|
Post by Melnorme on Aug 25, 2004 10:52:53 GMT -5
'Multiculturalism' is idiotic. Every nation has the right to declare and enforce the superiority of one particular culture within its borders. A nation that cannot do this will not remain a proper nation for very long.
|
|
|
Post by pconroy on Aug 25, 2004 11:21:21 GMT -5
'Multiculturalism' is idiotic. Every nation has the right to declare and enforce the superiority of one particular culture within its borders. A nation that cannot do this will not remain a proper nation for very long. I don't agree with points one and three. Could you give some examples to illustrate these points, and clarify what you mean by "proper nation".
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Aug 25, 2004 11:43:44 GMT -5
Could you give some examples to illustrate these points, and clarify what you mean by "proper nation". A nation can have 'multiple cultures', but one of them must rule over the others as a 'core culture'. Otherwise the people have nothing to unite around and the nation crumbles. Yes, I'm a fan of Samuel Huntington. www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200404280850.asp
|
|
|
Post by pconroy on Aug 25, 2004 12:11:27 GMT -5
A nation can have 'multiple cultures', but one of them must rule over the others as a 'core culture'. Otherwise the people have nothing to unite around and the nation crumbles. Yes, I'm a fan of Samuel Huntington. www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200404280850.aspWhat I mean by multiculturalism is that a nation should allow multiple cultures to co-exist, and not discriminate against minority cultures, as I think competition in the marketplace will eventually sort this out itself. The rule of law in a given nation is obviously based on the founding culture's mores. So in a sense this enforces a given culture's values, and I don't see the need to go beyond that to enforce the rule of one culture over others. However I think a nation should endevour to limit the number of national languages to as few as possible, probably one, and actively promote this language. This would not prohibit speakers of other languages from expressing themselves in their native languages, but would allow the economy to operate efficiently. Can you cite some examples of nations crumbling under the strain of multiple cultures? I don't agree that America is crumbling, I definately think it is changing, and probably always will.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Aug 25, 2004 12:59:36 GMT -5
No, its delusional to think that your country can remain the same, locked in a time warp. That's the kind of inward thinking that Al-Qaida promotes, and it is what ruined the Arabic lands of the Middle East. It is also the policy that ruined the Chinese civilization - which was centuries ahead of the West, until they went into a deep freeze for a few hundred years. Economic progress by definition means change - you can't have progress without change. So if you don't want to change, then you won't have economic progress. Why do you think America is so successful, it's because it is not concerned about remaining the same, it welcomes change, innovation and ambitious, dynamic and entrepreneurial people - regardless of race or ethnicity. Yes, as it's these countries which are the drivers of the international economy, and so its to these countries that would be emigrants look. You may point out that Japan doesn't seem to be welcoming immigrants and they have a successful economy, and you'd be right. But they are suffering as a result, and their economy has been in reverse for much of the last 2 decades. One of their most successful young entrepreneurs by the way is Masayoshi Son - who is the son of Korean immigrants. The way I see it, you have a choice, you can have robust growth and wealth creation, along with immigration and multiculturalism, or you can become a country of Luddites and live in the past, and suffer economic and cultural stagnation. I don´t see why ethnolysis (ethnic replacement) should be a consequence of progress and economic growth. You mention Japan: you could also mention China and India, where foreigners are far from welcome, and they seem to be doing well, or better than in ther past at least. On the contrary, by importing Third World inmigrants, you are sure to import backwardness and Luddism, along with incompetence, ethnic and religious strife, and assorted social problems that end up diverting ressources and draining the economy. The USA come to my mind, that´s correct. The problem with qualified and high IQ inmigrants, on the other hand, is that they are far more needed in their countries of origin than in Europe. We have plenty of bright and qualified citizens, no need to look abroad.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Aug 25, 2004 13:06:58 GMT -5
Well, PC, I can go part of the way with you but not the whole route. I approve of the free market (see my previous post on this thread as 'recluse') and I agree that you can't freeze a nation in amber. After all, immigration IS healthy change and no assimilation is ever complete, therefore, all immigration entails change to the dominant culture. But as much as I admire them, I could never completely agree with the anarcho-capitalist and dynamist points of view. Allow me to muse over a few reasons why. 1) For one thing, there's the absorptive limitations of communities that I mentioned: governmental and social services. A good economy needs law enforcement, good roads, waste management, protection from fires, etc. 2) Gradual change is healthy, but chaos isn't. If I never know where anything is because everything keeps moving or if I'm changing jobs every year because the economy is in an insanely constant state of flux, if the certitudes of life change from week to week then there's something wrong. Eventually only a handful of people will be able to keep up and we'll have a society that is spinning its wheels, not moving anywhere. 3) There's another problem with the purely economic view. People who are good at business and many other things aren't necessarily part of the culture that created the culture that made the free trade zone possible in the first place. Specifically, many people have no cultural skill in collective self-government. In a previous thread I pointed to the inspiring and heroic example of the Mayans and mestizos of Belize. www.belizenet.com/history/chap8.htmlScroll down to the section, entitled "The Mestizo and the Maya." These Mestizos and Mayans were refugees from the Casta wars in Yucatan. Between 1848 and 1857, these small farmers practically created a sugar industry in Belize and were exporting surplus sugar to Britain. However, this heroic feat was only possible because there was an Anglo cultural backdrop of self-government, private property rights and law and order. Had the Mayans and mestizos overwhelmed Belize with immigration, there's no guarantee that they wouldn't have destroyed that backdrop, thereby ruining their chances. In fact, it's probable that they would have done exactly that. 4) Finally, there's the question of cultural suicide. You could make a rational case that a people will recognize the inferiority of its own culture and encourage people of a superior culture to move in and replace it with something better. Perhaps, you can find an example of this in history. I can't think of one. But in any case, if people don't want to kill their own culture, shouldn't they have the choice? Isn't it precisely the lack of a choice that leads to racism and other forms of xenophobia? So, if possible, let's have change that more resembles that of a glacier, not that of a flood. (Please excuse the loggorhea.)
|
|
|
Post by pconroy on Aug 25, 2004 13:26:39 GMT -5
I don´t see why ethnolysis (ethnic replacement) should be a consequence of progress and economic growth. You mention Japan: you could also mention China and India, where foreigners are far from welcome, and they seem to be doing well, or better than in ther past at least. On the contrary, by importing Third World inmigrants, you are sure to import backwardness and Luddism, along with incompetence, ethnic and religious strife, and assorted social problems that end up diverting ressources and draining the economy. The USA come to my mind, that´s correct. The problem with qualified and high IQ inmigrants, on the other hand, is that they are far more needed in their countries of origin than in Europe. We have plenty of bright and qualified citizens, no need to look abroad. Who's talking about "ethnolysis" - all immigrants will be more or less assimilated eventually. Even the notorious Amish people, though shunning assimilation, earn a lot of revenue from tourism, and selling "organic" products and "handmade" artifacts to the larger population - a sign of some assimilation. Let history be your guide. In the time of the Great Famine in Ireland (Irish genocide), during the mid 19 th century, millions of destitute, illiterate, non-Protestant, non-English speaking peasants flowed into the US from Ireland. They were shunned, described as White Apes or White Ni**ers and some people feared the end of society as they knew it, but look what happened instead. Today Irish-Americans have the second highest education achievement, after Askenazi Jews, have a higher than average standard of living, speak English, more identify as Protestant than Catholic and are totally integrated into society. In fact since Jack Kennedy became president, all following presidents, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson, have been mostly ethnically Irish.
|
|
|
Post by pconroy on Aug 25, 2004 13:51:38 GMT -5
The problem with qualified and high IQ inmigrants, on the other hand, is that they are far more needed in their countries of origin than in Europe. We have plenty of bright and qualified citizens, no need to look abroad. Indian and Chinese engineers who choose to return to their native countries, after spending some time in the US and absorbing US economic principals and culture, in turn act as goodwill ambasadors for the US, as well as being able to use their trans-national contacts to create new business opportunities for trade between the US and their country. This is exactly what is happening, and has been happening. Using my example of the Irish, you can see how companies founded by Irish-Americans, like Ford Motors, Dell Computers, Intel and Sun Microsystems have established business in Ireland. While Irish founded companies like Parthus Ceva, Baltimore Technologies have established business in the US. So much so that Irish success in America, has infleunced and directly transformed Ireland, with its Celtic Tiger economy, into one of the few recent economic success stories in Europe. In fact outside American, probably Ireland (or Finland) are the nearest countries in term of Free Market Capitalism to the US model. So increased bi-lateral trade, business opportunities and cross-cultural ties are the net results.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Aug 25, 2004 14:11:16 GMT -5
Who's talking about "ethnolysis" - all immigrants will be more or less assimilated eventually. Even the notorious Amish people, though shunning assimilation, earn a lot of revenue from tourism, and selling "organic" products and "handmade" artifacts to the larger population - a sign of some assimilation. Let history be your guide. In the time of the Great Famine in Ireland (Irish genocide), during the mid 19 th century, millions of destitute, illiterate, non-Protestant, non-English speaking peasants flowed into the US from Ireland. They were shunned, described as White Apes or White Ni**ers and some people feared the end of society as they knew it, but look what happened instead. Today Irish-Americans have the second highest education achievement, after Askenazi Jews, have a higher than average standard of living, speak English, more identify as Protestant than Catholic and are totally integrated into society. In fact since Jack Kennedy became president, all following presidents, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson, have been mostly ethnically Irish. What worked in the past may not work today. Indeed, all available evidence points that late 20th century inmigrants are not assimilating well anywhere, whether in the USA or in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Aug 25, 2004 14:18:13 GMT -5
Indian and Chinese engineers who choose to return to their native countries, after spending some time in the US and absorbing US economic principals and culture, in turn act as goodwill ambasadors for the US, as well as being able to use their trans-national contacts to create new business opportunities for trade between the US and their country. This is exactly what is happening, and has been happening. Using my example of the Irish, you can see how companies founded by Irish-Americans, like Ford Motors, Dell Computers, Intel and Sun Microsystems have established business in Ireland. While Irish founded companies like Parthus Ceva, Baltimore Technologies have established business in the US. So much so that Irish success in America, has infleunced and directly transformed Ireland, with its Celtic Tiger economy, into one of the few recent economic success stories in Europe. In fact outside American, probably Ireland (or Finland) are the nearest countries in term of Free Market Capitalism to the US model. So increased bi-lateral trade, business opportunities and cross-cultural ties are the net results. Those are not direct results, but rather by-products. You cannot base the inmigration policy of a nation on speculating whether some inmigrants are going to go back to the old country and build companies. I agree with GhostofRecluse: gradual changes are best digested by a nation.
|
|
|
Post by pconroy on Aug 25, 2004 14:52:46 GMT -5
Those are not direct results, but rather by-products. You cannot base the inmigration policy of a nation on speculating whether some inmigrants are going to go back to the old country and build companies. I agree with GhostofRecluse: gradual changes are best digested by a nation. Four of the companies I mentioned are major US corporations, so there is a direct payoff to the US. I agree that gradual change is best, but we probably disagree on what gradual means. In the late 1840's when the Irish invaded the US, 1.5 million people came over in just 4 years, to a population which was only 13 million, so this wave equalled almost 12% of the then population. That would be equivalent to 36 million arriving in 4 years today (assuming a US pop. of 300 million) - or 9 million a year. I'm not suggesting that this would be good - as the Irish influx led to riots, murder and civil disobedience, for a while - just that currently we only get a fraction of that number today.
|
|
|
Post by pconroy on Aug 25, 2004 15:18:45 GMT -5
2) Gradual change is healthy, but chaos isn't. If I never know where anything is because everything keeps moving or if I'm changing jobs every year because the economy is in an insanely constant state of flux, if the certitudes of life change from week to week then there's something wrong. Eventually only a handful of people will be able to keep up and we'll have a society that is spinning its wheels, not moving anywhere. I agree that the economy is in a state of flux, but that is not related to immigration, but rather the advance of technology and innovation. There are other countries who have advanced at a much more stupendous rate and have survived - for instance Taiwan, which was an island of peasant farmers till the 1950's and by the 1980's was a high-tech economy - a time span of 30 years to go from third-world to first-world, or about one generation. When McArthur was the military ruler of Japan, in the wake of the Japanese capitulation, certain members of the elite in Japan were pushing for the adoption of English as the national language - McArthur was against this, but he did write a constitution for Japan based on the US model. Didn't the Herrero people of Namibia, greatly admire the German settlers in their midst and sought to be like them, so much so that they disbanded their national costume and many customs, to dress like Bavarians and speak German - I have to search for a link to this. I agree that many people are afraid of the pace of change, and are acutely aware that this pace is quickening, but the answer is not to blame the immigrants, rather to adapt, stay current and keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by BallisticaNervosa on Aug 25, 2004 20:41:23 GMT -5
I don't know if it's been asked already, but I will ask anyway: What do you guys think of non-European white immigration into Europe? Do you also subscribe to such notions as plied to non-whites?
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Aug 26, 2004 10:55:13 GMT -5
I don't know if it's been asked already, but I will ask anyway: What do you guys think of non-European white immigration into Europe? Do you also subscribe to such notions as plied to non-whites? I am affraid I do not understand your question. Do you mean if we Europeans resent White inmigrants from the Americas, australia and other parts of the world? If that is your question, my answer is that we do not need inmigrants wherever they are from.
|
|
|
Post by BallisticaNervosa on Aug 28, 2004 16:04:39 GMT -5
I am affraid I do not understand your question. Do you mean if we Europeans resent White inmigrants from the Americas, australia and other parts of the world? If that is your question, my answer is that we do not need inmigrants wherever they are from. That was the question. Thanks for answering. It's just that I have read opinions of people from Europe who say that they wouldn't mind immigration at all if the immigrants were white.
|
|