Immigration?

[Norsemaiden]

Cultural traits varied in significance; there were relatively trivial ones (innovations such as the spread of CocaCola, volleyball etc.) where participation in the trait could not appreciably alter the probability of surviving or having children; in these instances some kind of non-Darwinian selection was involved which they termed 'cultural'. Other traits were important elements of culture (notably language); these were subject to processes analogous to those in biological evolution to which the concepts of drift and migration could be applied. Cultural selection could act counter to natural selection, although harmony between the two was expected on average, based on the assumption that the neural structures or mechanisms that permit choice evolve under the control of natural selection which thus indirectly controls the scope of cultural choices made.

Lumsden and E.O. Wilson (1981, 1983) postulated that human cultural transmission is ultimately gene-culture transmission. Their aim was the technical development of a theory of gene- culture coevolution, a first attempt to trace development all the way from genes through the mind to culture. The approach, similar to that of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman though more mathematically ambitious, centred round the concept of the culturgen [producing culture], the basic unit of inheritance. They derived the concept from the operational units of culture in archaeology (artifacts) but extended it to cover all kinds of transmissible behaviours, mentifacts, and artifacts, The transmission of culturgens was governed by epigenetic rules, the genetically determined peripheral sensory filters, inter-neuron coding processes, and cognitive procedures of perception, learning and decision-making. These together affected the probability of one culturgen being transmitted rather than another. Genetic and cultural evolution drive each other forward; culture is created and shaped by biological processes, while the biological processes are simultaneously altered in response to cultural change.

EVOLUTION AND CULTURE: THE MISSING LINK

Genetic drift (an influence on evolution discovered post Darwin) is the process whereby certain genes become more predominant in one population than another, this is bound to happen in isolated groups and it has a much more rapid effect than natural selection.

When the effective population size is small, as was the case for humans in the past, genetic drift will be stronger. Culture would be affected by this.

Also, culture affects the evolution of those in the society, (not so much nowadays as everyone is getting so mixed up and subject to other cultures) so that certain behaviours are rewarded with reproductive success and others are not valued or are punnished, resulting in fewer genes for such behaviour being passed on. In a society that values creativity and inventiveness, the culture will be different to that of a society where inventive people are seen as dangerous freaks who may be possessed by demons or seen as a threat to a tyranical authority. After some time, the genes for creativity will be more common in the former society. Those from the latter will have a genetic tendency to admire brutal leaders and a difficulty in grasping the concept of how fairness and social justice makes society more pleasant to live in. (Although if anyone offers them personally some "fairness and social justice" they will be all for it, in a purely selfish way while still considering the tyrant to be the epitome of male status).

 

[Blowtus]

American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)
AAA Statement on "Race"

excerpt:
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

 

[Έρεβος]

American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)
AAA Statement on "Race"

excerpt:
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

You actually believe that piece of intellectually dishonest liberal "scientific" propaganda?

So, one [entirely meaningless & flawed] study done by some liberal democratic American organization overturns the thousands of years of evidence to the contrary?

It states some dead obvious observations to arrive at utterly unrelated conclusions, alongside entirely fabricated and baseless assumptions.

 

[Blowtus]

I don't believe it any more than I believe anything I read, I just thought I'd quickly google and come up with a link to throw back rather than wade through the depths of another opinion piece Figured the position of a society of academics in the field was better than individual pieces here and there, but maybe not. Couldn't find any real studies done in my 5 minute search, just assertions from various perspectives. I guess my responses get a bit lazy when I'm given link after link to read through with none of what I've asked for, evidence.

If you have the thousands of years of evidence handy, could you link to it? I'm still willing to be convinced, it's not an ideological standpoint or anything.

 

[Έρεβος]

I don't believe it any more than I believe anything I read, I just thought I'd quickly google and come up with a link to throw back rather than wade through the depths of another opinion piece Figured the position of a society of academics in the field was better than individual pieces here and there, but maybe not. Couldn't find any real studies done in my 5 minute search, just assertions from various perspectives.

Ah. Well all you will find is assertions from various perspectives, as it is impossible to do a real study on such that would not take over a few lifespans of time. But it doesn't really matter, historical observation is the only evidence one needs to see that which truly makes sense in such an issue.

 

[Cythraul]

You actually believe that piece of intellectually dishonest liberal "scientific" propaganda?

So, one [entirely meaningless & flawed] study done by some liberal democratic American organization overturns the thousands of years of evidence to the contrary?

It states some dead obvious observations to arrive at utterly unrelated conclusions, alongside entirely fabricated and baseless assumptions.

What exactly are you taking issue with?

 

[Blowtus]

Ah. Well all you will find is assertions from various perspectives, as it is impossible to do a real study on such that would not take over a few lifespans of time. But it doesn't really matter, historical observation is the only evidence one needs to see that which truly makes sense in such an issue.

Historical observation observes different sets of racial genetics within different environments, and so is fundamentally flawed as a method of seperating the development of culture within a person from their environment. If that's all your 'thousands of years evidence' then please shuffle back a post or ten for my arguments there

 

[Έρεβος]

What exactly are you taking issue with?

"At the end of the 20th century, we now understand"
Hahahahaha.

"Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture.""
This denies nature entirely, saying it is nothing but nurture. The only logical explanation for the nature vs. nurture "issue" is that it is 100% nature and 100% nurture, not entirely one or the other (and there is much very obvious evidence that supports this).

"Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are."
I'd like to see the method of observation within these "studies." This statement is a joke. There are no cultural environments on the planet controlled enough to execute such a study.

"It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior."
Go fucking figure. That says nothing about a races natural tendency towards one culture, and their ability to survive and thrive to the greatest extent in the culture that developed around their "race."

"The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world."
Ohh wow, what a revelation! Now watch this lead to an entirely unrelated conclusion ...

"How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society."
Bla bla bla, and guess what, how people are treated in context to a given society or culture is the natural tendancy of that culture, that if ignored is denying an important aspect of human nature in regards to society - and natural mechanisms are always things vitally important to anything within nature (including humans).

"The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth."
Oh, here is the first part of the utterly idiotic conclusion arrived at by those dead obvious observations (which in no way back up or truly have anything to do with this conclusion). I'd really like to know who exactly "invented" this "racial worldview," and how these people were able to set up an interview!

"The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent."
Bla bla bla bla bla. So here we have an idiotic conclusion reached from a prior idiotic conclusion that was reached from entirely unrelated observations. How scientific!

"Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture"
What we know? What do we know? I'm pretty damn sure that historical cultural observation shows that not "all 'normal' humans" are able to function as well in any culture. European culture developed around European races, and is for European races alone. Hence foreigners would not be able to perform as well as Europeans in such a cultural environment - and this has been shown to be repeatedly true throughout history.

"we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances."
A conclusion based on absolutely nothing. Now this is damn good study.

 

[Cythraul]

"Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture.""
This denies nature entirely, saying it is nothing but nurture. The only logical explanation for the nature vs. nurture "issue" is that it is 100% nature and 100% nurture, not entirely one or the other (and there is much very obvious evidence that supports this).

I don't think the conclusion is quite that strong. It really depends on how you read that quote. I don't think it's saying that genetic propensities don't matter or don't play any role in development. Anyway, I don't think it's clear at all which genetic propensities are supposed to play such a huge role in the development of culture. What are these genetic propensities? I don't think that has been indicated in this thread yet. It seems to me that only some very hazy idea of some kind of connection between genetic propensities and culture has been indicated in this thread. Furthermore, the requisite tests that would confirm the existence of such a strong dependence seem to me not to have been forthcoming (maybe I missed something though).

Also, what do you mean by '100% nature and 100% nurture'? That doesn't even make any sense.

"Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are."
I'd like to see the method of observation within these "studies." This statement is a joke. There are no cultural environments on the planet controlled enough to execute such a study.

That seems reasonable enough but then why do you say things like this...

historical observation is the only evidence one needs to see that which truly makes sense in such an issue.

"It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior."
Go fucking figure. That says nothing about a races natural tendency towards one culture, and their ability to survive and thrive to the greatest extent in the culture that developed around their "race."

Regardless of whether or not the above quote purports to show the nonexistence of any kind of natural tendency, I take it as showing that there is no lawlike relationship between race and culture. If there were such a relationship then the existence of wiggers would be an absolute mystery. And what is this 'natural tendency' you speak of?

"How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society."
Bla bla bla, and guess what, how people are treated in context to a given society or culture is the natural tendancy of that culture, that if ignored is denying an important aspect of human nature in regards to society - and natural mechanisms are always things vitally important to anything within nature (including humans).

So what? Even if it is the 'natural tendency' for a culture to treat certain people in certain ways, that does not make said treatment justified. Some people have the natural tendency to murder other people but we do not let such people run around and do whatever they want, and it doesn't make what they do correct. What is it about the 'natural tendency' of a society to act certain ways towards other people that makes such behavior correct?

"Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture"
What we know? What do we know? I'm pretty damn sure that historical cultural observation shows that not "all 'normal' humans" are able to function as well in any culture. European culture developed around European races, and is for European races alone. Hence foreigners would not be able to perform as well as Europeans in such a cultural environment - and this has been shown to be repeatedly true throughout history.

But what makes you think any of this is due to genetic propensities?

 

[OldScratch]

I shall attempt this one more time. What, if not in large part genetic predisposition, explains the dramatic differences in the cultures, achievements and status of the world's peoples IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Several of us have endeavored to provide all-manner of reasoning(whenther some agree with it or not) for why a multicultural/racial society may indeed present far more problems than benefits; and requested that the naysayers provide some evidence to the contrary or better still, some specific explanation of what the alleged benefits might even be! Why is a multicultural/racial society preferable to a homogeneous one?

Today, this matter is invariably approached from an "after the fact" perspective. In the 1950's America, for instance, was better than 90% Caucasian - no one vocalized the obvious need for a more diverse population, or bemoaned the absense of it, let alone attempted to justify exactly why that would be even desireable in the first place.
Beginning with the counter-culture revolution of the 1960's and radical changes to immigration policy, the government set upon a quest(despite dogged instance that this was not the case - see young Senator Ted Kennedy's comments on the matter from that era for more) to create a thoroughly pluralistic society, abbetted by an inexplicable indifference to an illegal invasion taking place across its southern border. In short order, the demographics changed considerably and only then did it become fashionable to tout the glories of "Diversity." As of the most recent census figures Caucasians comprise little more that 65% of the population, and America is still struggling to make this social experiemnt work - and at what cost?

As for so-called "Wiggers"...well, if folks wish to emulate other cultures I suppose they will, surely we know that to be true. But the issue isn't if disparate peoples CAN be lead to mimic or adapt to cultures with enough indocrination, propaganda, etc. The real question is will they? or if it is natural for them to do so?

 

[Cythraul]

What, if not in large part genetic predisposition, explains the dramatic differences in the cultures, achievements and status of the world's peoples IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Why are you asking this question? It's as if you think I'm denying that genetic predispositions play any role in cultural development. But to answer your question: history, location, circumstance, etc. The ways in which values, norms, and practices arise are pretty complex. You'd have to show that all of this is ultimately reducible to a biological basis in genetic differences. It doesn't seem to me that anybody (neither here nor in academia) has done that. These hand waving arguments will not suffice.

Why is a multicultural/racial society preferable to a homogeneous one?

I'm not immediately concerned about that.

As for so-called "Wiggers"...well, if folks wish to emulate other cultures I suppose they will, surely we know that to be true. But the issue isn't if disparate peoples CAN be lead to mimic or adapt to cultures with enough indocrination, propaganda, etc. The real question is will they? or if it is natural for them to do so?

I suppose that sometimes they do. And what is all this talk of 'natural'? What counts as natural? What is unnatural about assimilating into a different culture?

 

[OldScratch]

Why are you asking this question? It's as if you think I'm denying that genetic predispositions play any role in cultural development. But to answer your question: history, location, circumstance, etc. The ways in which values, norms, and practices arise are pretty complex. You'd have to show that all of this is ultimately reducible to a biological basis in genetic differences. It doesn't seem to me that anybody (neither here nor in academia) has done that. These hand waving arguments will not suffice.

I'm not immediately concerned about that.

I suppose that sometimes they do. And what is all this talk of 'natural'? What counts as natural? What is unnatural about assimilating into a different culture?

Let me try another approach. Let's say for argument sake that your opening assertion is accurate. After all, I have already stated elsewhere that I am not nearly so concerned with the primordial bio-gentic intracacies of why these apparent differences exist and indeed persist, but rather with how they impact history and most critically the world we live in today.
Thus, when you casually dismiss my central question about why specifically a multicultural society is even desirable let alone beneficial to the host peoples and culture(which incidently was my main point), we are only left to bicker about the details that may indeed be interesting or illuminating scientifically - but of no real practical importance, beyond the theory of why such innate incompatibilities exist at all. We KNOW multicultural societies are undeniably problematic -what I want to know is why, allegedly, they are beneficial or necessary. Help me understand this.
As far as what is natural or unnatural is concerned...perhaps a whole different thread is required. But to answer your question, nothing is specifically unnatural about assimilation into another culture in theory...but in practice, meaningful, lasting assimilation into western culture has proven to be a rather elusive or evidently undesirable proposition for many who put the "multi" in multiculture - and this despite an incomprehensibly massive, costly and unprcedented program of social-egineering to make it happen. As experiments go, this hasn't worked out so well...

 

[Norsemaiden]

"Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture"
What we know? What do we know? I'm pretty damn sure that historical cultural observation shows that not "all 'normal' humans" are able to function as well in any culture. European culture developed around European races, and is for European races alone. Hence foreigners would not be able to perform as well as Europeans in such a cultural environment - and this has been shown to be repeatedly true throughout history.

That reminds me. To consider that immigrants must conform to European values and ideas of moral behaviour is racist and unfair. Also, to acknowledge this and counter it by eroding European culture and trying to form a mismash that doesn't exclude anyone is also a very destructive and harmful thing to do.
Enforced multiculturalism is genocide effectively.

Blowtus: could you give an example of what could conceivably be "evidence" that culture is ethnically defined, because I thought plenty of evidence had been provided, yet you continue to say you haven't heard any.

Etiquiette has traditionally been extremely important in Japanese culture, to an extreme found nowhere else. The Japanese underwent one and a half thousand years in which, if the correct etiquette was not followed, such as the correct bow when a Samurai was passing, instant execution followed. Thus those who were naturally less observant of, and able to carry out, the required etiquette were taken out of the gene pool, and now we find that the Japanese are a very orderly and tidy people, who are at pains not to cause offense. When they dance at discos they dance in formation, similar to the dance in the animated movie "Ants".

Bowing probably originated as a gesture of subordination, as lowering the head leaves the bower vulnerable. This was particularly the case in the samurai era in Japan. Samurai were at the top of a highly stratified society; they had the right to kill anyone who did not show them the proper respect.

Bowing (social) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blowtus]

Norsemaiden - Are the Japanese very orderly, tidy, and polite because it is in their genes, or because their parents and society teach them to be so, or both? I have not proposed the answer, I have only argued for a lack of evidence in assuming too much of evolution. Evidence would be observing a number of Japanese children adopted out to various parts of the world, with their specific heritage unknown to their society, parents, or themselves, and searching for the signifigant behavioural trends mentioned. A comparison control group of Asians from countries other than Japan would probably be necessary. Not perfect, not very 'humane' (thus not very possible) but it'd certainly be good evidence either way. More available (but less clear) evidence could be found through observation of adoptions from a specific culture, that is not broadly known or involved in any signifigant 'multicultural issues' (Negro's in the U.S would be the entirely *wrong* choice, for instance)

Oldscratch - I hear your frustration with this 'side issue' of race, and wonder why you wouldn't just argue for controls on the immigration of 'culture' in the first place? Is it just because it is less easily defined, thus less practical?
Given your viewpoint - what would you do about the situation around the world at present, with regards to multiculturalism?

 

[OldScratch]

Norsemaiden - Are the Japanese very orderly, tidy, and polite because it is in their genes, or because their parents and society teach them to be so, or both? I have not proposed the answer, I have only argued for a lack of evidence in assuming too much of evolution. Evidence would be observing a number of Japanese children adopted out to various parts of the world, with their specific heritage unknown to their society, parents, or themselves, and searching for the signifigant behavioural trends mentioned. A comparison control group of Asians from countries other than Japan would probably be necessary. Not perfect, not very 'humane' (thus not very possible) but it'd certainly be good evidence either way. More available (but less clear) evidence could be found through observation of adoptions from a specific culture, that is not broadly known or involved in any signifigant 'multicultural issues' (Negro's in the U.S would be the entirely *wrong* choice, for instance)

Oldscratch - I hear your frustration with this 'side issue' of race, and wonder why you wouldn't just argue for controls on the immigration of 'culture' in the first place? Is it just because it is less easily defined, thus less practical?
Given your viewpoint - what would you do about the situation around the world at present, with regards to multiculturalism?

If I thought for a second that culture and all it's social and behavioral norms and conditions was a one-size-fits-all proposition, fully adaptable to one and all, I wouldn't necessarily be as concerned about race, etc. But there is no reason for me to believe that to be true...which is precisely how I arrived at my current position.

As for global multiculturalism, all I really want is an alternative. Why must EVERY western nation, every province, every territory conform to this forced-egalitarian ideal? I don't care if people wish to create multicultural dreamlands. But why can there be no peaceful dissent? Why can there be no place for those who prefer something else - particularly when that "something else" is essentially what traditionally, and quite successfully I might add, existed in many areas for centuries! Why?

 

[Blowtus]

I agree strongly on the last bit. I've often thought perhaps the world would be a nicer place to live if regions, and the laws within those regions, were made smaller and more unique - why can't there be a small society somewhere ordered in a manner that would more suit me? Have never really grasped why my own country persists with so many state level laws, when all the states run with the same goal and ideals.

 

[OldScratch]

I agree strongly on the last bit. I've often thought perhaps the world would be a nicer place to live if regions, and the laws within those regions, were made smaller and more unique - why can't there be a small society somewhere ordered in a manner that would more suit me? Have never really grasped why my own country persists with so many state level laws, when all the states run with the same goal and ideals.

Dammit-all, I knew if we stayed at this long enough we would agree on something I'm with you 100% on this!

 

[Tabubua]

Why can there be no place for those who prefer something else - particularly when that "something else" is essentially what traditionally, and quite successfully I might add, existed in many areas for centuries! Why?

Because modern transport and the information highway have made the world such a small place?

A century or so ago, to get from one town to the next could mean travelling for hours or even all day - either by horse or by foot. Most people didn't have enough money to travel or move far, and were often tied down by family or work responsibilities.

The world has changed, it can now take minutes to travel to local towns, and only a day to travel to the other side of the world. People can afford to travel, and the means are easily available to them. Work and family ties are less rigid.

Besides, your theory of the stable, traditional racial boundaries is not precisely true - anyone flicking through an ancient/ early modern history book will come across abundant evidence of racial mixing due to the expansion and retreat of various empires, and the immigration of various groups of people for one reason or another.

Many of these immigrational (is that a word?) movements were over far smaller areas - but again, due to constraints in travell not present today.

Therefore todays wider immigrational movement are in proportion to technological and social improvement, and are just an expansion of natural human movements.

Anyway, I believe that without some cultural mixing, society would stagnate and be unable to evolve. Different ways of thinking prevent us from a self-destructive conservitism.

On the balance point, I believe that anyone immigrating into a foriegn culture should respect and try to at least partially assimilate that culture into their lives. If they choose to move into that clime, they shouldn't expect it to change to accomodate them.

Too many immigrants in this country (the UK), especially Muslims and other religious groups, expect us to give up or tone down our traditional celebrations (ie Christmas, Easter) in order not to offend them. I'm not a Christian, but I find that offensive - would we expect them to give up Ramadan or Divali etc?

It's this sort of unnecessary clash of ideaologies that goes a long way to causing the racial/ cultural devides in multi-cultural societies. Its not the be all or end all to this problem, but this is the end of my lunch break and I can't go on anymore!

 

[OldScratch]

Because modern transport and the information highway have made the world such a small place?

A century or so ago, to get from one town to the next could mean travelling for hours or even all day - either by horse or by foot. Most people didn't have enough money to travel or move far, and were often tied down by family or work responsibilities.

The world has changed, it can now take minutes to travel to local towns, and only a day to travel to the other side of the world. People can afford to travel, and the means are easily available to them. Work and family ties are less rigid.

Besides, your theory of the stable, traditional racial boundaries is not precisely true - anyone flicking through an ancient/ early modern history book will come across abundant evidence of racial mixing due to the expansion and retreat of various empires, and the immigration of various groups of people for one reason or another.

Many of these immigrational (is that a word?) movements were over far smaller areas - but again, due to constraints in travell not present today.

Therefore todays wider immigrational movement are in proportion to technological and social improvement, and are just an expansion of natural human movements.

Anyway, I believe that without some cultural mixing, society would stagnate and be unable to evolve. Different ways of thinking prevent us from a self-destructive conservitism.

On the balance point, I believe that anyone immigrating into a foriegn culture should respect and try to at least partially assimilate that culture into their lives. If they choose to move into that clime, they shouldn't expect it to change to accomodate them.

Too many immigrants in this country (the UK), especially Muslims and other religious groups, expect us to give up or tone down our traditional celebrations (ie Christmas, Easter) in order not to offend them. I'm not a Christian, but I find that offensive - would we expect them to give up Ramadan or Divali etc?

It's this sort of unnecessary clash of ideaologies that goes a long way to causing the racial/ cultural devides in multi-cultural societies. Its not the be all or end all to this problem, but this is the end of my lunch break and I can't go on anymore!

Aside from the fact that I disagree to some extent with virtually every conclusion at which you have arrived in the first half of your post, I also fail to see how any of these observations even remoletly addresses my question you have quoted. A homogeneous society is impossible because of travel and technology? (Someone should inform the Japanese or Finns) Surely, the primary justification for multiculturalism isn't hassle-free travel and the internet...though in retro-spect that makes more sense than the standard twaddle about nebulous "enrichment" and such.
I fully realize that peoples have historically mixed in various places for various reasons - much of South and Central America are testament to this. So of course "flicking through" history books will show you this. Similarly, flicking through a few modern newspapers, websites, or the many volumes written on the subject will also tell you that no matter how well-intentioned, multicultural societies are vastly more difficult to establish or maintain, than the accepted orthodoxy on the matter would have you believe.
Again I state - if folks wish to seek "Diversity" at any cost, then I suppose they must do so. Yet, some of us seek social stability, similarity of culture, language, heritage, values and ideals above Diversity for the sake of it. According to what cosmic rationale is one society valid and the other not?

 

[Tabubua]

Aside from the fact that I disagree to some extent with virtually every conclusion at which you have arrived in the first half of your post, I also fail to see how any of these observations even remoletly addresses my question you have quoted.

You essentially asked why a traditional, single culture society cannot exist. I basically replied, because people will choose to move to a society the perceive as more 'comfortable' if they have the means and the money.

In todays world the means, (high speed and affordable travel/ available jobs and housing) and the money are often available; the opportunity is there, and people will take it.

And of course, heavy restriction of peoples desire to move abroad is seen as an infringment on their human rights.

Also, when I said 'information highway', I meant to include all world-wide media, not just the internet.

Why would you want to move to a place when you know nothing at all about it? Nothing about the possible benefits that could be offered by moving there

Besides - available travel and being aware of the benefits of moving to another country were not my justifications for immigration - just reasons why people choose to immigrate and do so.

I don't believe that multi-cultural societies should be difficult to maintain - so long as immigration is voluntary - all that makes them difficult to maintain is people like you who can't see that societies need to evolve and adapt rather than clinging so rigidly to traditional (and often outdated and impractical) values.

Not that the USA really has any traditional values, and those clung onto are even more preposterous given that it is a population based almost entirely on immigration.