Immigration?
- Thread starter megamaniac
- Start date
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Tell us what we should think then - I will consider it with an open mind, if it's not just the same predictable politically correct propaganda.
While you are at it - please tell what you think of a tribe that designates itself God's chosen people, refers to others as animals and holds a mock funeral for any of their people who outmarry. Do you have a problem with this practice? I haven't entirely made up my mind about it, other than that it annoys me if the members of this tribe insist that if any other group feels this way it should be condemned, and the opposite behaviour enforced.
Here is Marxist critique of multiculturalism
Race Attack
The Winnipeg Warrior
The Winnipeg Warrior ®
Immigration here in Canada has pretty much shaped and formed our Liberalized power structure and governing policies. Since we've become such a melting pot.....true right-wing Conservatism has little chance of gaining a foot-hold unless they shift their position to moderate or right-of-centre. With such a diverse population as Canada, I feel that it may work in our favor.....as I welcome all forms of diversity and human rights. IDK.....it's a difficult balance to deal with. But in the end.....it adds strength and richness to the culture of the country that one lives in. Canada would not be what it is today without that strong mosaic that paints our landscape. I know from personal experience.....that I'm a better person for having family and friends with diverse cultural backgrounds.....and by not limiting myself to the typical homogenous lifestyle.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
A multicultural society will not take very long to become monocultural. If the mixing continues, either a dominant ideology, such as Islam will dominate or what will happen is that the population generally resemble Brazilians in appearance and will have the artificial global culture imposed by the US. If you value diversity, by definition you must value separation.
If an artificial culture is not imposed upon the mixed up rabble, the population ends up splitting on all kinds of arbitrary lines, which is exemplified by the many different religious cults that emerged in India.
Wow...that reads like a page torn from a school or workplace "Celebrate Diversity" handout. I'm not sure I've ever actually heard and individual so openly and enthusiastically make these claims, outside a boardroom, press-conference, classroom, or lecture however. A few questions come to mind:
1) How exactly does Diversity add strength or richness to an already strong, established culture? In what way is this strength manifested or measurable?
2) How specifically are you a "better person" from interaction with diverse peoples? Better in what tangible way?
3) You clearly imply that there is something potentially wrong or unnatural with "limiting" oneself to a homogeneous lifestyle - why?
4) Isn't is more reasonable to declare diversity as the cause of much social unrest, rather than an honest strength of any kind?
The Diversity canard is the ultimate self-fulfilling social prophecy. No one clamoured for, or praised Multiculturalism or Diversity...until after it was already entrenched by massive changes to immigration policies and urban/suburban expansion, which began in the 1960's. It can only really be viewed as strength by presuming some prior weakness, some dearth of "richness" that existed in western culture - which is simply untrue, and ultimately unfair to the existing culture. Indeed, it would seem that in the long-run, as Norsemaiden described, Diversity or multiculturalism spell the death of the existing culture. If that is the goal, then I suppose only in that context can I see its "strengths."
Speed, Can you expand on your statement regarding American policies affecting the economies of Mexico and Central America?
Thanks
schivmeister
#1QVFan
North America was founded by Mr Columbus. It wasnt a White's land initially. The Whites claimed the Land their own, made it White Land. The soil there isnt white tho, right? Some beaches in sri lanka have white sand but most sri lankans are black. Hah whatevr it is. So the White Americans are technically also IMMIGRANTS. Legal Immigrants. They are actually Europeans by descent.
This leads to the question, where are we from? Hahah. The Europeans think they were always in that part of the world since the beginning of Life. Unfortunately, before there were Europeans there were Middle-Easterns. Yes, the migration occured frm the middle. Whoa, even Jesus was Middle-Eastern. So u cant say ur anti-Semitic if ur Christian
Long before history, some dispersed to the far east, some went down, some went right. Few went up. Skins started to change colour and texture to adapt to the surroundings, tho some people like the brown indians they got too much hair for them to b living in hot lands, save for the northern part of India where most of them are relatively white (rmmbr they are partly German now because long ago Aryans invaded the Indus Valley and settled down in the northern areas. U can find blonde indians there. But Hitler had black hair, and wasnt tall. Neither did he have a square jaw). Yet, Science again dives in and tells us before there were Middle-Easterns there were Africans. Now that one is on NGC and Discovery Channel. I wont explain it to u, its still showing once in a while!
Its all about territory. Animals will always want to keep a certain amount of space for themselves. We are animals too, so we have spaces also; just in a bigger scale. "U cross the line after we declare ownership, we'll kill u! Unless u got somethin we need, or we feel like showin some heart."
Hmm im thinkin of migrating to Canada. It seems to stay out of problems. And i need snow for a couple of years because i been having too much hot sun on me for almost 2 decades. Canada, b ready to accept me. I have lots of things u need! I can bring up another Cryptopsy or Quo Vadis
This leads to the question, where are we from? Hahah. The Europeans think they were always in that part of the world since the beginning of Life. Unfortunately, before there were Europeans there were Middle-Easterns. Yes, the migration occured frm the middle. Whoa, even Jesus was Middle-Eastern. So u cant say ur anti-Semitic if ur Christian
Long before history, some dispersed to the far east, some went down, some went right. Few went up. Skins started to change colour and texture to adapt to the surroundings, tho some people like the brown indians they got too much hair for them to b living in hot lands, save for the northern part of India where most of them are relatively white (rmmbr they are partly German now because long ago Aryans invaded the Indus Valley and settled down in the northern areas. U can find blonde indians there. But Hitler had black hair, and wasnt tall. Neither did he have a square jaw). Yet, Science again dives in and tells us before there were Middle-Easterns there were Africans. Now that one is on NGC and Discovery Channel. I wont explain it to u, its still showing once in a while!Its all about territory. Animals will always want to keep a certain amount of space for themselves. We are animals too, so we have spaces also; just in a bigger scale. "U cross the line after we declare ownership, we'll kill u! Unless u got somethin we need, or we feel like showin some heart."
Hmm im thinkin of migrating to Canada. It seems to stay out of problems. And i need snow for a couple of years because i been having too much hot sun on me for almost 2 decades. Canada, b ready to accept me. I have lots of things u need! I can bring up another Cryptopsy or Quo Vadis
Frankly, I think our meddling in the economies and politics of South and Central America should be common knowledge. Its no secret that using the Monroe doctrine as a pretext, we've meddled in, invaded, toppled, acted as "advisors", or set up the governments in just about every country in Central America since the turn of the century, and probably before. If I was to give you a official list, it would detail at least 50 militaryincursions in Central America since WWII. And our record isnt much better in South America. We essentially caused the recent fall of Argentina's economy, and Brazils economy before that, by refusing to let them restructure their debt--which really as a share of their economy, was no worse than what we are carrying around now. Hell, we essentially set up a banana sponderserd government in Ecaudor (no shit), and then kicked them out with nationalists when Oil was discovered. Although I suppose NAFTA is benefitting Mexico, providing cheap manufacuring jobs that used to be in America.
I wish most Americans had some knowledge of our actions in the western hemisphere. If we were'nt so ignorant and oblivious to history and other countries, alot of our problems could easily be understood by the whole of the country, and change would finally occur.
Why do you think the world hates us? Read a little history. Its all available, but unreported.
Thank you for the response Speed. I can't say I agree or disagree. I don't know enough to have an outlook. I now have enough general information to do some reading though. I thank you for that. Lastly, if we (America) are doing such a piss-poor job in these other countries, why do they put up with it? What do we bring to the table that would so great that these countries continue to let us economically drive them into the ground? If that is truly what we are doing.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Nicaragua also comes to mind. In the early 80s, extensive financing (about $70m), training in terror and use of propaganda was given to Nicaraguan guerillas to overthrow the Sandanist government which was (allegedly) destroying US interests in the area. $12b damage to the country was caused solely by US intervention (which it refused to pay after rejecting ICJ jurisdiction, a position completely against international law), innumerable human rights violations including civilian attacks, murder, rape. What's shocking to me is the world seems to have forgotten about this terrible interference with Nicaragua's sovereignty.
I'm always surprised why Americans are shocked the rest of the world doesnt like us, or why persons like Castro, Chavez, etc. pop up.
In general, we supported through the CIA, elite troops, military advisors and training, a multitude of right-wing regimes from Bautista to Pinochet, Somoza, Trujillo, etc. We pretty much actually occupied or controlled most central american countries in in the 1910's to 30's:Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua off the top of my head. Really, the best thing to do is to read the 20th century histories of Central America, the Caribbean, and South America, or ask persons from these countries. Even Im surprised that we invaded the Dominican republic in 1965. Recently, we have not been involved in occupation type exercises like Iraq, other than in Panama and Grenada--where we actually invaded the entire country.
Anyway, you must remember that especially up to the 1950's and 1960's, American corporations be they oil, bananas, sugar, etc. had huge investments in some of these countries, where such products were the no.1 export; so much so, that in many of these countries, these corporations through the American government, ran the country. This was the case in Cuba pre-Fidel, as well as Nicaragua, and most of the other Central American countries.
And why havent these countries revolted? Well almost every country has: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, Haiti, The DOminican, Ecuador, Colombia, all have (and more I forget im sure), but through American support, we crushed most of these rebellions except for CUba. One could make a case Mexico is in the grips of civil unrest right now as well.
Furthermore, if you notice, the entirety of South America (other than COlombia) has elected leftist Anti-American governments. Ortega was just re-elected in Nicaragua. Chavez is so hated by America, because he nationalized the oil industry, that used to be run by American oil companies.
I could go on and on here. What else? Well, Miami is the banking center for all of the Caribbean, Central America, and northern SOuth America.
Now, do our ends justify the means? Thats the big question.
The Winnipeg Warrior
The Winnipeg Warrior ®
You shouldn't spend so much of your time trying to over-think, over-analyze, and micro-manage the statements within my post. Take it at face value.....it is what it is. It's wasted energy, my friend. The sooner we embrace the differences of our fellow man and participate in the 'human condition'.....the better off we'll all be. In spite of geography, race, religion, and cultural differences, we all belong to something that is more powerful than any one Idealogy can offer. The brotherhood of man and 'the human family.' Life is a precious balance between give and take.....and acceptance. We're all symbiotic on this planet. That is the energy that exists all around us. It was here before we arrived.....and it will be here long after we've expired. THAT.....is a very cool thing IMO.
Peace, everyone.
A curious response. Unless I'm mistaken the very purpose of this board is to discuss, analyze, think-through and sometimes challenge the assertions made here. If that is allegedly "micro-management" then so be it .
Rather than issue another plattitude-laden sermon, why not answer the questions, or if that is disagreeable, at least support your position with something more substantive than nebulous rhetoric about some cosmic "brotherhood of man" or related exhortations of "acceptance" etc.
While it is quite clear that the so-called "inclusion and diversity" orthodoxy, is the "official" position of acedemia, government, big business and the entertainment industry, rarely if ever are these positions challenged and rarer still is a legitimate defense of these ideals offered up. Thus, we have volumes of sentimental, egalitarian twaddle about why diversity and such are supposedly a "strenght" or virtuous pursuit, but the evidence to actually support that position is slim at best. Slogans and bromides may make for good political sound-bites, and warm-fuzzy feelings about one's fellow-travellers on this earth, but pretending or wishing we could all just magically exist in some sort of multi-culti utopia doesn't make it so.
Justin S.
Member
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.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
I dont think it is anymore, but I will wait until I stand corrected by our real philosophers here. Although the Derrida-school seems to still enjoy it.
bcmetalforces
metal radio provider
After reading this whole thread i sat and stared at the screen for 20 minutes..i composed a few posts in my mind. In the end i'm too tired and sad to type them in.
Ethnocentricity fuckn' sucks.That and greed keeps the world at war.
Ethnocentricity fuckn' sucks.That and greed keeps the world at war.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Wrong. Ethnocentricity is actually the only possible way to have peace. But while there are any sort of rivalries there will be violence. 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.After reading this whole thread i sat and stared at the screen for 20 minutes..i composed a few posts in my mind. In the end i'm too tired and sad to type them in.
Ethnocentricity fuckn' sucks.That and greed keeps the world at war.
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.
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. 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).
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, 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.
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.
Similar threads
