On the Nature of Things | Forum

As "anti immigrant" parties surge across Europe capturing new constituencies, and the Republican Party is now more favored than Democrats by nearly 10% on the issue of immigration, is a truly historic shift underway?

I was never comfortable with what liberals talked about on this issue. Multiculturalism always appeared to mean celebration of foreign culture as a way to put down native culture. I have never seen a white liberal celebrate traditional American culture. They celebrate some media sex culture/products, but never family, farming, church going, business creating, our history, etc.

Illegal immigration was always a humanitarian disaster and lawlessness, allowed by ulterior motives. I have no problem with legal immigrants, provided they come here to learn the language and adopt the culture. I can't imagine wanting to move to Japan, never learn the language, and dressing like trailer dweller and expecting handouts. Every country has a right to maintain it's borders, nearly all do, and I'm happy to have people come from anywhere provided the want to be Americans, speak English, and are at least 50% likely to vote Republican.

This is usually presented as a binoid issue by the left (with us or against us), but obviously it is not. Please share your non binoid views.

Mr P,

It's an interesting question. I have a number of 3d British friends who live in Spain and the overwhelming majority in the Brit ex pat communities do not speak Spanish. They have Brit bars and restaurants set up for them serving familiar grub and do most things together.The result is, of course, that these communities are quite boring.

Against this, when I was running a student exchange from Spain to England I found the overwhelming majority of young Spaniards had functional English. Of course it may be that those interested would obviously have prepared their English, but I also found when visiting colleges in Andalusia that English was spoken everywhere when required.

There does seem to be a tendency for English speakers to regard their language as 'international' and expect others to fit in, which they do. My Kurdish barber had excellent English and I also visit a cafe in the city run by Iraqis who are fluent. I guess this is a mandatory requirement if one wants to run a business anywhere. The Iraqi's also serve a range of English food (bless them) which is rather better than we cook ourselves.

So, my view would be that multiculturalism has always been a bit of a non starter with English speakers and we have a lot of catching up to do as the world develops.

Alex.

Some really good insights there ethinker, thanks.

I agree that our white liberals in the US never really believed any of it. They don't learn any languages other than french, never intermarry with blacks or hispanics, have nothing to do with them socially or professionally and largely leave them in squalor in the various Democrat ghettos. That they never cared about them as human beings has been obvious from the get go. Goes toward my instinct that whole idea of multiculturalism has been a scam from the get go.

Multiculturalism is an idiocy. Immigrants are supposed to integrate with their host community even if they keep some of their more significant cultural idiosyncrasies. But using one's mother language at home, eating old country food, keeping one's traditional religion is not multiculturalism, it's cultural diversity which will tend to enrich the whole community without imposing on it anything they don't want to accept. But further, immigrants are supposed to respect the host country's values, dress the way natives do, speak their language at work and in public places, and acquire local citizenship so that they can fully participate in solving local problems. If an immigrant is not willing to do all this, then he should go back to his country as soon as possible.

Interesting thoughts Endo. I am wondering, do you see a reversal in your neck of the woods? Immigration has been forced on much of the west for decades now, now were starting to see what it appears to be a silent majority pushback.

I wonder if this is the case in your part of Europe.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Interesting thoughts Endo. I am wondering, do you see a reversal in your neck of the woods? Immigration has been forced on much of the west for decades now, now were starting to see what it appears to be a silent majority pushback.

I wonder if this is the case in your part of Europe.

The largest immigrant communities in Portugal come mostly from Portuguese speaking countries, Brazil and our former colonies, who are quite familiar with our values and way of life. They easily integrate. But we also have significant Ukrainian and Romanian communities and they have blended as readily as all the others. What is more significant is that all those immigrant communities have avoided living in separate quarters, which means that integration has been made a lot easier. This may be less evident as far as African communities are concerned, but that's an economic rather than ethnic choice. Once income becomes closer to average, those Africans will readily move to more mixed quarters. And locals absolutely do not discriminate against immigrants. Blacks and Whites readily mix, date and marry each other, and readily make babies together without anybody bothering about it. I'm afraid local police is not all that colour-blind, but that tends to be frowned upon by the rest of us.

Great thread so far gents. thanks.

As I posted previously, most 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. generation Americans can tell the tale of when the immigrating matriarch or patriarch of their family slammed their fist on the dinner table and proclaimed "We came to America to be Americans. From now on we no longer speak ______ we speak only English!"

Among my immigrant friends, it is amazing how often the children refuse to speak the language of their parents. One of my friends had two daughters who were 12 years older than their younger brother. The daughters repeated chastised the parents for speaking Arabic at home in front of their son. "You put us thru hell! We don't want you to do the same to Shariff!"

Immigrants (including those who move from state to state in the US) will adopt the aspects of the host culture that they find attractive. When the host culture declines or is deemed less advantageous, they will cling to aspects of their own culture they deem superior/beneficial.

External pressure seems very ineffective in changing attitudes. Legislation never drives culture.

That said, demographics does drive culture, and in a "democracy" demographics drives legislation.

Strangely enough, those who award themselves the title of "Multiculturalist" and preach "Celebrate diversity!" rarely seem tolerant of diversity of opinion. More often that not, the term multiculturalism is merely camouflage. It seems to be the preferred cover for the person who wants to scream "Racist!", "Sexism!", or personal insults at those with whom they disagree.

Among those who deem themselves superior, "multiculturalism" seems to be the battle cry to engage in social engineering. I use their level of "passion" as an indicator of their intent.

There seems to be a very fine line between tolerance and indifference. In fact, tolerance well practiced, often seems to be indifference to the observer.

Endovelico wrote:Multiculturalism is an idiocy. Immigrants are supposed to integrate with their host community even if they keep some of their more significant cultural idiosyncrasies. But using one's mother language at home, eating old country food, keeping one's traditional religion is not multiculturalism, it's cultural diversity which will tend to enrich the whole community without imposing on it anything they don't want to accept. But further, immigrants are supposed to respect the host country's values, dress the way natives do, speak their language at work and in public places, and acquire local citizenship so that they can fully participate in solving local problems. If an immigrant is not willing to do all this, then he should go back to his country as soon as possible.

Well said Endo. Your post reminds me of an excellent article by Ambrose Evans Pritchard in which he explained "Multiculturalism as a naive experiment."

Cajun children were beaten and forced to kneel on rice in Louisiana. "I will not speak French in the schoolyard!"

First Nations children were taken from their homes and relocated to public boarding schools where they were beaten for speaking their native language.

Non-English conversation was a threat to the centrality of power. Learning English is one thing, but deliberate destruction of non-English speaking was a form of subjugation.

I don't think multiculturalism here is as big an issue it is claimed to be to begin with. Most people don't even bother. All guys and girls are equal under the law, but obviously everybody is different. As with church-state separation.. what people do in their private free time in the space that the law allows, well.. nobody really cares. That people sometimes have opinions about what others do in their free time or bedroom... what's new.

There is some pressure on laws and constitution of people who want to change it in their own favor and at the cost of others... but it really is scratching on the surface. Islamic fundamentalists try to change some laws but it's not more than throwing some fire crackers at the Dutch dikes. Nothing is forever.. but those will hold for considerable time.

One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Parodite wrote:I don't think multiculturalism here is as big an issue it is claimed to be to begin with. Most people don't even bother. All guys and girls are equal under the law, but obviously everybody is different. As with church-state separation.. what people do in their private free time in the space that the law allows, well.. nobody really cares. That people sometimes have opinions about what others do in their free time or bedroom... what's new.

There is some pressure on laws and constitution of people who want to change it in their own favor and at the cost of others... but it really is scratching on the surface. Islamic fundamentalists try to change some laws but it's not more than throwing some fire crackers at the Dutch dikes. Nothing is forever.. but those will hold for considerable time.

Don't know much about the topic except from my experiences in the US Midwest and visits to Canada.

In the US Midwest, the place where I worked had a lot of foreign nationals, so the nearby towns were used to foreigners. Never experienced any problems.
Same with the East and West Coast.

Canada seems to have managed to accept a wide diversity of immigrants without making a big issue of it.
The major cities: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are a delight.

Parodite wrote: One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Agreed.

Parodite wrote:I don't think multiculturalism here is as big an issue it is claimed to be to begin with. Most people don't even bother. All guys and girls are equal under the law, but obviously everybody is different. As with church-state separation.. what people do in their private free time in the space that the law allows, well.. nobody really cares. That people sometimes have opinions about what others do in their free time or bedroom... what's new.

There is some pressure on laws and constitution of people who want to change it in their own favor and at the cost of others... but it really is scratching on the surface. Islamic fundamentalists try to change some laws but it's not more than throwing some fire crackers at the Dutch dikes. Nothing is forever.. but those will hold for considerable time.

One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Thank You VERY Much for your post Rhasody Parodite.

it's not more than throwing some fire crackers at the Dutch dikes.

Hoping you are correct but rememberin Pym Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh and the disgraceful way Islamic thugs in Holland behaved afterwards IIRC spitting on a memorial to Van Gogh and harassing Van Gogh's young son, I'm not so sure....

One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Thomas Nast, the great 19th Century American Republican Political Cartoonist who brought down the corruption of Tammany Hall agreed with you on Religious Private Schools and especially public funding for that.. He wanted public schools to inculcate American patriotism and culture...

Thomas Nast (September 27, 1840 – December 7, 1902) was a German-born American caricaturist and editorial cartoonist who was the "Father of the American Cartoon".[1] He was the scourge of Boss Tweed and the Tammany Hall political machine. Among his notable works were the creation of the modern version of Santa Claus and the political symbol of the elephant for the Republican Party. Contrary to popular belief, Nast did not create Uncle Sam (the male personification of the American people), Columbia (the female personification of American values), or the Democratic donkey,[2] though he did popularize these symbols through his art. Nast was associated with the magazine Harper's Weekly from 1859 to 1860 and from 1862 until 1886.

Albert Boime argues that:

As a political cartoonist, Thomas Nast wielded more influence than any other artist of the 19th century. He not only enthralled a vast audience with boldness and wit, but swayed it time and again to his personal position on the strength of his visual imagination. Both Lincoln and Grant acknowledged his effectiveness in their behalf, and as a crusading civil reformer he helped destroy the corrupt Tweed Ring that swindled New York City of millions of dollars. Indeed, his impact on American public life was formidable enough to profoundly affect the outcome of every presidential election during the period 1864 to 1884.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nast

OTOH I have personally seen the damage done by crap public schools......

And I rather doubt that Nast would approve of crap terrorist professors like Bill Ayers* , Bernadine Dohrn and terrorist sympathizers such as Ward Churchill


*Bill Ayers helped launch obama the POS POTUS on his destructive trajectory against America and is suspected of being the true author of at least one of his books...

Parodite wrote: One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Wow. This is ridiculous. You do not own my kids and you do not own me. This is statism unfettered. We have religious schools all over the place and there is no evidence whatsoever of any of your negative predictions.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Cajun children were beaten and forced to kneel on rice in Louisiana. "I will not speak French in the schoolyard!"

First Nations children were taken from their homes and relocated to public boarding schools where they were beaten for speaking their native language.

Non-English conversation was a threat to the centrality of power. Learning English is one thing, but deliberate destruction of non-English speaking was a form of subjugation.

If any of these parties are still alive, it would be interesting to hear what their motivation was at the time.

Saving the heathen children from eternal damnation, saving the children from horrible parents, giving the children a better chance at a good future, building a better society, serving the common good, etc.

I would bet the vast majority were True Believers who were motivated by only the "good intentions" of their day. Those who had the goal of subjugation were probably few.

manolo wrote: So, my view would be that multiculturalism has always been a bit of a non starter with English speakers and we have a lot of catching up to do as the world develops.

That's not too different from how Americans are. I'm not sure what multiculturalism means because it isn't a term that's commonly used in American political discourse except by far right extremists. These nativists have difficulty articulating precisely which aspect of the culture is being threatened by immigrants, especially when reminded that culture is constantly evolving. It's interesting that you mention Spanish because the current wave of anti-immigrant hysteria is directed exclusively at Latin Americans, often without the slightest hint of irony by people living in historically Spanish parts of the country, like Arizona and California. Given the shear number of Latin Americans, some of this push-back is understandable. But it's funny to think that anyone can seriously believe that English will cease to be spoken in the US when English as the global lingua franca is more powerful (and lucrative!) than ever.

Something interesting about die hard anti-immigration advocates is their relatively benign attitude toward Asians when there are blocks of West Coast cities where the signage is almost exclusively written in Hangul or Hanzi. Spanish signage or paperwork, on the other hand, is viewed as an open assault on the primacy of the English language.

I grew up speaking a useless language at home with my parents but am glad I know at least that. Proficiency in a second language increases primary language vocabulary and enhances understanding of its grammar. It also opens a window on an entirely different world because language strongly affects both culture and perception. To speak in another tongue is quite literally to see the world in an entirely different way.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Parodite wrote: One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Wow. This is ridiculous. You do not own my kids and you do not own me. This is statism unfettered. We have religious schools all over the place and there is no evidence whatsoever of any of your negative predictions.

Except for this thread about the evils of accepting cultural diversity

This thread is not about the evils of accepting cultural diversity. If we wanted to do that we would analyze Democrat cities where the public schooled blacks all live in one area, the public schooled hispanics in another and the secular private schooled whites in yet another.

We can do that again if you want to.

I thought the whole point of Multiculturalism is that as individuals we are all special and equal.

But as group identity political tribes, some tribes are more special interest and equal than other tribes.

My apologies to George Orwell.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Parodite wrote: One thing here though I don't like: religious private schools. There is of course tension between rights and social integration. Religious schools are bad because kids with different religious-cultural backgrounds who do no meet and learn to live, play, work together that way before they go to high-school will be less likely to live smoothly in a cultural diversity later in life.

Wow. This is ridiculous. You do not own my kids and you do not own me. This is statism unfettered. We have religious schools all over the place and there is no evidence whatsoever of any of your negative predictions.

I said I don't like them, not that the state should forbid them. Although there is a discussion...

Don't know how schools, also private ones, in the US get their license.. but here there is a minimum curriculum requirement. And there are regular quality checks and standardized tests to help teachers and parents make the appropriate highschool choice for the child. In other words.. it is not without... omg... regulation. How is that in the USA?

The highly regulated Public Schools are producing the worst outcomes in our history.

ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WHEN YOU SEE A PUBLIC SCHOOL RUN FOR YOU LIFE.

Private schools religious and otherwise compete with everyone for students, so there is no need for regulation whatsoever.

Mr. Perfect wrote:The highly regulated Public Schools are producing the worst outcomes in our history.

ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WHEN YOU SEE A PUBLIC SCHOOL RUN FOR YOU LIFE.

Private schools religious and otherwise compete with everyone for students, so there is no need for regulation whatsoever.

Here all public schools, highschools and universities are of good-very good quality. Why is it that the USA fails and the Netherlands succeeds?

I'll give you one guess.

multiculturalism is a lie, the law is the law and the dominant culture sets the law.

a tolerant multiracial monoculture is nice.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Cajun children were beaten and forced to kneel on rice in Louisiana. "I will not speak French in the schoolyard!"

First Nations children were taken from their homes and relocated to public boarding schools where they were beaten for speaking their native language.

Non-English conversation was a threat to the centrality of power. Learning English is one thing, but deliberate destruction of non-English speaking was a form of subjugation.

Nonc Hilaire,


When the hearings on Canada's Residential Schools were being conducted some teachers were still alive who were allowed to speak. Some of the students remembered them fondly.


I covered this topic here:


viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1290&p=58431&hilit=memphis#p58431



Something that really isn't talked about much publicly in this country is the high percentage of Native kids who end up being adopted or fostered out to others. The rate of alcohol, drug, and physical abuse in Native communities is extraordinarily high. This is, in fact, a major impetus for moving away from the reserve, where, unfortunately, without adequate education or contacts, they can become prey to abusive individuals on the streets of the big city.


But the state of present-day affairs gives you some insight to why the Residential Schools were created in the first place: Kids were being neglected and abused at home. Their culture had been destroyed by an economy that made their former way of life both impossible and undesirable.

Mr. Perfect wrote:The highly regulated Public Schools are producing the worst outcomes in our history.

ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WHEN YOU SEE A PUBLIC SCHOOL RUN FOR YOU LIFE.

Private schools religious and otherwise compete with everyone for students, so there is no need for regulation whatsoever.

Public schools are highly dependent on neighborhood. On the whole, areas with well-regarded private schools also have public schools of comparable quality (certainly not an order-of-magnitude difference). Controlled for socioeconomic background, US public schools fare as well as other OECD nations on the PISA tests.

As a sample data point, I'm a product of the public education system, and I'm doing great!