Non-Hispanic Whites Now Minority Births

[Strike For The South]

It was a good run fellas. We are now unwashed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457

[Greyblades]

Heh, you've just gone from the unwashed masses to simply being the unwashed, you'll survive.

[gaelic cowboy]

It was a good run fellas. We are now unwashed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457

Might have to give the Cession States back then so

Texas naturally gets independence.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I can only guess as to what the consequences of this will be.

I know that there is this perception that the USA is somehow unique in that it can supposedly function and prosper even if it lacks the homogenous population that is usually required for a successful nation state. And I think this idea comes from the fact that it was historically populated by a lot of different ethnic groups.

Of course it is usually pointed out that the Germans or the Irish were once regarded in much the same way as Hispanics are nowadays. But I think that was different... those groups were so similar to the typical white American in terms of culture, religion, and at a more base level, even appearance.

With Hispanics, integration might not be so easy. Although crucially, they are at least part of the Christian world, which goes a long way to helping them fit it, as the experience of Europe with Muslims shows.

But don't think the USA is untouchable in terms of its territorial or cultural integrity. If you fill a country with third world people you are going to get third world problems. I suppose a lot will hinge on how well those born to 1st generation Mexican immigrants integrate.

[Kadagar_AV]

If you fill a country with third world people you are going to get third world problems.

That kind of sums it up imho.

[Vladimir]

Yea! Now I can start calling people who don't look like me racist! :party:

[Tuuvi]

I can only guess as to what the consequences of this will be.

I know that there is this perception that the USA is somehow unique in that it can supposedly function and prosper even if it lacks the homogenous population that is usually required for a successful nation state. And I think this idea comes from the fact that it was historically populated by a lot of different ethnic groups.

Of course it is usually pointed out that the Germans or the Irish were once regarded in much the same way as Hispanics are nowadays. But I think that was different... those groups were so similar to the typical white American in terms of culture, religion, and at a more base level, even appearance.

With Hispanics, integration might not be so easy. Although crucially, they are at least part of the Christian world, which goes a long way to helping them fit it, as the experience of Europe with Muslims shows.

But don't think the USA is untouchable in terms of its territorial or cultural integrity. If you fill a country with third world people you are going to get third world problems. I suppose a lot will hinge on how well those born to 1st generation Mexican immigrants integrate.

I have a lot of Hispanic friends and I deal with Hispanic people on a regular basis at work and I've been under the impression that they integrate pretty well for the most part. The only Hispanics I've met that didn't speak English were either newly immigrated or older. Some Latinos that were born here don't even speak Spanish, or they speak it with a "white" accent.

The US is different from Europe in that our immigrants come from countries that border us directly, so certain parts of the US were saturated with the immigrant culture already. I think most of the problems that come from Hispanic immigration stem from the fact that thousands of them came here illegally, not because Latino culture can't integrate with American culture.

[rajpoot]

I always thought that with all the liberals in the USA something like this would be happy news.

[rvg]

I always thought that with all the liberals in the USA something like this would be happy news.

It's neither happy nor unhappy. Nor is it news.

[HoreTore]

This is only a concern for those who consider hispanics savages.

[rajpoot]

It's neither happy nor unhappy. Nor is it news.

......Because? They are just people like everyone else and even conducting a census of this matter or discussing it means thinking they are different, and that is being racist to some degree?
If that is really your reasoning then I doff my hat to you.

[rvg]

......Because? They are just people like everyone else

Yes, that is my reasoning.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's neither happy nor unhappy. Nor is it news.

I fail to see how such a major demographic shift could not be considered news.

Compared to the US mainstream, these people come from a different culture, a somewhat different religion, a different social class. They will vote differently, speak another language, celebrate different festivals, eat different foods. Their presence brings major political and social implications.

Because these people have come in, even walking down the street will be a completely different experience for you if you live in the areas they do. I don't get how you can't see it as newsworthy.

[Montmorency]

Neither White nor Latin are the homogeneous, monolithic ethnic groups that you imply.

At any rate, we've had a few decades to get used to them. Latin cultures are not at all a foreign thing to Americans.


eat different foods

:inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Neither White nor Latin are the homogeneous, monolithic ethnic groups that you imply.

From my understanding of racial issues in the USA, it is largely determined by skin colour. While you would never talk about someone being ethnically white in Europe for obvious reasons, they seem to in the USA, for similarly obvious reasons.


At any rate, we've had a few decades to get used to them. Latin cultures are not at all a foreign thing to Americans.

As I said it is quite possible that they do integrate and they do share some important cultural characteristics.

As to my comments about their eating habbits, it's relevant. You might like a kebab or some pasta or a fajita or whatever other ethnic foods there are but we are not talking about a bit of variety, we are talking about these becoming dominant.

If you have a massive cultural shift then it's going to affect what you can buy in the shops. That matters more to me than the political side of things. :shrug:

[Papewaio]

Eat different foods? What like potato which yields four times per acre more food calories then wheat. Or corn or chocolate?

I'd like to see a Britain function without potato, corn or chocolate.

Latinos are a mix already of old world and European and African and Japanese and Chinese to differing degrees. They speak Spanish and Portugese, which the last time I looked was a European language.

So you have some of the favourite food staples in Europe, European colonial descendants and major European languages.

[Kadagar_AV]

I thought the article said that white - non - Hispanics are now minority.

So it's not more than 50% Hispanics, it's more than 50% Hispanics combined with Africans, Asians and so on...

Anyway, yes it will lead to a change in national identity, of course.

THIS (http://russellbuchanan.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/50s-family-300x297.jpg) used to be the picture we had of USA.

Of course, I would prefer Hispanics to the Somalis and Afghanis Sweden for some reason seem so fond of.



As a PS, I seriously think USA will break in the next 10 years. The gap between the rich and poor grows wider by the day, and that is only still working because of the American Dream. But hey, soon people will realize that they happily would give up a chance to be filthy rich, in return for food on the table, a steady home, and maybe even a little vacation - without having 3 jobs.

[rvg]

I fail to see how such a major demographic shift could not be considered news.
Of course you will. That's because you approach this from a European perspective.


Compared to the US mainstream, these people come from a different culture, a somewhat different religion, a different social class. They will vote differently, speak another language, celebrate different festivals, eat different foods. Their presence brings major political and social implications.
Wrong. We're talking about babies being born here in the good ole US of A, exposed to American culture, speaking English pretty much everywhere outside of their home. As for religion, Catholicism has been the single largest denomination here for many decades already.


Because these people have come in, even walking down the street will be a completely different experience for you if you live in the areas they do. I don't get how you can't see it as newsworthy.
Really? Should I begin to expect something different from my Colombian next door neighbor?

[Montmorency]

I'm afraid I can't take this seriously. I live in New York City.



[...]we are talking about these becoming dominant.

If you have a massive cultural shift then it's going to affect what you can buy in the shops. That matters more to me than the political side of things.

This in particular is silly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

eat different foods.

You have obviously never been to Southern California.

[HoreTore]

This thread and the replies from the yanks here shows me once again that Europe still has a lot to learn from the US.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm sorry but I have to say I expected this sort of complacency from the Americans on this board.

So apparently I'm wrong because I'm looking at this from a "European perspective". The thing is, there's no reason to believe that if certain patterns are observed in Europe and the same conditions existed in the USA, the patterns could not be observed there as well.

I know there is this idea that America is somehow immune to Balkanization, and that it is infinitely superior to any other nation on the planet and its supposedly tolerant and diverse nature means that it can assimilate any ethnic group.

But there's no reason to believe all that. Your ability to assimilate different immigrant groups is a national myth. American might think the Irish or Germans count, but tbh in Europe if somebody moved from one (western) European state to another, I don't think they would even be considered an immigrant by most people.

The fact is that the demographic changes taking place in America right now are unprecendented, America has never faced anything like it before.

And on the bit about food, I'll not quote every response I'll just answer them here. Firstly, no, I have never been to Southern California, in fact I never leave my 100% white chav-ridden neighbourhood. U MAD? And secondly, the point on New York is silly because it is in fact cosmopolitan and not dominated by any single ethnic group.

[Montmorency]

the point on New York is silly because it is in fact cosmopolitan and not dominated by any single ethnic group.

Neither would America be. That's the point. Hence


Neither White nor Latin are the homogeneous, monolithic ethnic groups that you imply.

E.g. the rising numbers of Latin Evangelicals, both in (and out!) of the US

Edit: Imprecision plagues this thread, as well.

Firstly: Hispanics, as per my point, can be black, white, Asian, what I might oxymoronically call "pure", etc.

Secondly: Kadagar's clarification seems to have passed unnotced. Hispanic births have been dropping (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-27/economy-causes-drop-in-hispanic-births/51425394/1)over the last few years, due to the recession. All minority births combined have outpaced the Non-Hispanic white figures. Hispanics, in all their heterogeneity, seem to make up only a quarter (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0078.pdf)of births.

Are you quite through with the alarmism?

[rvg]

I'm sorry but I have to say I expected this sort of complacency from the Americans on this board.
Why are you sorry? It's great!


So apparently I'm wrong because I'm looking at this from a "European perspective". The thing is, there's no reason to believe that if certain patterns are observed in Europe and the same conditions existed in the USA, the patterns could not be observed there as well.That's right. America is not Europe. Many of us might have European roots, but we're not Europeans. America is not a genetic pattern or a color of one's skin, it's a state of mind. Which is why anybody can become 100% American even if they were born and raised elsewhere.


I know there is this idea that America is somehow immune to Balkanization, and that it is infinitely superior to any other nation on the planet and its supposedly tolerant and diverse nature means that it can assimilate any ethnic group.We can and we do. What's our secret? We do not try to assimilate anybody. Nobody is required to learn English, nobody is required to accept American values or American culture. At the same time, we do not babysit anyone. Everyone is free to succeed or fail.


But there's no reason to believe all that. Your ability to assimilate different immigrant groups is a national myth. American might think the Irish or Germans count, but tbh in Europe if somebody moved from one (western) European state to another, I don't think they would even be considered an immigrant by most people.I find that hard to believe. We hosted a couple of Germans from the parent corporation back a few months ago, and they just kept on harping about how they hate the Dutch. That was after we told them that there are lots of Dutch-Americans in Michigan.


The fact is that the demographic changes taking place in America right now are unprecendented, America has never faced anything like it before.
Been there done that. The Irish, the Chinese, the Jews, the [insert an ethnicity here].

[Rhyfelwyr]

Neither would America be. That's the point.

No. New York is a city. When a city is diverse you call it cosmopolitan. When a nation is racially divided by different ethnic groups each dominating their own respective parts of it, you call it racially divided. Because what functions at the city level doesn't necessarily translate to the national level.

So this is the reality for a future white American in what has become 95% Hispanic Los Angeles. He will walk into a shop to get some burgers and roast chicken and whatever white Americans eat, when suddenly... all they sell is tacos nachos and fajitas. And every shop will be the same. And he will be left wondering how he became a stranger in his own country.

It will be like Chinatown, except the whole town in Chinatown.

Does it sound silly? Well, it won't be so funny when you walk outside your door and that's the reality.


E.g. the rising numbers of Latin Evangelicals, both in (and out!) of the US

If you read my posts you will see that I have acknowledged the cultural closeness and the integration that has already taken place. As I said, the issue is the pace of the demographic change, and whether it will reach a point where the assimilation starts taking place in the opposite direction.

[Xiahou]

It was a good run fellas. We are now unwashed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457Gotta say, I don't really care very much. I never thought of "white people" as a team. :shrug:

I'm more concerned about the economic status of the people who are having kids and what it means for our long-term financial stability as a nation.

[Papewaio]

If you can love, raise a family and have grandchildren who cares which way your genes wandered out of the same patch of Africa.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's right. America is not Europe. Many of us might have European roots, but we're not Europeans. America is not a genetic pattern or a color of one's skin, it's a state of mind. Which is why anybody can become 100% American even if they were born and raised elsewhere.

This is nothing revolutionary, it is bog standard civic nationalism. The same type of nationalism that happens to be dominant in Britain and France, which continue to have serious problems integrating immigrants.


We can and we do. What's our secret? We do not try to assimilate anybody. Nobody is required to learn English, nobody is required to accept American values or American culture. At the same time, we do not babysit anyone. Everyone is free to succeed or fail.

You don't have a secret because you have never really assimilated anybody. Like I said, within Europe, the Irish or Germans wouldn't even count. It's not like we don't have small, successful Asian communities here. But when they start pouring in from the third world, there's gonna be problems.


I find that hard to believe. We hosted a couple of Germans from the parent corporation back a few months ago, and they just kept on harping about how they hate the Dutch. That was after we told them that there are lots of Dutch-Americans in Michigan.

It's a bit of banter you get between neighbouring European states because of their history of conflict and rivalry. It just doesn't compare to say, the culture shock of modern Muslim immigrants. The culture shock aspect of Hispanic immigrants is probably somewhere in between. The might integrate they might not. I just think you are too complacent.


Been there done that. The Irish, the Chinese, the Jews, the [insert an ethnicity here].

I've covered these examples and like I said for you to be complacent based on those experiences just shows that you don't appreciate what is happening right now. IIRC black people make up something like 13% of the US population, so if their birth rates are fairly average then I would expect around 1/3 of the coming generation to be Hispanic (feel free to correct this if wrong).

Now, I'm pretty sure that the Irish, Jews, or Chinese never made up anything like 1/3 of the US population. And out of those lot you only really assimilated the Irish.

What makes you so confident that having a massive Hispanic population won't significantly alter American culture, American politics, everyday American life etc.

[PanzerJaeger]

The only thing that bothers me about Mexicans in particular (and I know that Mexicans only make up a portion of non-white minorities) is Mexico. They seem to have a higher tolerance for corruption, mismanagement, low productivity, and organized crime among many other negatives. The origins of the country are extremely similar to the US, but the culture and/or society just do not seem to work very well in comparison to the US (and I'm certainly not saying the US is perfect). I would hate for such bad habits to be carried over the border and then become commonly accepted as Mexicans become majorities in many areas.

[Montmorency]

Read my edit.

Your predictions are utterly invalid because your premises are utterly flawed.


So this is the reality for a future white American in what has become 95% Hispanic Los Angeles. He will walk into a shop to get some burgers and roast chicken and whatever white Americans eat, when suddenly... all they sell is tacos nachos and fajitas. And every shop will be the same. And he will be left wondering how he became a stranger in his own country.

This amply demonstrates what I mean...

[rvg]

This is nothing revolutionary, it is bog standard civic nationalism. The same type of nationalism that happens to be dominant in Britain and France, which continue to have serious problems integrating immigrants.Well, we don't have those problems.


You don't have a secret because you have never really assimilated anybody.
If you put it that way, then we really have nothing to worry about.


Like I said, within Europe, the Irish or Germans wouldn't even count. It's not like we don't have small, successful Asian communities here. But when they start pouring in from the third world, there's gonna be problems.Then do what we do: stop giving them money. Give nothing and expect nothing in return. Those of them who are worth something will float up, the losers will sink. Either way, they'll only have themselves to thank or to blame.


It's a bit of banter you get between neighbouring European states because of their history of conflict and rivalry. It just doesn't compare to say, the culture shock of modern Muslim immigrants.
I will not dispute that there's more of a gap between euros and muslims than it is between gringos and latinos. Still, the problem is with the European approach to the problem: you're paying them, and expect them to change their ways in return. What you need to do is stop paying them and stop expecting anything. Once the gravy train stops, those who want to succeed will change accordingly.


The culture shock aspect of Hispanic immigrants is probably somewhere in between. The might integrate they might not. I just think you are too complacent.
Latino culture is already a significant part of the mainstream U.S. culture. It's not nearly as much of a culture shock as you might think.


I've covered these examples and like I said for you to be complacent based on those experiences just shows that you don't appreciate what is happening right now. IIRC black people make up something like 13% of the US population, so if their birth rates are fairly average then I would expect around 1/3 of the coming generation to be Hispanic (feel free to correct this if wrong).
And? What difference does it make if the guy next door has the last name Lopez instead of Smith? The American born generation will be overwhelmingly American.


Now, I'm pretty sure that the Irish, Jews, or Chinese never made up anything like 1/3 of the US population. And out of those lot you only really assimilated the Irish.
What makes you so confident that having a massive Hispanic population won't significantly alter American culture, American politics, everyday American life etc.
They already have affected our culture, our politics and our everyday life, and you know what: nothing happened. No lightning bolts have struck. We do not repel other cultures, we absorb them. We take the best out of everything and shed the worst.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Read my edit.

Your predictions are utterly invalid because your premises are utterly flawed.

Read your edit and you didn't really inform me on anything. As usual, the old caveat that the birth rate is dropping amongst immigrant groups is flung out there. Well read the BBC article from the OP. Since 2008, white births fell by 11.4%. For minorities, that figure was was 3.2%. Did Hispanic immigration happen to drop during this recession? Hardly surprising.

As always, everything is dismissed as "alarmism". But here's the reality - you are facing a major demographic shift. In fact it is so dramatic that despite being a nation built by WASP people with uniquely WASP principles, you've got to the stage where you're producing more non-white babies than white ones. There's alarmisn, and then there's denial.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, we don't have those problems.

You don't have problems with minority ethnic groups in the USA? This is the internet but in RL I bet you would have a hard time telling me that with a straight face.


If you put it that way, then we really have nothing to worry about.

You are not concerned that you've never really assimialted any cultural group at a time when the cultural group that your whole nation was founded on has become a minority?


Then do what we do: stop giving them money. Give nothing and expect nothing in return. Those of them who are worth something will float up, the losers will sink. Either way, they'll only have themselves to thank or to blame.

I will not dispute that there's more of a gap between euros and muslims than it is between gringos and latinos. Still, the problem is with the European approach to the problem: you're paying them, and expect them to change their ways in return. What you need to do is stop paying them and stop expecting anything. Once the gravy train stops, those who want to succeed will change accordingly.

This is just free market fanticism. And it ignores the fact that huge numbers of immigrants work illegaly and never receive anything from the state in terms of handouts. Yet there they are, causing problems.


Latino culture is already a significant part of the mainstream U.S. culture. It's not nearly as much of a culture shock as you might think.

This is something I've said myself repeatedly. But you've been having it in light doses so far.


And? What difference does it make if the guy next door has the last name Lopez instead of Smith? The American born generation will be overwhelmingly American.

If I could share your belief that the "American born generation will be overwhelmingly American", and that the only changes would be something as superficial as surnames, I would agree there is nothing to worry about. The point is as I have said I don't share your complacency.


They already have affected our culture, our politics and our everyday life, and you know what: nothing happened. No lightning bolts have struck. We do not repel other cultures, we absorb them. We take the best out of everything and shed the worst.

They've only ever been a tiny minority of the population, around 16%. You might be assimilating and taking the best bits right now, but can you cope with the pace of change that the article in the OP demonstrates?

[PanzerJaeger]

despite being a nation built by WASP people with uniquely WASP principles, you've got to the stage where you're producing more non-white babies than white ones. There's alarmisn, and then there's denial.

This is a valid concern. Will hispanics value and maintain the systems that were built by predominantly Northern European people? Again, Mexico. Or even South Central, LA. This country has absorbed a lot of immigrant influxes, both voluntary and involuntary, but it has been held together and administrated by WASPs.

[rvg]

You don't have problems with minority ethnic groups in the USA? This is the internet but in RL I bet you would have a hard time telling me that with a straight face.
You really find it that hard to believe?


You are not concerned that you've never really assimialted any cultural group at a time when the cultural group that your whole nation was founded on has become a minority?
Nope. No single ethnic group has exclusive rights to this country. This is a nation of immigrants.



This is just free market fanticism. And it ignores the fact that huge numbers of immigrants work illegaly and never receive anything from the state in terms of handouts.
I took the liberty of bolding the important part.


Yet there they are, causing problems.
Such as?


This is something I've said myself repeatedly. But you've been having it in light doses so far.
We have 50+ million Latinos. Hardly a light dose.



If I could share your belief that the "American born generation will be overwhelmingly American", and that the only changes would be something as superficial as surnames, I would agree there is nothing to worry about. The point is as I have said I don't share your complacency.
You don't have to share it.



They've only ever been a tiny minority of the population, around 16%. You might be assimilating and taking the best bits right now, but can you cope with the pace of change that the article in the OP demonstrates?I see no reason why not.

[Montmorency]

Read your edit and you didn't really inform me on anything. As usual, the old caveat that the birth rate is dropping amongst immigrant groups is flung out there. Well read the BBC article from the OP. Since 2008, white births fell by 11.4%. For minorities, that figure was was 3.2%. Did Hispanic immigration happen to drop during this recession? Hardly surprising.

I've noticed that you are now painting it as WASPS vs. the rest. It seems you did take note of he fact that Hispanic births are only a quarter of total births. This is not a demographic whirlwind.

As for WASPS vs. Other - well, I'm not a WASP. Values are broadly shared, however.


This is a valid concern. Will hispanics value and maintain the systems that were built by predominantly Northern European people? Again, Mexico. Or even South Central, LA. This country has absorbed a lot of immigrant influxes, both voluntary and involuntary, but it has been held together and administrated by WASPs.

Corruption is a problem even with a white super-majority. It's really a matter of economic development and civic engagement, when it comes to instilling the desired values.

[Tuuvi]

No. New York is a city. When a city is diverse you call it cosmopolitan. When a nation is racially divided by different ethnic groups each dominating their own respective parts of it, you call it racially divided. Because what functions at the city level doesn't necessarily translate to the national level.

So this is the reality for a future white American in what has become 95% Hispanic Los Angeles. He will walk into a shop to get some burgers and roast chicken and whatever white Americans eat, when suddenly... all they sell is tacos nachos and fajitas. And every shop will be the same. And he will be left wondering how he became a stranger in his own country.

It will be like Chinatown, except the whole town in Chinatown.

Does it sound silly? Well, it won't be so funny when you walk outside your door and that's the reality.



If you read my posts you will see that I have acknowledged the cultural closeness and the integration that has already taken place. As I said, the issue is the pace of the demographic change, and whether it will reach a point where the assimilation starts taking place in the opposite direction.

Just because a nation is multi-racial doesn't mean it has to be racially divided. Mexican people like cheeseburgers and fried chicken too. Minorities seem to have a pretty easy time setting up shops and restaurants that specialize in their cuisine, so why would white people food disappear just because they become the minority?


The only thing that bothers me about Mexicans in particular (and I know that Mexicans only make up a portion of non-white minorities) is Mexico. They seem to have a higher tolerance for corruption, mismanagement, low productivity, and organized crime among many other negatives. The origins of the country are extremely similar to the US, but the culture and/or society just do not seem to work very well in comparison to the US (and I'm certainly not saying the US is perfect). I would hate for such bad habits to be carried over the border and then become commonly accepted as Mexicans become majorities in many areas.

In Mexico the Native Americans were a lot more densely populated than in North America, and they lived in urban societies. Because of this they had to be conquered and assimilated, unlike the US where the Indians were just pushed aside. After the conquest a race-based caste system arose with Indians on the bottom, Mestizos (who make up the majority of the Mexican population) in the middle and the white Spaniards on the top. To this day wealth in Mexico is still divided along those lines. My guess is that this is where a lot of Mexico's problems come from, it's lack of opportunity and social mobility.

[ajaxfetish]

To Rhyfelwyr:

Hispanic people may make up a small part of the total US population, but they compose a much more significant proportion in the southwest, and there white American and Hispanic culture have been in contact for centuries. They've already largely assimilated into American culture, and America has already largely assimilated their culture. The connections between Taco Bell and Mexico are not that strong. And we're talking here about babies born in the US. They're growing up here, already surrounded by this culture, already speaking English, already listening to rap music, already eating at Mickey Dees, already watching American Idol. Are there some differences? Sure. Do they matter? I don't think so.

And this level of demographic shift is hardly unprecedented in American history. It doesn't hold a candle to the shift between 1500 and 1900. Of course the previous culture didn't come through that one too well, but unless you're suggesting that Hispanic immigrants are bringing a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions combined with genocidal intentions, I hardly think this will be so catastrophic.

Ajax

[Centurion1]

The only thing that bothers me about Mexicans in particular (and I know that Mexicans only make up a portion of non-white minorities) is Mexico. They seem to have a higher tolerance for corruption, mismanagement, low productivity, and organized crime among many other negatives. The origins of the country are extremely similar to the US, but the culture and/or society just do not seem to work very well in comparison to the US (and I'm certainly not saying the US is perfect). I would hate for such bad habits to be carried over the border and then become commonly accepted as Mexicans become majorities in many areas.


This is incredibly insulting. Do you know any mexicans Panzer? They are incredibly hard working people and are known for it. If for some reason you see a gaggle of them outside of lowes looking for work and think they are lazy and should get a real job your a fool. They are willing to do whatever work they can get that white, black, and asian americans are too good for and they will do it for less. I don't want them to be paid less but those are still commendable qualities. We could ask for far worse immigrant populations moving in and shifting the culture than hard working, predominantly catholic, individuals. I would prefer our situation to our European friends'.

Also I'm talking about mexicans in particular not other latinos.

[Strike For The South]

Panzer is right. However, I am no more worried about the Mexicans than the Irish or the Italians. A heavy catholic influence generally hurts property rights and leads to the wealth being collected in oligarchies. The Mexicans may tolerate those things but only because that the way the rich act in their country and the church is in cahoots.

Also it's a misnomer that illegals will do jobs Americans wont. Those jobs do not pay anywhere near a livable wage, even if you are skimping on taxes. These illegals conger-agate around the main area of employment and leave the thing a mess.

I can't fault them thought, I fault the business owners and the American consumer

[Major Robert Dump]

Panzers post wasn't offensive. He was not criticizing mexicans in america, he was criticizing the mexican national government and psyche. I suggest reading up on what is going on south of the border, as it is already spreading to south texas in some cases. And yes, the idea that mexicans do jobs that americans won't is completely false. The reality is that american employers aren't willing to pay a livable wage, and migrant workers often live in overcrowded quarters and go without certain novelty things like auto insurance, so they can work for less.

Am I not allowed to say Cracker on this board?

[Papewaio]

Am I not allowed to say Cracker on this board?

Can I call you Polly?

[HoreTore]

lol Rhy.

German and Irish immigration doesn't count as immigration? People moving from one state in europe to another wouldn't make a fuzz? History shows otherwise. I suggest you read up on the immigration waves to Britain in the 1800's. Only white europeans, no sign of peaceful acceptante, lots of hate.

Here's a linky to get you started:

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/three-myths-of-immigration/

[HoreTore]

This is a valid concern. Will hispanics value and maintain the systems that were built by predominantly Northern European people? Again, Mexico. Or even South Central, LA. This country has absorbed a lot of immigrant influxes, both voluntary and involuntary, but it has been held together and administrated by WASPs.

No PJ, you're run by the Jews in the New World Order-program. Wake up sheeple!

[Greyblades]

Can I call you Polly?

http://motivationalmaker.com/saved_posters/poster_p42hhb7gkc.jpg

[Kadagar_AV]

People seem to think that the USA is succeeding in its assimilation...

1. You have areas called "China Town" and so on... That points to ethnological boundaries within the society they live in, even the local one.

2. How big a percentage of the population is black? How big a percentage of the prison population is black? Don't tell me you don't have racial problems.


From my perspective, the USA only do as well as you do because, well, you do as well as you do. Being The Super Power and richest country make people by default accept things they normally wouldn't.

However, what will happen in a few years when the USA no longer have this leading position, and I think we all agree you are heading there.

Look at South Africa, look at former Yugoslavia... That should give you somewhat of an idea what happens when people suddenly go "uh, why is that group having all the money".

I have yet to see a historical case of multiculturalism working well within a national boundary. And I don't understand the nations who want to compete to be the first. Might it work? Mmmmmmaybe. Nobody knows.

Might it crash and burn and scar the nation forever? Historically very very very likely.


With that said Rhy, your food argument is just silly. The food is probably the only positive effect of immigration I can think of. And with all the real drawbacks around, it seems counter productive to your argument to focus on it.

[Vladimir]

The Backroom needs a Twitter feed. There's no way I can keep up by just visiting the site.

[HoreTore]

The US is a perfect example of multiculturalism working well, kadagar. Another example would be France, in the days when it was a major superpower.

Bergen is a third example, a city who gained exceptional wealth by Norwegian standards through its influx of germans.

[Kadagar_AV]

The US... A bit too early to tell isn't it? We'll see what will be said in 300 years.

France... What period do you mean? The time around the French Revolution? If so, heard about the French Revolution?

Bergen... is a city, not a nation last I checked? Also, Germans and Norwegians are quite close in many things, not comparable to, say, MENA people.

[Vladimir]

The US... A bit too early to tell isn't it? We'll see what will be said in 300 years.

France... What period do you mean? The time around the French Revolution? If so, heard about the French Revolution?

Bergen... is a city, not a nation last I checked? Also, Germans and Norwegians are quite close in many things, not comparable to, say, MENA people.

I have missed you so. You are absolutely right: The U.S. will fall apart tomorrow.

I believe the French revolution was due to a large influx of Muslims from north Africa.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have missed you so. You are absolutely right: The U.S. will fall apart tomorrow.

I believe the French revolution was due to a large influx of Muslims from north Africa.

That is what you understood from my post? That the USA will fall apart tomorrow and that the French Revolution was due to Muslims?

[HoreTore]

Kadagars statement that Germans and Norwegians are "quite close" is proof of how well multiculturalism works. Such a thing would never have been said in the 1800's, except by a handful of radicals(like Bjørnson for a couple of years).

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagars statement that Germans and Norwegians are "quite close" is proof of how well multiculturalism works. Such a thing would never have been said in the 1800's, except by a handful of radicals(like Bjørnson for a couple of years).

Yes, and if aliens landed and started to mingle with us we would look at radical Muslims like "quite close".

What is your point here? In the 1800's people had nothing to compare to, so of course they complained when sauerkraut was made on Norwegian soil. Maybe they even, rightfully, complained that they took the jobs from Norwegians?

That is hardly comparable to now.

We have not seen rapid changes in cultural unity and foreigner intake like this since the Roman Empire fell.

[HoreTore]

The linky a few posts up disproves that last statement well.

Anyway, I forgot the most shining example of multiculturalism; India.

India is not progressing in spite of multiculturalism, it is progressing because of it. In fact the country only stays together because of it. Imagine a balkanized India, where every ethnic group has their own state. My guess is that it would've made Congo look like a peaceful paradise. The India-Pakistan tensions gives a clue as to what happens when homogenous states are created.

[gaelic cowboy]

The linky a few posts up disproves that last statement well.

Anyway, I forgot the most shining example of multiculturalism; India.

India is not progressing in spite of multiculturalism, it is progressing because of it. In fact the country only stays together because of it. Imagine a balkanized India, where every ethnic group has their own state. My guess is that it would've made Congo look like a peaceful paradise. The India-Pakistan tensions gives a clue as to what happens when homogenous states are created.

Hmm I dunno about that there are several violent insurgencies inside India like the Naxalites and other groups. Often it only takes a one rumour to start serious violence and the bookies are taking bets on how many muslims will get killed in a riot etc.

[Lemur]

Meh, this country still hasn't properly assimilated the Irish and the Polish. We're doomed, doomed I tell you!

My personal favorite headline so far: Army Of Minority Babies Prepares Crushing Assault On All Whites (http://wonkette.com/472953/army-of-minority-babies-prepares-crushing-assault-on-all-whites)

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm in order for whites to be the minority dont you need to add up black, muslim, hispanic, asian and whatever else takes your fancy.

I'm no expert on racial relations or innercity life apart from episodes of the Wire but Hispanics and Blacks are hardly getting along are they?

Therfore White Merric still rules and by the time Hispanics pass them they will be classed as white too just like Italians, Irish or Poles.

[rajpoot]

HoreTore

I consider myself to be a liberal but TBH saying that a country (any country, India, USA etc) progresses because of multiculturalism is probably going too far.
Don't get me wrong. It's a very beautiful concept, very seemly. Unity in diversity. Many people of different kinds brought together by a common national cause. But it's a lie. To sustain a state with so many different cultures requires a lot more effort. The crap the state has to face is as varied as the cultures that are part of it.
I honestly believe that India would've been better off had everyone here been a Hindu or a Muslim, or a Dravidian or an Aryan.
Would a single culture be easier, smoother and generally more conducive to progress, yes. Would it have been as......wonderful? No.

All that said, the struggle is probably worth it. No one has really succeeded as yet, but when they do, I'm sure it will be worth it.

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore

I consider myself to be a liberal but TBH saying that a country (any country, India, USA etc) progresses because of multiculturalism is probably going too far.
Don't get me wrong. It's a very beautiful concept, very seemly. Unity in diversity. Many people of different kinds brought together by a common national cause. But it's a lie. To sustain a state with so many different cultures requires a lot more effort. The crap the state has to face is as varied as the cultures that are part of it.
I honestly believe that India would've been better off had everyone here been a Hindu or a Muslim, or a Dravidian or an Aryan.
Would a single culture be easier, smoother and generally more conducive to progress, yes. Would it have been as......wonderful? No.

All that said, the struggle is probably worth it. No one has really succeeded as yet, but when they do, I'm sure it will be worth it.

You seriously think the possibility of succeeding is worth the price of failure?

Again - Yugoslavia...

[rajpoot]

You seriously think the possibility of succeeding is worth the price of failure?

Again - Yugoslavia...

If you know a way to prevent different cultures from entering into one country, let me know. Till then, to succeed is the only option. And it's worth it, when compared with failure.

[Vladimir]

You seriously think the possibility of succeeding is worth the price of failure?

Again - Yugoslavia...

Success is always worth the risk of failure.

[gaelic cowboy]

Success is always worth the risk of failure.

Except people cannot agree what success is in this case.

[rajpoot]

Except people cannot agree what success is in this case.

That's the clever bit. Success would be when everyone agrees that they've succeeded.

[Greyblades]

That's the clever bit. Success would be when everyone agrees that they've succeeded. By that standard everything that has ever been done, ever, has been a failure.

[Kadagar_AV]

Success is always worth the risk of failure.

This argument is so stupid I barely know how to respond.

I want to fly, but I would not jump of the roof thinking success is worth the price of failure. You would?

[rajpoot]

By that standard everything that has ever been done, ever, has been a failure.

Not in this case.
You'll know that you've succeeded in bringing harmony to the different cultures when they all agree that they have harmony.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not in this case.
You'll know that you've succeeded in bringing harmony to the different cultures when they all agree that they have harmony.

Wehrmacht tried, went so/so...

[Greyblades]

Not in this case.
You'll know that you've succeeded in bringing harmony to the different cultures when they all agree that they have harmony.

Hah.
In every issue there is always someone who will say it was a failure, and they will truely believe it.

[Vladimir]

This argument is so stupid I barely know how to respond.

I want to fly, but I would not jump of the roof thinking success is worth the price of failure. You would?

Try. I would build a machine that flies, use a bungee cord, parachute, hang glider, etc. It's pretty simple.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not in this case.
You'll know that you've succeeded in bringing harmony to the different cultures when they all agree that they have harmony.


We must court disharmony now in order to achieve a potential racial and demographic nirvana which nobody can agree is either achievable or acceptable at present.

Seems to me that to ignore this would be folly.

[rajpoot]

We must court disharmony now in order to achieve a potential racial and demographic nirvana which nobody can agree is either achievable or acceptable at present.

Seems to me that to ignore this would be folly.

Like I said before, I don't think there is an alternative. One has to accept that as the population grows different people will come together. To try and make it work is the only way out.


Wehrmacht tried, went so/so...

Actually they tried to exterminate other cultures. I'm talking about harmony achieved through tolerance.

[Kadagar_AV]

[QUOTE=rajpoot;2053450973]

Want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

When you can make a person tolerant, then you can try with humanity. Until that point in time...

[Vladimir]

Want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

When you can make a person tolerant, then you can try with humanity. Until that point in time...

I think what he's trying to say is that there is a net gain. Genetically, ideologically, and culturally isolated societies may work but they're not desirable. Forced multiculturalism is different than gradual integration and the reason that it doesn't work is largely due to people like you who make decisions based on emotion.

This isn't the slopes man.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think what he's trying to say is that there is a net gain. Genetically, ideologically, and culturally isolated societies may work but they're not desirable. Forced multiculturalism is different than gradual integration and the reason that it doesn't work is largely due to people like you who make decisions based on emotion.

This isn't the slopes man.

Don't you yourself see the obvious flaw in your reasoning?

No forced multiculturalism will never work, as people like me will make decisions based on emotion - IE - "You ******* Muslim trash raped my little sister because she has a short skirt so now I'll kick the living **** out of any Muslim I see if I have half the chance".

Am I saying it is right? No.

I am saying it is HUMAN.



I have no idea what you mean with your comment that this forum is not a slope, seems kind of obvious to me. Or did you mean that people are less tolerant on the slopes... Or what?

[rajpoot]

Kadagar_AV

But the point is it is working to some degree over here. That is it is possible that if everyone puts in a little more effort, it can work out.
Where's your faith?

And furthermore I ask again, what other alternative do you have? You can't stop people from migrating. You can' stop children from being born.
The only one I know of is the one you mentioned yourself earlier on, and yeah like you said, it did not work out very well.

[Vladimir]

Don't you yourself see the obvious flaw in your reasoning?

No forced multiculturalism will never work, as people like me will make decisions based on emotion - IE - "You ******* Muslim trash raped my little sister because she has a short skirt so now I'll kick the living **** out of any Muslim I see if I have half the chance".

Am I saying it is right? No.

I am saying it is HUMAN.



I have no idea what you mean with your comment that this forum is not a slope, seems kind of obvious to me. Or did you mean that people are less tolerant on the slopes... Or what?

Sorry. Skiing reference. I'm saying that this isn't as intuitive as that and you're reacting emotionally.

Many bad things are in human nature; most people choose not to express them. It seems like you're treating the extreme minority as the majority.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar_AV

But the point is it is working to some degree over here. That is it is possible that if everyone puts in a little more effort, it can work out.
Where's your faith?

And furthermore I ask again, what other alternative do you have? You can't stop people from migrating. You can' stop children from being born.
The only one I know of is the one you mentioned yourself earlier on, and yeah like you said, it did not work out very well.

rajpoot,

Location: Neverland.

I think you just made my point for me.

[rajpoot]

I can put Timbuktoo in there if it makes a difference. ~:rolleyes:

What's your point anyway?

[Kadagar_AV]

Vladimir, People will be people... We are emotional as a race. I see the human race as it is, you see it as you want, and hope, it will be. I used to do that too, before I took to much damage from it. Now I accept humanity as it IS, and try to make my decisions on how humanity is, not how I want it to be. I will try to push people in the direction I want it to be, free borders and so on... But I do not allow free borders FIRST, and try to change humanity AFTERWARDS. Of course I want a free world, who would not? But there are quite a number of things we would have to eradicate before that comes true, religions, or different religions, being the primary factor imho.

rajpoot, What's my point? If you don't see the funny side of it, I don't know how to help you.

[rajpoot]

rajpoot, What's my point? If you don't see the funny side of it, I don't know how to help you.

I'm all for jokes and funny stuff. It's just that I'm slow on the uptake, specially in the Backroom. Use :clown:

[Kadagar_AV]

well then, if you are slow on the uptake, I don't know how to help you either (without looking like a clown).

[Montmorency]

The simple solution is for the state to silence people like Kadagar. That way, those remaining will live with each other easily enough.

Also, more job openings.

When shall the crackdown commence?

[Kadagar_AV]

Edit: I was stupid.

Thanks ACIN

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think you completely got what Monty was saying.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Vladimir, People will be people... We are emotional as a race. I see the human race as it is, you see it as you want, and hope, it will be. I used to do that too, before I took to much damage from it. Now I accept humanity as it IS, and try to make my decisions on how humanity is, not how I want it to be. I will try to push people in the direction I want it to be, free borders and so on... But I do not allow free borders FIRST, and try to change humanity AFTERWARDS. Of course I want a free world, who would not? But there are quite a number of things we would have to eradicate before that comes true, religions, or different religions, being the primary factor imho.

rajpoot, What's my point? If you don't see the funny side of it, I don't know how to help you.

Something is wrong here - I agree with Kadagar again.

Either he has mellowed or I have become (even) more jaded.

If you have two people you will eventually get an argument, 10 a fight, 1000 a battle, 10000 a war.

Humans dissagree - the worst thing you can do is try to force harmony.

The best you can do is offer people as much compassions and understanding as you can and hope for the same in return. If you don't get that, well, then the other guy's a bastard and you have to deal with him on that basis.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the truth lay somewhere in the middle, as always...

[Fragony]

None of this quaifies for being multicultural doctrine, this is multi-ethnism. Taco's & chili con carne or chicken & watermelon are as American as cheeseburgers. Multiculturalism is wondering if building a 10 story mosque on ground zero is appropiate.

[Kagemusha]

Live with it. Do you really think that skin colour decides the level of your civilization.In that case all "we" white people are cave men.

[Papewaio]

Well that's it then. I'm in the pub about to have Belgium mussels, cold
Cider and Nachos... Might just get some beer battered chips.

Wouldn't have got the Nachos but this thread has given me a hankering for some Mexican food.

[HoreTore]

None of this quaifies for being multicultural doctrine, this is multi-ethnism. Taco's & chili con carne or chicken & watermelon are as American as cheeseburgers. Multiculturalism is wondering if building a 10 story mosque on ground zero is appropiate.

No, that's called "property rights".

[Fragony]

No, that's called "property rights".

That's the problem

[ajaxfetish]

Property Rights are a big part of American Culture, Frags. If you argue they shouldn't trump the other issues there, then you're arguing for multiculturalism. Leave the American Way alone!

Ajax

[Skullheadhq]

Non-Hispanic Whites Now Minority Births

But hispanics aren't white.

[gaelic cowboy]

But hispanics aren't white.

Doesnt matter sure whites are still going to be the biggest grouping in terms of births.

In order for white births to be the minority then all hispanic, muslins, native americans, asians etc need adding together.

[Vladimir]

But hispanics aren't white.

Some of them are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispaniola

It's a legitimate racial category. Take a look at Hispanic racial backgrounds from peninsulars down to zambos. It's another part of the Spanish cultural heritage that still cripples Latin America.

[Viking]

Well that's it then. I'm in the pub about to have Belgium mussels, cold
Cider and Nachos... Might just get some beer battered chips.

Wouldn't have got the Nachos but this thread has given me a hankering for some Mexican food.

For most of us, food ≠ humans. When the word multiculturalism is used, food is a pretty insignificant element; and without humans to accompany it, it makes no relevant difference.



Live with it. Do you really think that skin colour decides the level of your civilization.In that case all "we" white people are cave men.

A monocultural multiethnic society will be vastly different from a multicultural society.

A monocultural society can focus on construction and innovation, while a multicultural society must spend a great deal of resources on easing internal friction.

---

Prime examples of how wrong multiculturalism can end up, is Balkan, and Africa. Cultural differences tied to ethnicity can be explosive stuff. If African countries were all monocultural, they'd had a much better ride through modern history.


Bergen is a third example, a city who gained exceptional wealth by Norwegian standards through its influx of germans.

Not random Germans; it was the Hanseatic League. They established trade.

[Vladimir]

A monocultural multiethnic society will be vastly different from a multicultural society.

A monocultural society can focus on construction and innovation, while a multicultural society must spend a great deal of resources on easing internal friction.

Except when it leads to stagnation and hinders development. Where does a monocultural society develop new ideas from? Farming in Europe likely came from immigrants, Africa is backwards because cultures developed in isolation, and Native American cultures never developed past the stone age.

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Over 300 million of us are in one of the most culturally diverse places on the planet and we're doing pretty good.

[Viking]

Except when it leads to stagnation and hinders development. Where does a monocultural society develop new ideas from? Farming in Europe likely came from immigrants, Africa is backwards because cultures developed in isolation, and Native American cultures never developed past the stone age.

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Over 300 million of us are in one of the most culturally diverse places on the planet and we're doing pretty good.

Where did the immigrants get their knowledge of farming from? Innovations per definition come from inside a culture (otherwise there was an acultural hermite in the wilderness that figured it out). When you are buying a Samsung telephone, you don't need to have a South-Korean family settling in your neighbourhood in order to use this piece of technology; all it takes is that the technology is imported.

Monoculture ≠ isolated culture. South Korea (or Japan) is a globalised monocultural society, while North Korea is an isolated monocultural society.

[Vladimir]

Where did the immigrants get their knowledge of farming from? Innovations per definition come from inside a culture (otherwise there was an acultural hermite in the wilderness that figured it out). When you are buying a Samsung telephone, you don't need to have a South-Korean family settling in your neighbourhood in order to use this piece of technology; all it takes is that the technology is imported.

Monoculture ≠ isolated culture. South Korea (or Japan) is a globalised monocultural society, while North Korea is an isolated monocultural society.

Since you mentioned definitions I had to do it: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

1: the introduction of something new
2: a new idea, method, or device : novelty

Seems to directly contradict what you're saying. I'm not saying that they can't create innovation but it will occur at a lower rate and lead to a lower level of development.

I don't understand how anyone can say that a monoculture is a hotbed of innovation. The most successful cultures in history relied on an influx if ideas, people, and cultures. Problems only occur when those cultures don't integrate into the dominant culture. The Japanese thrived in technological development largely because parts of their culture are well suited to it. It also helps that we burned their entire country to the ground and they had to start over. If we didn't do that, they wouldn't be as successful as they are today. Even now they're a shadow of their former selves because they lack the diversity to adapt to changing environments.

[Montmorency]

Prime examples of how wrong multiculturalism can end up, is Balkan, and Africa.

When the cultures were forced to share power more or less equally. In Africa at least, ethnic tension had been taken to the extreme of tribal warfare for centuries.

Let's say Mexican Latinos will definitely at some point become a supermajority in the SW US as overall Hispanic birth rates stay relatively high. The contention, then is: When will this happen, and how different will Mexican-American Latino culture and 'mainstream' American culture be when it does?

Seems to me that assimilation and the authority behind American political institutions will head it off. Of course, if the world is plunged into plutocratic dystopia culture becomes irrelevant anyway.

No large state has anything close to a homogenous culture. Sounds like a pipe/wet dream.


and Native American cultures never developed past the stone age.

No.

[Vladimir]

There was a smattering of copper and maybe bronze but, yea, stone. Gold and silver don't count.

[Tuuvi]

There was a smattering of copper and maybe bronze but, yea, stone. Gold and silver don't count.

Stone age is still a poor term because it implies a very primitive culture. Lots of Native American tribes formed large scale state level societies or at least lived in agricultural communities.

[Montmorency]

There was a smattering of copper and maybe bronze but, yea, stone. Gold and silver don't count.

Agriculture and bow & arrow, so Neolithic, at least.

Cities, complex political institutions...

Metallurgy isn't the only civilizational milestone.

[Viking]

Since you mentioned definitions I had to do it: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

1: the introduction of something new
2: a new idea, method, or device : novelty

Seems to directly contradict what you're saying. I'm not saying that they can't create innovation but it will occur at a lower rate and lead to a lower level of development.

I don't understand how anyone can say that a monoculture is a hotbed of innovation. The most successful cultures in history relied on an influx if ideas, people, and cultures. Problems only occur when those cultures don't integrate into the dominant culture. The Japanese thrived in technological development largely because parts of their culture are well suited to it. It also helps that we burned their entire country to the ground and they had to start over. If we didn't do that, they wouldn't be as successful as they are today. Even now they're a shadow of their former selves because they lack the diversity to adapt to changing environments.

I am talking about the innovations when they first are introduced to this planet. They appear inside some culture; like the Mesopotamian one, ancient Egyptian, Chinese or whatever.

Again, don't equate monoculturalism with isolation. Actively employing foreigners and allowing families of other cultures to settle doesn't suddenly make a place multicultural. Multiculturalism can work against sharing of ideas, as it allows, and to some extent, encourages that people remain within their own culture.



Problems only occur when those cultures don't integrate into the dominant culture.

That's exactly where monoculturalism ends, and multiculturalism begins.



No large state has anything close to a homogenous culture. Sounds like a pipe/wet dream.

There are always regional differences; e.g. I count myself as a Westerner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Norway) and on average I get better along with people from the same region. The key is that the larger differences there are, and within shorter distances (such as the same city/neighbourhood), the more friction you will get.

[Papewaio]

Where did the immigrants get their knowledge of farming from? Innovations per definition come from inside a culture (otherwise there was an acultural hermite in the wilderness that figured it out). When you are buying a Samsung telephone, you don't need to have a South-Korean family settling in your neighbourhood in order to use this piece of technology; all it takes is that the technology is imported.

Monoculture ≠ isolated culture. South Korea (or Japan) is a globalised monocultural society, while North Korea is an isolated monocultural society.

How many times has the wheel been invented?
What suite of foods do you eat? Do you really think all the local dishes were locally invented?

China and Japan tried to be closed monocultures and it meant that their societies adaption rate plummeted until they opened themselves up. Still Japan lags in some areas of creativity ie Noble Prizes per captia. Japan was the second largest economy in the world, it seems it is having difficulty coming up wih solutions to its failing economy. The most obvious would be to allow more immigration. But that isn't on.

USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all multicultural societies. So is Britain. Multi cultures in history have punched above their weight category.

Balkans failed not because it was a multicultural society. It failed because it was not. It did not blend nor accept, they different ethnic/religious groups fought on lines based on old ideas.

=][=
As for food it is an integral part of culture. Add in language, entertainment, clothing and you have a lot of the main elements that make up a culture. Food is the most accessible part of a culture. Where a plate of food can open up a culture, language and clothing might make people shy away.

[Montmorency]

There are always regional differences

Besides regional differences, ethnic minorities there always are.

So, back to the question posed. How large will the differences be if and when etc. etc. I simply don't believe that will become an issue, unless populations begin to double within a generation, and large or former minority groups begin to consider themselves economically or politically disenfranchised to a significant degree.

Again, as long as we're describing a future where global ecology allows for such considerations.

[Viking]

How many times has the wheel been invented?
What suite of foods do you eat? Do you really think all the local dishes were locally invented?

China and Japan tried to be closed monocultures and it meant that their societies adaption rate plummeted until they opened themselves up. Still Japan lags in some areas of creativity ie Noble Prizes per captia. Japan was the second largest economy in the world, it seems it is having difficulty coming up wih solutions to its failing economy. The most obvious would be to allow more immigration. But that isn't on.

Again, monoculturalism does not equal isolation. It's the idea that immigrants should assimilate, and that one should not let in so many immigrants that they can form a sizeable subculture. You want them to blend with the rest of society - that their separate identity eventually will vanish through mixing, such as intermarriage.

"Cultural purity" is for nationalists to argue for; they say the darnedest things.



USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all multicultural societies. So is Britain. Multi cultures in history have punched above their weight category.

On the contrary, those nations have all focused on national unity. The U.S. constitution is not a Buddhist constitution, nor a Hindu one nor a Muslim one - it's a Western Christian one. The U.S. motto is "In God we trust", not "In the the different gods we believe in we trust". Similar things can be said about Britain: English was/is the language (not Welsh, not Scots, not Gaelic) and Anglicanism was/is the religion (not Catholicism, not Islam, not Mormonism).

The multicultural elements of the US has led to things such as massive riots (LA) and ghettos. In the U.K., it led to the troubles in Northern Ireland, and now Scotland is even talking about holding a referendum over independence.


Balkans failed not because it was a multicultural society. It failed because it was not. It did not blend nor accept, they different ethnic/religious groups fought on lines based on old ideas

When cultures of a country blend, we're heading towards a new monoculture. Essential to most forms of multiculturalism is the preservation of the individual cultures.


As for food it is an integral part of culture. Add in language, entertainment, clothing and you have a lot of the main elements that make up a culture. Food is the most accessible part of a culture. Where a plate of food can open up a culture, language and clothing might make people shy away.

Foreign food does not make a culture multicultural, that's cultural evolution. It is not relevant to the topic at hand.



Besides regional differences, ethnic minorities there always are.

So, back to the question posed. How large will the differences be if and when etc. etc. I simply don't believe that will become an issue, unless populations begin to double within a generation, and large or former minority groups begin to consider themselves economically or politically disenfranchised to a significant degree.

Again, as long as we're describing a future where global ecology allows for such considerations.

It's not black and white; it's a continous spectrum. The more different the cultures are from one another, the harder a time they will have to get along. Different value systems is a good example of a troublesome aspect. If each group view the other group as behaving in "immoral" ways, it will have less respect for it. A traditional aspect of one culture might even be illegal in the laws that are dictated by the main/most powerful culture.

[Montmorency]

Well, I did say 'how large will...' , not 'will there be...'.


The multicultural elements of the US has led to things such as massive riots (LA) and ghettos.

The relationship with NAs has been more multicultural in the US than anything. As for black Americans, for the particular elements you're thinking of it's a mutual disrespect in a feedback loop of

[...]economically or politically disenfranchised to a significant degree. It's a little funny to see slavery, racism, and segregation labeled as multicultural.

Maybe a distinction between amiable, benign, negligent, and malign [insert your own] multiculturalism?

[Viking]

Well, I did say 'how large will...' , not 'will there be...'.

Not sure how I can answer 'how large' directly in a meaningfull manner. It would look jolly good if we could put the constant pi and the Boltzmann constant in there as a measure of the quantity, though.


The relationship with NAs has been more multicultural in the US than anything. As for black Americans, for the particular elements you're thinking of it's a mutual disrespect in a feedback loop of
It's a little funny to see slavery, racism, and segregation labeled as multicultural.

Maybe a distinction between amiable, benign, negligent, and malign [insert your own] multiculturalism?

I use the following definition: multiculturalism = more than one culture living within the 'same borders' (typically the country borders), and these cultures have no intention to merge with one another.

It doesn't matter how these cultures came to live within the same borders in this regard; but of course it must not be ignored.

One thing to remember, though, is that Afro-Americans continue to remain a separate cultural entity for the most part. If we'd somehow magically had a full scale cultural and ethnical assmiliation, there would be no LA riots because there would be no "black neighbourhoods" nor "white neighbourhoods".

[Vladimir]

Agriculture and bow & arrow, so Neolithic, at least.

Cities, complex political institutions...

Metallurgy isn't the only civilizational milestone.

I know what you meant. I have a lot of respect for pre-Columbian civilizations but they were severely lacking in too many areas.

[Montmorency]

Not sure how I can answer 'how large' directly in a meaningfull manner. It would look jolly good if we could put the constant pi and the Boltzmann constant in there as a measure of the quantity, though.

Sure. Attempting to calculate precise probabilities when speculating on any phenomenon not very well understood mathematically is utterly futile. So, what are you doing here exactly?


I use the following definition: multiculturalism = more than one culture living within the 'same borders' (typically the country borders), and these cultures have no intention to merge with one another.

Well finally someone defined it. Unfortunately, that's a very broad definition and you could fit all states under it.


One thing to remember, though, is that Afro-Americans continue to remain a separate cultural entity for the most part.

Dubious.


If we'd somehow magically had a full scale cultural and ethnical assmiliation, there would be no LA riots because there would be no "black neighbourhoods" nor "white neighbourhoods".

Pass the bong, Jimmy.


It doesn't matter how these cultures came to live within the same borders in this regard; but of course it must not be ignored.

Sure it does. Any 'solution' that doesn't take the historical context into account will likely fall flat. Unless you're thinking of a one-size-fits-all approach...

'Accelerated' assimilation won't work in most cases these days; the "dominant" cultures have become too brittle and self-conscious to easily withstand the strain. Perhaps a century ago...

[Viking]

Well finally someone defined it. Unfortunately, that's a very broad definition and you could fit all states under it.

Almost all, yes. I don't see the problem with that,



Dubious.

Is it, bro.



Pass the bong, Jimmy.

C'mon, use your imagination. If the slaves hadn't belonged to a different (sub)culture (and not having a skin colour, one should perhaps include), they could have been assimiliated ages ago (i.e. the slaves where all white Americans, let's say e.g. offspring of convicted criminals that lived generations ago). But because they had/have a different culture (and a different ethnic mix), such assimilation seems less feasible.


Sure it does. Any 'solution' that doesn't take the historical context into account will likely fall flat. Unless you're thinking of a one-size-fits-all approach...

'This regard' being the defintion of a multicultural society. It is not relevant for the definition, though it will of course affect how the story unfolds in the different societies. As per above, multiculturalism has a tendency of creating extra trouble.


'Accelerated' assimilation won't work in most cases these days; the "dominant" cultures have become too brittle and self-conscious to easily withstand the strain. Perhaps a century ago...

Yeah, we got issues there. That's why I am sceptical of large scale immigration - 'large scale' depending on the size of the present population of the country. Different figures for a country of 300 millions, and one of 5.

[Kadagar_AV]

Viking, I seem to remember you as being pro-immigration. What happened? Or do I remember it wrong?

[Viking]

I might have grown more sceptical, but "pro-immigration" without further specification makes me think of sending a big ship off the coast of poor African countries and ask if anyone there is looking for a new, wealthy home country.

One of the things that have made me more sceptical, is seeing the consequences of the immigration. We already have a partially ethnically "segregated" capital, and at present that trend looks set to continue.

[Montmorency]

\
Almost all, yes. I don't see the problem with that,

In that case, better not approach it as a problem that needs to be solved? At least make a distinction between broadly multicultural societies - by default - and what you consider multiculturalism as ideology to entail.


Is it, bro.

Problematic, because it makes Rhy's opacity mistake, and because it assumes the majority of blacks are poor, live in ghettoes, hate whitey, etc.


C'mon, use your imagination. If the slaves hadn't belonged to a different (sub)culture (and not having a skin colour, one should perhaps include), they could have been assimiliated ages ago (i.e. the slaves where all white Americans, let's say e.g. offspring of convicted criminals that lived generations ago). But because they had/have a different culture (and a different ethnic mix), such assimilation seems less feasible.

Again - maybe make that distinction? Isn't there a difference between a dominant culture that refuses to allow assimilation and a sub(ordinate)-culture that refuses to assimilate? Blacks were assimilating pretty well until the late 17th c. The NAs living within American borders were assimilating pretty well until the mid-19th c. Or maybe you will take this as evidence for the "divide and conquer" perspective?

I'm afraid I'll have to play the caricature card: 'IT'S THEIR FAULT FOR BEING BLACK'. It is. So? I wonder what your thoughts on rape are...


'This regard' being the defintion of a multicultural society. It is not relevant for the definition, though it will of course affect how the story unfolds in the different societies. As per above, multiculturalism has a tendency of creating extra trouble.

"Must not be ignored" - sounds like you were moving towards 'solutions'. I thought you had dealt with the definition in your preceding lines.


That's why I am sceptical of large scale immigration


How about large-scale temporary labor migration?

[Kadagar_AV]

I might have grown more sceptical, but "pro-immigration" without further specification makes me think of sending a big ship off the coast of poor African countries and ask if anyone there is looking for a new, wealthy home country.

One of the things that have made me more sceptical, is seeing the consequences of the immigration. We already have a partially ethnically "segregated" capital, and at present that trend looks set to continue.

Well, I remember you being close to HoreTore in those opinions...

Oh well, kudos for maturity:2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

In general I find the second generation has elements that are the least integrated. Much like a born again or recent convert they seem to have feet in both cultures yet are trying (too) hard to embrace one over the other.

Third plus tend to be very integrated.

There is even amongst immigrants disparaging terms for other immigrants. I've head Taiwanese teenagers who've lived most of their lives in Aus refer to fellow Uni students who have just came to Aus as FOBs. Then they shred each other over fashion, food, pronouciation of both Manadarin and English.

[Viking]

In that case, better not approach it as a problem that needs to be solved? At least make a distinction between broadly multicultural societies - by default - and what you consider multiculturalism as ideology to entail.

There are different forms of it though. Such as a) cultures living within the same cities, and b) cultures living in different parts of the country. In the latter case, new countries both can and are formed. I think that in many cases, creating new countries can be a good idea. It depends on local circumstances.

Immigration belongs to category a), and to prevent this one from happening, one can slow down immigration rates. Existing cultures there is not so much do about, other than encouraging dilution aka intermarriage (the most efficient way of assimiliation). If the culture exists nowhere else, as is often the case, things become different.


Problematic, because it makes Rhy's opacity mistake, and because it assumes the majority of blacks are poor, live in ghettoes, hate whitey, etc.


No, that was not in my mind at all. I am thinking of social norms, language, a tendency to live in separate neighbourhoods etc.


Again - maybe make that distinction? Isn't there a difference between a dominant culture that refuses to allow assimilation and a sub(ordinate)-culture that refuses to assimilate? Blacks were assimilating pretty well until the late 17th c. The NAs living within American borders were assimilating pretty well until the mid-19th c. Or maybe you will take this as evidence for the "divide and conquer" perspective?

I'm afraid I'll have to play the caricature card: 'IT'S THEIR FAULT FOR BEING BLACK'. It is. So? I wonder what your thoughts on rape are...

I am just saying that it's too easy just to blame it on social inequality alone. The key is that social inequality is a lot easier to fix if we have no cultural differences to accompany them. You should blame the slave traders for the LA riots, that's more like it.


How about large-scale temporary labor migration?

If it is short period of time, fine. Not sure if having plenty of people around that will eventuall go back in a few years time is a good idea; they might start feeling detached, particularly if the cultural differences are large.

There's a large difference between living somewhere for some time and having all one's future descendants living their lives there. There will be no (peaceful) reverse of the latter.

[Montmorency]

There are different forms of it though. Such as a) cultures living within the same cities, and b) cultures living in different parts of the country. In the latter case, new countries both can and are formed. I think that in many cases, creating new countries can be a good idea. It depends on local circumstances.

Immigration belongs to category a), and to prevent this one from happening, one can slow down immigration rates. Existing cultures there is not so much do about, other than encouraging dilution aka intermarriage (the most efficient way of assimiliation). If the culture exists nowhere else, as is often the case, things become different.

:inquisitive:


I am thinking of social norms, language, a tendency to live in separate neighbourhoods etc.

Equivalent. All that best describes the poor blacks, while middle and upper class blacks (the point being that they exist in large numbers) are...


I am just saying that it's too easy just to blame it on social inequality alone. The key is that social inequality is a lot easier to fix if we have no cultural differences to accompany them. You should blame the slave traders for the LA riots, that's more like it.

let me just clarify what I said here: In the early 17th c. Africans began to trickle into the colonies, though most were heading further south at this time. Slavery in the colonies was not yet a racial institution, and whites, blacks, and NAs could all end up as slaves. There were even African slaveowners. In the late part of the century, the primitive colonial legislatures began to strip Africans, many of whom were quite settled and assimilating well, of rights. By the 18th c. blacks were slaves and slaves were black.

Presumably the white colonists did this out of a blossoming racist sentiment. At any rate, it led to an enforced separation of blacks and whites; the whites created a state of multiculturalism by elevating whites over blacks categorically. Blacks, of diverse African cultures originally, began to unify culturally under the institution of slavery, instead of merely assimilating into a broader colonial culture. This was bolstered by religious movements that led to the conversion of most blacks to Christianity (but only by the mid-19th c.!). Free blacks, though not enslaved, were still rejected by white cultural groups and so coalesced into yet another subculture.

The large (white) colonial groupings have all by now merged with each other, as well as with white immigrant groups, more or less. Blacks were different enough that particular policies were undertaken that especially distinguished them. And so on...

[Viking]

:inquisitive:

:croc:


Equivalent. All that best describes the poor blacks, while middle and upper class blacks (the point being that they exist in large numbers) are...

This is what I doubt. A culture of/for poor people?

[Montmorency]

I'm not into that sort of thing.


This is what I doubt. A culture of/for poor people?

Socioeconomic class: Nothing in common.

Race: They're all the same.

Is that it? :eyebrows:

The point is that poor AAs are the ones most likely to differ from the 'mainstream', to be more divergent in terms of language, social norms, domestic distribution or urban concentration etc., than middle-and-upper class...

Also that real or perceived disenfranchisement creates and exacerbates cultural differences.

Why don't we skip the foreplay and expedite the inevitable rise of the human hive mind? All priority to neurogenetic research. For the greater good, we anachronists will be removed upon the inauguration of this new breed.