Afro-American "community" and culture, as "acting White" in any demonstrable form, from speech to dress, to entertainment choices, to names, neighborhoods and career choices. This is a conscious and some might argue, rather indignant values/culture choice. And this very attitude is most visibly typified among younger Blacks who have known no racial discrimiation that their ancestors may have laid claim to as a justification for their actions! Indeed, Hip-Hop/Urban music, fashion, lingo and the like have become THE defacto pop-culture for young America...conscious racial segregation(particularly within larger broadly-integrated areas)continues apace.

 

[Blowtus]

So you think that had Martin Luther King been born in Hitler's body and into Hitler's family and envioronment, he would have turned out to behave exactly as Hitler did?

Did you really pick that implication up from my posting??

If not, then is it not something INTERNAL that makes him very different? This has nothing to do with race as such - but only the idea that you can get people who are internally (ie mentally) incapable of behaving the same way as others. If it works with individuals then why not between races? All that it would take is for a certain genotype to be more conducive to survival and reproduction in a particular geographic area than another. Inevitably this must have happened.

I have acknowledged the possibility for genetics to play a role in the development of differing values - I have just questioned whether there is sufficient genetic difference in whatever areas contribute to this differing of values to make the differences noticeable between races, when the difference within a single race already appears so huge.

This may be entirely futile at this rate, as I see no evidence we are going to find common ground here. Nevertheless, I have to ask, what exactly do you think detrmines culture and all its attendant values in the first place? This is an accident of geography?

We are all from the same stock originally - environmental differences coupled with random chance are the only things that have led to the development of different races and cultures, that I see?

You continue to contend that you "just don't see it" with regard to race and ethnicity heavily dictating cultural norms and the like, yet we have offered example after example of just that. Suggesting that culture or values are the influence on genetics or racial-types stands Nature on its head! Again, who or what created, nurtured, perfected, and mainted these cultures in the first place?

The already established culture of a community an individual is born into (ie, the environment) clearly (or so I thought?) has the most dominant effect on the individuals value development. Whether race plays any meaningful part at all is what I'm questioning. The only examples you've given are examples of culture influencing cultural development - a feedback loop I guess, started from environmental factors and random chance. Maybe my assumption that culture influences culture development is wrong, and we all have our values genetically hardcoded? Seems rather ludicrous to me and I don't know that I could be arsed arguing over that point, but as always I'm happy to be pointed at evidence.

I agree with you that a dominant culture can override race or ethnicity to some degree(at least for a time) - to say otherwise would be dishonest and ignore the modest successes to that end seen in places like Canada or the US. However, one must also consider the the rigid social indoctrination and engineering; the clanking Leviathan of government-enforcment machinery required to realize these successes. Moreover, one must acknowledge to staggering degree to which the grand Diversity experiment has failed in spite of the herculean efforts to theoretically guarantee success.

In many areas of America, society is in fact more racially segregated NOW than it was decades ago! (there are some recent exceptions in suburban areas, but it is far too early to determine how successful this will be). But this is not due to white "discrimination" as many might automatically believe, so much as stubborn minority racial/ethnic solidarity, thumbing their collective noses at the idea of assimilation. There is no act of social heresy so great in the Afro-American "community" and culture, as "acting White" in any demonstrable form, from speech to dress, to entertainment choices, to names, neighborhoods and career choices. This is a conscious and some might argue, rather indignant values/culture choice. And this very attitude is most visibly typified among younger Blacks who have known no racial discrimiation that their ancestors may have laid claim to as a justification for their actions! Indeed, Hip-Hop/Urban music, fashion, lingo and the like have become THE defacto pop-culture for young America...conscious racial segregation(particularly within larger broadly-integrated areas)continues apace.

America again? Aren't there other examples of the problems? I don't imagine it would be too hard to make a case that a higher level of social welfare, education, healthcare etc could help to alleviate some of the tensions in America. I grant that *perhaps* you all have it right with regards to too much cultural diversity causing problems - I just don't know and there's a lot to weigh up. I think you only do yourselves a disservice by pinpointing race as the defining factor - not only do you come up against societys general outrage for anything of that concept, you seem to lack the evidence to make such claims. Might give some cause to wonder whether you're not just intelligent xenophobes trying to justify yourselves The problem you pronounce is a difference in values, the cause of the value difference is less clear.

 

[Blowtus]

I argue for further understanding of the self and society as a way through the conflicts - you argue for a seperation of values. To me, (of course) mine is the most practical and forward thinking option but there is no reason that both courses of action couldn't be aimed for I guess.

 

[OldScratch]

Did you really pick that implication up from my posting??



I have acknowledged the possibility for genetics to play a role in the development of differing values - I have just questioned whether there is sufficient genetic difference in whatever areas contribute to this differing of values to make the differences noticeable between races, when the difference within a single race already appears so huge.



We are all from the same stock originally - environmental differences coupled with random chance are the only things that have led to the development of different races and cultures, that I see?



The already established culture of a community an individual is born into (ie, the environment) clearly (or so I thought?) has the most dominant effect on the individuals value development. Whether race plays any meaningful part at all is what I'm questioning. The only examples you've given are examples of culture influencing cultural development - a feedback loop I guess, started from environmental factors and random chance. Maybe my assumption that culture influences culture development is wrong, and we all have our values genetically hardcoded? Seems rather ludicrous to me and I don't know that I could be arsed arguing over that point, but as always I'm happy to be pointed at evidence.



America again? Aren't there other examples of the problems? I don't imagine it would be too hard to make a case that a higher level of social welfare, education, healthcare etc could help to alleviate some of the tensions in America. I grant that *perhaps* you all have it right with regards to too much cultural diversity causing problems - I just don't know and there's a lot to weigh up. I think you only do yourselves a disservice by pinpointing race as the defining factor - not only do you come up against societys general outrage for anything of that concept, you seem to lack the evidence to make such claims. Might give some cause to wonder whether you're not just intelligent xenophobes trying to justify yourselves The problem you pronounce is a difference in values, the cause of the value difference is less clear.

I had hoped this wouldn't devolve into the predictable "xenophobe" name-calling routine, but I suppose it is inevitable in these discussions. That you continue to insist no evidence has been provided is rather absurd at this point. No evidence YOU personally agree with, perhaps...but it is evidence nontheless!
You continue to return to this "values" argument which leaves me flummoxed. You freely admit that obvious differences in these values exists between peoples(and their subsequent cultures), but then deny that those differences are innate and thus, should be cautiously considered before arbitrarily mixing a society. Okay...what IS your explanation? And honestly, in the present, is it even important?
While the primordial origin of these "value" differences may fascinate anthropologist and biologist alike, and some complex evolutionary rationale for culture-craft would be interesting I am sure, that hardly seems the real issue at hand. What does matter, from a societal perspective, is acknowledging these apparently inherent differences and taking a sober, reasoned view of how conflict and compatibility issues may arise therefrom. Of course culture can and undoubtedly does influence other cultures to some degree as you noted...but what ultimately determines the nature and temperament of the original culture, and isn't this worth consideration before blindly erecting multicultural nation-states?

*And for what it's worth, I am painfully aware that I swim "against the grain" on this matter. That seems a lousy reason for conceding that what was obvious to generations of men is now lunacy, bigotry or indeed, ignorant xenophobia.

 

[Blowtus]

Perhaps the xenophobe thing was unnecessary, it wasn't intended as an insult, if it was taken as such I apologise - was really just a suggestion that if you actually had a desire to achieve anything / convince people of the value of the 'anti immigration' argument you put forward, you be careful to have a solid justification for the points, otherwise it's all too easy to build negative assumptions about your motivations

I've already stated my explanation for culture a number of times - environment. (both physical and cultural) Environment can clearly be shown to be the driving force behind genetic change, why then would we ignore it's effects on culture, both long and short term? If you are born into a certain culture, you are brought up that way, you adapt to life that way.

I never suggested you concede the point based purely on popular consensus - just that it is such a strong feeling out there in 'society' that in order to not simply be assumed as racist and written off, you need points that make sense all the way to the core

 

[OldScratch]

Perhaps the xenophobe thing was unnecessary, it wasn't intended as an insult, if it was taken as such I apologise - was really just a suggestion that if you actually had a desire to achieve anything / convince people of the value of the 'anti immigration' argument you put forward, you be careful to have a solid justification for the points, otherwise it's all too easy to build negative assumptions about your motivations

I've already stated my explanation for culture a number of times - environment. (both physical and cultural) Environment can clearly be shown to be the driving force behind genetic change, why then would we ignore it's effects on culture, both long and short term? If you are born into a certain culture, you are brought up that way, you adapt to life that way.

I never suggested you concede the point based purely on popular consensus - just that it is such a strong feeling out there in 'society' that in order to not simply be assumed as racist and written off, you need points that make sense all the way to the core

To be honest, it seems we are essentially talking past each other now, and should probably just civily agree to disagree on this issue. I would only add once more that I never claimed race or ethnicity to be the singular determinant in cultural development per se. Certainly the natural-environment plays a part in not only cultural development, but likely intellectual as well, as varying natural environments will necessitate different or more demanding priorites; such the need for long-term food preservation, warm sturdy lodging and protective clothing in harsh, Northern climes, where no such requirements would be necessary in say, Sub-Saharan Africa or Central America. But then, doesn't this also begin to explain innate racial/ethnic differences in the first place, culture notwithstanding?

 

[Blowtus]

We do seem to both feel that the other is missing our points
I perhaps need to stress that when I say 'environment' I mean essentially everything that happens to a person after birth.
I don't understand what you mean with your last sentence.

The crux of my argument is that you can't seperate differing genetics 'innate tendency' and 'learned tendency', by observing them under fundamentally different conditions. Effectively the elimination of variables in the 'testing regime'.

 

[OldScratch]

We do seem to both feel that the other is missing our points
I perhaps need to stress that when I say 'environment' I mean essentially everything that happens to a person after birth.
I don't understand what you mean with your last sentence.

The crux of my argument is that you can't seperate differing genetics 'innate tendency' and 'learned tendency', by observing them under fundamentally different conditions. Effectively the elimination of variables in the 'testing regime'.

At the risk of starting this all over again ...I do understand what you mean by environment, I was just using the natural or physical as one example of influence.
As it happens, there is no need to use observation of peoples of notably different "genetics"(insofar as race and ethnicity are concerned) under "fundamanetally different conditions" environmentally speaking, to see the undeniable differences in "values" and cultural priorites in action. Alas, take your pick - the USA, Europe, Brazil...multi-racial societies, operating ostensibly under the same basic culture show no evidence of cancelling-out these inherent behavioral or intellectual differences on a large scale. By and by, the same social-issues arise in each geographic area within those multi-racial and environmentally similar countries, regardless of that dominant culture itself.
In other words, most (Northern)Asians re-located to England or Norway behave much the same or exhibit acedemic achievement levels just as they do in America, Australia or indeed, Japan, China, etc. By the same token, Blacks in those same nations also tend to collectively behave in similar fashion(socially), from Germany to Mississippi to Ireland, and produce virtually the identical "achievement gaps" in education that acedemics continue to loudly bemoan. Caucasians in Argetina, Estonia, Canada, Asia or New Zealand share very similar values or IQ levels while residing in undeniably different environments, physically, culturally, etc. What could possibly explain such relative consistency across oceans and continents, if these value-priorites, and how they manifest themselves culturally and socially are not at least fundamentally genetic?
Sorry...that was more than I intended, as it is clear we are just not going see eye-to-eye. Just wanted to clarify my earlier point.

 

[Blowtus]

What could possibly explain such relative consistency across oceans and continents, if these value-priorites, and how they manifest themselves culturally and socially are not at least fundamentally genetic?

Cultural baggage?
It seems fairly obvious to me that, at present, Australians of SE Asian heritage bring their children up in a different manner to the Australians of Greek heritage - etc. This would influence the statistics you quote dramatically, as far as I see. Multiculturalism is too recent to be able to judge long term trends, I suggest. I think it likely time in the same community / culture (of at least the hundreds of years range) would dull these differences, but have no evidence for this in the slightest. I think it very likely that degraded living conditions of specific races (in comparison to 'the average') contributes in a very negative way to whatever potential multiculturalism has as a concept. Perhaps the circumstances have to be right / managed effectively to prevent the formation of cultural pockets within a country, as you have shown has occurred within America. Perhaps such management is unnecessary effort / still detrimental overall, as you contend.

We may not be making any progress in regards to seeing eye to eye, but I'm still finding the discussion is contributing positively to my thought process on the matter

 

[OldScratch]

Cultural baggage?
It seems fairly obvious to me that, at present, Australians of SE Asian heritage bring their children up in a different manner to the Australians of Greek heritage - etc. This would influence the statistics you quote dramatically, as far as I see. Multiculturalism is too recent to be able to judge long term trends, I suggest. I think it likely time in the same community / culture (of at least the hundreds of years range) would dull these differences, but have no evidence for this in the slightest. I think it very likely that degraded living conditions of specific races (in comparison to 'the average') contributes in a very negative way to whatever potential multiculturalism has as a concept. Perhaps the circumstances have to be right / managed effectively to prevent the formation of cultural pockets within a country, as you have shown has occurred within America. Perhaps such management is unnecessary effort / still detrimental overall, as you contend.

We may not be making any progress in regards to seeing eye to eye, but I'm still finding the discussion is contributing positively to my thought process on the matter

We may actually have arrived at some common ground now - in a sense. I cannot tell you multiculturalism can't work, or definitively will not work. I can cite a plethora of examples of how and where is has failed and offer a raft of suggestions or theories why that might be...but still, with enough time, effort, sacrifice, funding, compromise, outreach, and social management(as you suggested) it is possible you could be right. The $10,000 question remains, however...why pursue such a society at all, knowing it will almost certainly require those things you have suggested - and more? Success it would seem, would only come with a very high price-tag literally, figuratively, culturally, etc. And who pays the bill?
At the root of this is the presumption that multiculturalism is either inevitable or the morally "correct" thing to do in the first place, according to some cosmically ordained doctrine of "inclusion" etc. But is that so in either case?
What specifically are the tangible benefits of a multicultural society anyway? Who, honestly would the actual benefactors be in almost every case?
A recent study in America indicated, to the horror of the establishment, that the second generation off-spring of the most recent flood of "immigrants" (legal and illegal) are actually struggling even more than their parents did! Drop-out rates, illigitimacy, crime, drug-abuse and the like are showing up in even higher numbers of these children of immigrants. This basically turns the old immigration model upside-down where each subsequent generation invariably exceeded the success of their forbears by every measureable account.
I should re-iterate that I am in no way suggesting that this a "white-only" argument or any such thing. Yes, I am white and very conscious of it, but I would make the same argument regarding higher societies in the Far-East, Middle-East, South America or what have you. It becomes a numbers game and ultimately a survival game - and one I do not wish to risk or lose, based upon the wishful-thinking and pipe-dreams of some emotionally motivated, if misguided social engineers, egalitarians, humanitarians, globalists, etc.

*I agree with your last comment as well - I will always listen to a reasoned argument, and would never suggest I cannot learn from anyone.

 

[Blowtus]

A side point - but would you accept that U.S based studies on multiculturalism may not extrapolate out well globally, because of it's relatively hardline capitalist / non socialist nature?

I honestly can't work out where I stand on the matter in a practical sense. I feel that a more ideally structured society would have no problems integrating immigrants - and I feel that the turmoil of differing cultures within the same society increases questioning and thought. But I can also see the sense in the notion that too much turmoil impedes progress and causes unnecessary problems. I would not concern myself overly much with some notion that we are going to 'lose' western culture - I don't see that it has shown the use of much beyond scientific understanding, and I think the world in general has come to see and understand that. (edit: 'that' being scientific understanding, sorry for the confusion)

 

[OldScratch]

A side point - but would you accept that U.S based studies on multiculturalism may not extrapolate out well globally, because of it's relatively hardline capitalist / non socialist nature?

I honestly can't work out where I stand on the matter in a practical sense. I feel that a more ideally structured society would have no problems integrating immigrants - and I feel that the turmoil of differing cultures within the same society increases questioning and thought. But I can also see the sense in the notion that too much turmoil impedes progress and causes unnecessary problems. I would not concern myself overly much with some notion that we are going to 'lose' western culture - I don't see that it has shown the use of much beyond scientific understanding, and I think the world in general has come to see and understand that.

Honestly no, I wouldn't accept that at all, as globally, the same issues persist across the west, from Oslo to London to Paris to Sao Paulo to Berlin. And though America may officially stand as a non-socialist State, the taxation and mass re-distribution of wealth carried out here under the rubric of one "entitlement" or "social Program" or the next is indeed Socialism by any other name. From Medicare to Section-8 government subsidized housing, to Food Stamps, the State is by and large already financially responsible for the teaming American underclass. Thus, I fail to see how a more officially sanctioned nanny-state system would resolve the problems.

I might say, your decidedly dim view of western culture may go a long way toward illuminating where we differ on this issue. To casually dismiss centuries of art, architecture, technology in myriad forms, intellectualism, medicine(I suppose that may fall under the science heading you generously offered ), industrialism and efficient mass-production, complex engineering or the like, seems a bit short-sighted, if somewhat audacious to me.

While western culture has taken several bad turns(particularly of late) I am hardly prepared to concede that the "world has come to see and understand that" it has failed - from what quarters does this news come? Indeed, this is a devilishly curious assertion in a protracted thread where are essentially arguing about the peoples of the so-called "developing world" clamboring to enter the allegedly moribundly-cultured western nations! How odd...
Alas, all the more reason then to leave western people to it then...let others create and perfect their own glorious cultures and nations, if they possess the wherewithal to do so! The west wasn't broken...why must we now labor incessantly to "fix" it?!

 

[Blowtus]

should have re-read my damn post haha. edit applied at the end for clarity. sorry to throw you off on a tangent.

My understanding was that the U.S operated under a less socialist perspective than most similarly developed countries - but perhaps that is just the view espoused from the various left leaning sources I've seen it mentioned in.

I don't have a particularly dim view of western culture - my 'faith' in the value of science, and rational thinking in general, is large. I struggle to see that other cultures would abandon the benefits that have been demonstrated from such a mode of thought, but that may be my broadly optimistic tendency shining through

If it is truly as you suggest, and other cultures simply breed more no matter the country of residence / affluence, then I would not support substantial immigration on an environmental basis. I'd probably just rather incentives to have less children in general though, until we reach a sustainable balance.