[besson3c]

I believe that all of these debates we are having now about Arizona, illegal immigration, and everything else seem to stem from an overall struggle that we have had defining multiculturalism and what our society should look like with respect to recognizing and mixing with other cultures. We are definitely not the only country that has had these problems too, but perhaps there are some countries that deal with these issues differently than others (for example, Canada has a different attitude than the US, I would say).

Moreover, if you read Thomas Friedman's Flat Earth book and agree with his basic observations (and I think it's hard not to, globalization is all around us), changing times have also complicated matters. If illegal immigration ended tomorrow, the very fact that there are non-American restaurants and neighborhoods on seemingly every block in a larger city has defined the idea that being exposed to a wide range of cultures is simply a way of life now. It hasn't always been like this, in my lifetime alone I remember when a Chinese or Italian restaurant was fairly exotic, now it is completely commonplace and pedestrian.

The conflict, as I see it, involves a difference in comfort levels people have with other cultures, and perhaps wanting to have things both ways. Some people seem to not mind having a China town or Indian neighborhood around, but sometimes it seems like it is to feel diverse while sort of looking down at these cultures in a way, sort of treating these neighborhoods and restaurants as a sort of theme park for Americans. Many people speak to the freedom that these nationalities have to do their thing, but when they start to encroach on politics or other things it can quickly become hostile and expectations established that these people respect America because they are here, and their issues, concerns, traditions, etc. have to take back seat to America's just because that's "the way it is".

This is where some people seem to want things both ways. We can't all be treated equally if these cultures (and religions) are clearly second class while at the same time thinking of our society as multicultural. I would argue that people that want American traditions and customs to be put above anything else are more interested in a mono (homo?!)-cultural society than a multicultural one. How can we have a truly multicultural society with a hierarchy and different sets of rules and expectations?

By having this sort of quasi multicultural society, we seem to create a number of problems for ourselves. We have those on one side lobbying for their stuff, and those on the other side lobbying for the "American way", and in the process often coming close to sounding xenophobic, intolerant, and definitely ignorant. At the same time, maybe it is not unreasonable to expect that other cultures are respectful of American traditions and customs such as the 4th of July, but to what extent seems to not have ever really been defined. In addition, the fact that Americans are pretty insular, do not travel outside their country as often as they should, and ignorant of other cultures is a common refrain.

Do you agree with my theory? Do you think that we are a sort of quasi multicutural society that has never truly defined and agreed upon how differing cultures should mix with American customs and traditions?

[Doofy]

It's multiple-mono-culture.

And what causes it is immigrants refusing to give up their own culture when they arrive. The host country bends to accommodate the immigrant, but a lot of times the immigrant doesn't bend to accommodate the host. It should be a two-way melt, but it isn't. So the host gets a tad angry.

[ghporter]

We used to be a melting pot. Until relatively recently, immigrants actually wanted to integrate into society. But reasons for immigration have changed radically, and instead of "escaping from the old country," people are simply cashing in on the economy and the fact that people will pay folks to do crap jobs. It's not so much immigrating as "visiting for long term work." Why change your social patterns if all you're here for is the money?

I should add that I've enjoyed the multicultural aspect of living in fairly large metropolitan areas. Growing up in the Detroit area allowed me to learn a lot about the cultures people brought there when they came. Poles, Irish, Germans, lots of other groups came and brought what they couldn't part with - often food and celebrations - and that was great. But maybe 20 years ago things appeared to change. My mom noted that there were relatively recent Eastern European folks on the bus with her, acting like they were superior because they were conversing in their language. Not "not speaking much English," but excluding others by speaking a language they felt others would not understand. I've seen that A LOT here in San Antonio; many people expect others to speak Spanish, and look down their noses at those of us who can't. Not that I haven't tried, but languages and I just don't get along.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree with my theory? Do you think that we are a sort of quasi multicutural society that has never truly defined and agreed upon how differing cultures should mix with American customs and traditions?

Simply put, no I do not agree with your theory. Your theory is that people don't like illegal immigration because they can't appreciate multiple cultures.

I happen to appreciate multiple cultures as long as "white" gets to be one of them? (because I'm white of course, just lookin' out. ) I don't think multiculturalism means that one race has to endure the indictments of all the most reprehensible aspects of human nature (multicultural or "ethnic studies") or jeopardize our nation's sovereignty, bankrupt its economy, distort its labor market, exhaust its entitlements and civil services, and acknowledge all cultures other than an American culture. People championing borders and language enjoy a wealth of common sense up to and including the notion that we set our visitors up for failure by not preparing them more effectively for a primarily English-speaking society. The numbers game suggests our current influx of unskilled laborers is simply not sustainable for the health of our system. Other than that, most of us do not choose to make Kwanzaa, Cinco de Mayo, or any other multicultural aspect of society a cause for some particular opposition. i.e. most of us are pretty accepting of others until you attempt to run roughshod over us. ghporter hit the sentiment quite well otherwise.

None of this of course has anything to do with your country of origin or color of skin.

[Chongo]

Dealing with "Latino" culture is not the problem in what MEChA, La Raza, and other groups call "Atzlan." (It was never an area called "Atzlan," It was part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. ) Spanish/Mexican Culture is part of who we are. (500 years of it). We just have an issues with Mexico using us as a blow off valve for their economic problems.

"many people expect others to speak Spanish, and look down their noses at those of us who can't"

Try being of Spanish/Mexican decent and not speaking Spanish. Ever heard the the term "Pocho?"

[nonhuman]

American culture is the culture of people who live in America. It is not tied to a particular ethnic group or time period and always has and always will change with the times and the various phases of immigration and emigration. If you don't like it, tough; there's nothing you can do about it.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

American culture is the culture of people who live in America. It is not tied to a particular ethnic group or time period and always has and always will change with the times and the various phases of immigration and emigration. If you don't like it, tough; there's nothing you can do about it.

But that's the problem: America is a very young country, and has always had a very high ratio of immigrants to natives. We don't really have a single culture. Compare the southwest to the northeast to the deep south -- hell, try comparing different neighborhoods in any major city. Sure, there are a lot of similarities, but there are also some pretty drastic differences. Sure, we may be a melting pot of cultures, but you can't call the result a single culture when ingredients are constantly added to the pot before the previous batch can melt together.

How many Americans can say their ancestors have lived here for more than a few generations? Compare that to much of the rest of the world, where people may be able to trace their lineage back many hundreds of years. Meanwhile, I'm as American as they come, but my ancestors came to the states from Italy less than a hundred years ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Simply put, no I do not agree with your theory. Your theory is that people don't like illegal immigration because they can't appreciate multiple cultures.

No, my theory is not about illegal immigration, but about how we define and think of multiculturalism in this country.

I happen to appreciate multiple cultures as long as "white" gets to be one of them? (because I'm white of course, just lookin' out. ) I don't think multiculturalism means that one race has to endure the indictments of all the most reprehensible aspects of human nature (multicultural or "ethnic studies") or jeopardize our nation's sovereignty, bankrupt its economy, distort its labor market, exhaust its entitlements and civil services, and acknowledge all cultures other than an American culture. People championing borders and language enjoy a wealth of common sense up to and including the notion that we set our visitors up for failure by not preparing them more effectively for a primarily English-speaking society. The numbers game suggests our current influx of unskilled laborers is simply not sustainable for the health of our system. Other than that, most of us do not choose to make Kwanzaa, Cinco de Mayo, or any other multicultural aspect of society a cause for some particular opposition. i.e. most of us are pretty accepting of others until you attempt to run roughshod over us. ghporter hit the sentiment quite well otherwise.

None of this of course has anything to do with your country of origin or color of skin.

Again, I think that illegal immigration and public policy as it relates to this is a whole other thing. At the bottom of this is some more fundamental complexities, I think, namely we don't really all agree upon how different cultures should mix, be treated (in relation to their numbers and regardless), and what sorts of expectations there are for becoming Americanized, whatever that means. We can't really have a productive conversation about illegal immigration without addressing all of this first because of conflicts of emotions and underlying philosophy.

This is what I'm most interested in at this point.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Try being of Spanish/Mexican decent and not speaking Spanish. Ever heard the the term "Pocho?"

I don't have to speak the language to pick up on tone of voice...I've heard that term, and worse. The thing is, there are people here in San Antonio who actually pretend to be Spanish ONLY, but whose Spanish is WAY below what could be considered fluent. One of my wife's coworkers has her MA in Spanish and taught it in public school for a long time before becoming a nurse. She's pretty "Anglo" looking and has an Irish last name. My wife says it's very amusing to see the look on some of these faux "Spanish only" people's faces when Diane corrects their grammar, vocabulary, and syntax to their faces, especially when they think they're getting away with talking about her in front of her. It's a blast.

I work in health care, and occasionally run into problems because I am not a "functional" Spanish speaker. I know "dolor" and many body parts-enough to figure out what hurts and how badly-but I do need a translator when the patient really doesn't speak English. I really, really try-almost all of the people whom I encounter this problem with are elderly and often quite ill-but in these cases it's also very helpful to have a bilingual family member to answer background questions, so it's not that big a deal.

What's really troubling is that some people just do not care to be part of the Greater San Antonio culture-which has been "American" and very multi-cultural for a very, very long time. It's theorized that the Texas Revolution actually enabled the Mexican people to later rebel against the French Imperial government and become independent themselves. And I seldom hear of people who are fluent in Czech or German acting this way...so why do people who could not get past the first semester in the program to learn my job feel that they have to act like I'm a moron because, try as I might, I have not been able to learn fluent Spanish?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The thing is, there are people here in San Antonio who actually pretend to be Spanish ONLY, but whose Spanish is WAY below what could be considered fluent. One of my wife's coworkers has her MA in Spanish and taught it in public school for a long time before becoming a nurse. She's pretty "Anglo" looking and has an Irish last name. My wife says it's very amusing to see the look on some of these faux "Spanish only" people's faces when Diane corrects their grammar, vocabulary, and syntax to their faces, especially when they think they're getting away with talking about her in front of her. It's a blast.

These are exactly the peeps I'm talking about over in the ethnic studies thread.

[ghporter]

But these folks wouldn't take an ethnic studies class. They feel they already know it all. From what I've seen, they don't, but my opinion won't stop them. Their heritage is becoming diluted by their poor scholarship and the wind up becoming caricatures of themselves. It's the kids that have stars in their eyes about how "noble and pure" education is that fall for badly written and presented ethnic studies classes that convince them they're oppressed. My freshman sociology class was like that-the prof "just knew" that certain practices that are used in socializing people during military indoctrination were "exactly like" what he saw in "Full Metal Jacket" and a few other works of fiction, and my first hand experience couldn't shake that conviction.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But these folks wouldn't take an ethnic studies class. They feel they already know it all.

I've seen some who're like that attend their ethnics classes to reinforce what they think they already know. And they come out the other end as hardcore idiots.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My freshman sociology class was like that-the prof "just knew" that certain practices that are used in socializing people during military indoctrination were "exactly like" what he saw in "Full Metal Jacket" and a few other works of fiction, and my first hand experience couldn't shake that conviction.

That's typical of university staff, in any country and any subject. One of the reasons I left teaching after four years was because of friction generated with the other profs who thought they knew what they were talking about (most of them were fresh out of uni and into teaching, while I'd been out in the field doing it in real life for a while).

[smacintush]

...

[BadKosh]

Something from Richard Lamm.

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic Rebellion.
France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans. ".

Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together."
Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People under value the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks.
"The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.
"E. Pluribus Unum" --From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book "Mexifornia." His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America. deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

[besson3c]

How on Earth has Canada faced a "crisis of national existence"?

I would argue that multiculturalism is what defines a country, not destroys it. This country would be far less interesting if it did not attempt to be a multicultural society. I think our economy would be a fraction of what it is today if it weren't for multiculturalism, this is a draw to people wishing to live, study, invest, etc., not a deterrent.

I take it you do not feel the same way?

[besson3c]

I think you could also say that Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other high-tech companies wouldn't be what they are today without multiculturalism. Many of their key developers are not American.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would argue that multiculturalism is what defines a country, not destroys it.

[besson3c]

besson3c hates having to coax arguments out of people. If you have a point to make, make it Doofy. Stop spanking your monkey.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

besson3c hates having to coax arguments out of people. If you have a point to make, make it Doofy.

OK then, you asked for it:
You're a f'ing loony, Bess.

"Multiculturalism is what defines a country..."

I can't even begin to comprehend the level of stupidity required to make that statement. Seriously.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How on Earth has Canada faced a "crisis of national existence"?

I would argue that multiculturalism is what defines a country, not destroys it. This country would be far less interesting if it did not attempt to be a multicultural society. I think our economy would be a fraction of what it is today if it weren't for multiculturalism, this is a draw to people wishing to live, study, invest, etc., not a deterrent.

I take it you do not feel the same way?

How does dividing our country into groups help? Wouldn't a unified country with a common understanding of what it is to be an American be better? The levels of hatred and prejudice between groups seem to drop as those differences are less important.

[The Final Dakar]

By having states, aren't we already dividing the country into groups?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK then, you asked for it:
You're a f'ing loony, Bess.

"Multiculturalism is what defines a country..."

I can't even begin to comprehend the level of stupidity required to make that statement. Seriously.

It is in part, sure... America is the so-called land of opportunity. People come here from all over the world no matter what their cultural background is in hopes of achieving success, that is America's image. Canada's image is similar.

I did not say that this is the only thing that defines a country.

BTW, you have been reported for calling me loony.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How does dividing our country into groups help? Wouldn't a unified country with a common understanding of what it is to be an American be better? The levels of hatred and prejudice between groups seem to drop as those differences are less important.

How does having a multicutural society divide the country into groups, and aren't the states groups? Aren't we already divided on our political positions? Religion?

A unified country is unified in spite of these differences, not because there aren't any.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

By having states, aren't we already dividing the country into groups?

The individual, constituent states originated as fairly cohesive social groups. Earliest colonists in certain states were small groups with the same specific religious affiliation. As these groups demonstrated the fundamental concept of tolerance the colonies evolved into strong social structures.

The states are NOT separate structures merely for the purpose of making school kids memorize more stuff. The population, by living in various locations, divides itself into groups, sometimes by tradition, sometimes for employment, sometimes for other reasons.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is in part, sure... America is the so-called land of opportunity. People come here from all over the world no matter what their cultural background is in hopes of achieving success, that is America's image.

You should have said that multiculturalism is what defines America then. 'Coz it sure ain't what defines Japan or Kenya.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BTW, you have been reported for calling me loony.

Blow it out your ass. You asked for it (literally), so you got it.

[besson3c]

If I were to ask for it I would have said "hey Doofy, please call me a loon". I am going to take your advice though, I will blow it all out my ass and IN YOUR FACE!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

By having states, aren't we already dividing the country into groups?

No, we're dividing them into states.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You should have said that multiculturalism is what defines America then. 'Coz it sure ain't what defines Japan or Kenya.

... or Mexico.

[ebuddy]

IMO, we spend way too much time on differences. Unity is found in our similarities, solidarity in our shared interests and responsibility.

One of the things I found refreshing about having raised my daughter in a predominantly black community was that not once did my daughter come home from daycare, preschool or kindergarten and ask me why her skin color was different than most others around her. (not that this would've been a bad thing necessarily) She just assumed we're all people that look different and like playing on the playground, laughing, singing, dancing, etc. Now... had her daycare repeatedly focused on; "this is what black people do" and "this is how black people act" and "this is how black people celebrate holidays" and "this is what black people watch on television", etc... I think it's woefully self-indulgent and profoundly inefficient in a country with all known ethnicities, races, creeds, etc. Racism is taught.

It seems this ideal that Americans (who arguably have more resources for travel in spite of living in a country ranked 8th in economic freedom) don't travel abroad being used as some type of measuring stick of xenophobia or ignorance when the statement itself is xenophobic. Might it be that people would simply rather spend their money visiting other places in the US?

The American culture is comprised of its governance (past tense ) and related documents and laws including due process as they remain a comparatively new ideal. It is its unmistakable Judeo-Christian heritage. American culture (again- past tense ) champions entrepreneurship, self-empowerment, limited centralized authority in lieu of more localized representation, a handshake, and a square deal. It is affirmed by its unique degree of philanthropy and work ethic offering among the best regions of property, opportunity, and prosperity. Like a fat man with much weight to lose however, these are the areas most under attack of late and their decline is palpable.

Resentment occurs when this culture becomes "watered down" by outside influences and historically hostile elements. In this, America is no better than any other society that did not recognize its virtues enough to protect them and eventually lost them.

Diversity is good as long as it is not framed in a divisive way, demonizing the convenient scape-goats of the last several hundred years while neglecting the human nature of the last several thousand years. Multiculturalism is almost never approached with sobriety or handled effectively; giving way to self-indulgence and racism of another kind.

[besson3c]

Past tense, because all of this has changed....

I'll respond to the rest of your post later... It's a little hard to get past this though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Past tense, because all of this has changed....

How do you "fundamentally transform" something you're pleased with? Again, you assume "changed" when it is simply "changing". Things aren't always as black and white as they need to be for an argument.

Again, if you appreciate the increase of policies that are hostile to small and large businesses alike, burgeoning bureaucracy and bloated government as the largest employer in this country, and a battery of new entitlements for the growing dependency class it creates; we're in an irreconcilable disagreement. Perhaps you're right, it would be difficult to get past this.

[ghporter]

American society, in whole or in whatever parts you want to chop it up into, is always changing. It's something that has been a factor in our development since the very beginning, even in the early, colonial stage. Unfettered by the rigid class and land-ownership system of Britain, colonists were able to explore and expand their cultural limits, which is what allowed the colonists and later the Americans to become such "movers and shakers" in the world. In a scant 150 years, we went from rag-tag revolutionaries to "the arsenal of democracy," and were the deciding force in the largest, most violent conflict among people in history. You can't do that if anything is fixed and rigid-it takes constant change.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How do you "fundamentally transform" something you're pleased with? Again, you assume "changed" when it is simply "changing". Things aren't always as black and white as they need to be for an argument.

Again, if you appreciate the increase of policies that are hostile to small and large businesses alike, burgeoning bureaucracy and bloated government as the largest employer in this country, and a battery of new entitlements for the growing dependency class it creates; we're in an irreconcilable disagreement. Perhaps you're right, it would be difficult to get past this.

I get it, but your rhetoric is way overblown. It's hard to take what you see seriously when it is so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

American society, in whole or in whatever parts you want to chop it up into, is always changing. It's something that has been a factor in our development since the very beginning, even in the early, colonial stage. Unfettered by the rigid class and land-ownership system of Britain, colonists were able to explore and expand their cultural limits, which is what allowed the colonists and later the Americans to become such "movers and shakers" in the world. In a scant 150 years, we went from rag-tag revolutionaries to "the arsenal of democracy," and were the deciding force in the largest, most violent conflict among people in history. You can't do that if anything is fixed and rigid-it takes constant change.

"Unfettered by the rigid class and land-ownership system of Britain, colonists were able to explore and expand their cultural limits, which is what allowed the colonists and later the Americans to become such "movers and shakers" in the world."

I'm not sure abandoning your country of origin to start an entirely different system of governance elsewhere is what we're talking about is it? That's not change ghporter, that's... well it's leaving one system to start a different one founded on differing principles elsewhere. I don't think you could look to the demise of any society and claim that it was its rigidity that caused the problem. Britain still exists no?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I get it, but your rhetoric is way overblown. It's hard to take what you see seriously when it is so.

I disagree. I think its more a matter of one who generally appreciates the changes and one who doesn't. Maybe the truth is that these "changes" are overblown reactions to problems.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Unfettered by the rigid class and land-ownership system of Britain, colonists were able to explore and expand their cultural limits, which is what allowed the colonists and later the Americans to become such "movers and shakers" in the world."

I'm not sure abandoning your country of origin to start an entirely different system of governance elsewhere is what we're talking about is it? That's not change ghporter, that's... well it's leaving one system to start a different one founded on differing principles elsewhere. I don't think you could look to the demise of any society and claim that it was its rigidity that caused the problem. Britain still exists no?

So breaking with your entire culture and tradition isn't "change?" Frankly only a few really set out to "change," whereas most just wanted to "get away." But they found that change was more flexible and comfortable in a wide-open space where it mattered a lot less what your grandfather did to keep from starving and a lot more how hard you were willing to work. That was a major paradigm shift-a big "change."

Many colonies (the earlier, small ones in particular) were founded by people who desperately wanted to escape the Church of England and govern themselves in what they felt was a more humane manner. Their ideas of humane, of course... But the ideas that hereditary land ownership and lordship were fixed and immutable, and that one's forefathers' lot in life MUST determine one's own, were some of the biggest motivators for voluntary colonists to leave home. So were debts, for that matter; and Britain allowed indenture for a long, long time.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Something from Richard Lamm.

Those guys you mention must be racists!

[BadKosh]

Well.....Everybody is a racist.

[TheoCryst]

YouTube - Avenue Q - Everyone's A Little Bit Racist West End Live

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

So breaking with your entire culture and tradition isn't "change?" Frankly only a few really set out to "change," whereas most just wanted to "get away." But they found that change was more flexible and comfortable in a wide-open space where it mattered a lot less what your grandfather did to keep from starving and a lot more how hard you were willing to work. That was a major paradigm shift-a big "change."

Many colonies (the earlier, small ones in particular) were founded by people who desperately wanted to escape the Church of England and govern themselves in what they felt was a more humane manner. Their ideas of humane, of course... But the ideas that hereditary land ownership and lordship were fixed and immutable, and that one's forefathers' lot in life MUST determine one's own, were some of the biggest motivators for voluntary colonists to leave home. So were debts, for that matter; and Britain allowed indenture for a long, long time.

Yeah, but again - we're not talking about a change from one continent to another, we're talking about "fundamentally transforming" a governance you're already subject to. A "change" that is little more than a regressive movement to the failed ideals of yesteryear is a "rehash", not a change. Whether or not these ideals drove your forebears from their country of origin may only be relevant in context of a "change" to be avoided.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah, but again - we're not talking about a change from one continent to another, we're talking about "fundamentally transforming" a governance you're already subject to. A "change" that is little more than a regressive movement to the failed ideals of yesteryear is a "rehash", not a change. Whether or not these ideals drove your forebears from their country of origin may only be relevant in context of a "change" to be avoided.

Wait...what? I thought we were specifically talking about why people emigrated from England to North America.

Once colonists were not held as tightly in the fixed class and land ownership systems of England, they began to see flaws and problems in the governmental system, sometimes based on "now who was it that says you're in charge," and other times based on other issues. Without being cemented into a pre-selected life, individuals began to experiment with doing things differently and this led to more experimentation, including with government. This is, of course, above and beyond the initial colonial governments set up as early colonies were established, sort of building on top of the novel means of representation in those early governments. I should mention that land ownership was almost always required for voting, but without having the entire world forcing you into a mold, one could become a land owner through hard work and persistence. This bit of opportunity may have been the real spark that led to people rejecting the monarchy as absolute (even over "lower class" people) rulers.

Government is a social activity, and without enormous social pressure in either direction, it stagnates. The freedom afforded by the wide open spaces and other factors in the North American colonies provided that social pressure. What about today? I see a lot of social pressure... But all social change is relatively slow, and it takes a lot of time before something that ranks up with the independence movement of the English colonies can be started, let alone concluded.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Wait...what? I thought we were specifically talking about why people emigrated from England to North America.

Where did you get that idea?

Government is a social activity, and without enormous social pressure in either direction, it stagnates. The freedom afforded by the wide open spaces and other factors in the North American colonies provided that social pressure. What about today? I see a lot of social pressure... But all social change is relatively slow, and it takes a lot of time before something that ranks up with the independence movement of the English colonies can be started, let alone concluded.

Government is a social activity so long as you're included, but it does not always respond to social pressures. Sometimes, it acts in its own best interest regardless of social pressures and instead of true change, merely revisits the failed ideals of history. This was the "change" I was referring to.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Government is a social activity so long as you're included, but it does not always respond to social pressures. Sometimes, it acts in its own best interest regardless of social pressures and instead of true change, merely revisits the failed ideals of history. This was the "change" I was referring to.

Government disincludes individuals at its peril. When enough individuals are marginalized and then they get together, they are not ignorable. Look at the Civil Rights movement for how that works. Government ALWAYS responds to social pressure, but as I said, it takes a lot of time, and sometimes it takes an awful lot of pressure.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Government disincludes individuals at its peril. When enough individuals are marginalized and then they get together, they are not ignorable. Look at the Civil Rights movement for how that works.

Yeah, 100+ years of ignoring individuals- fugitive slave act, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, the SCOTUS ignoring the constitution, moving civil rights not even slowly forward, but steadily backwards, finally being forced kicking and screaming into doing something -filibustering through even that tooth and nail- then whitewashing the actual history of all this and pretending to be champions of what they were actually mostly against.

Yeah, we've seen how that works.

[ghporter]

Like I said, it's slow. Society changes slowly, and it takes a long, long time to get people interested, involved, and motivated enough to do something about it. But note that the Civil Rights movement started before the Civil War, and could be said to still be a work in progress. That is how slowly society changes.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

True, but also why the statement: 'Government disincludes individuals at its peril' should read:

Government disincludes individuals at its leisure.

Exactly why people are wise not to trust it growing ever bigger, more powerful, and more out of control.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

American society, in whole or in whatever parts you want to chop it up into, is always changing. It's something that has been a factor in our development since the very beginning, even in the early, colonial stage. Unfettered by the rigid class and land-ownership system of Britain, colonists were able to explore and expand their cultural limits, which is what allowed the colonists and later the Americans to become such "movers and shakers" in the world. In a scant 150 years, we went from rag-tag revolutionaries to "the arsenal of democracy," and were the deciding force in the largest, most violent conflict among people in history. You can't do that if anything is fixed and rigid-it takes constant change.

That's true, but there has always been a move by new immigrants to assimilate, at least among those groups that have successfully influenced the overall culture of the nation.

I can tell a difference in just the past generation -- there's a lot less assimilation and a lot more "heritage" or whatever that word is in Spanish.

The idea that we have bilingual programs for school kids on a grand scale, for instance, wasn't around 25 years ago. Of course we had special programs for immigrants and migrant workers' children, but those special programs were to LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH and not to accommodate two languages through high school.

Even growing up in the Deep South, there was plenty of hospitality to people from everywhere else, charity, outreach, social services. But the expectation, and the follow-through, was that you would start assimilating (LEARNING ENGLISH) once you got here.

[OldManMac]

Somebody convince me this isn't about racism.

Wonkette : Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

That's true, but there has always been a move by new immigrants to assimilate, at least among those groups that have successfully influenced the overall culture of the nation.

I can tell a difference in just the past generation -- there's a lot less assimilation and a lot more "heritage" or whatever that word is in Spanish.

The idea that we have bilingual programs for school kids on a grand scale, for instance, wasn't around 25 years ago. Of course we had special programs for immigrants and migrant workers' children, but those special programs were to LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH and not to accommodate two languages through high school.

Even growing up in the Deep South, there was plenty of hospitality to people from everywhere else, charity, outreach, social services. But the expectation, and the follow-through, was that you would start assimilating (LEARNING ENGLISH) once you got here.

A lot of folks will tell you that distaste for immigration is a "brown people" problem. I think the best example of a healthy immigration are our friends from India. They come, they rule our spelling bees 8 out of 12 years, entrepreneurship, skilled in medicine, etc... They are still Indian, they don't abandon their own culture, but they have a healthy view of the opportunities afforded those here and avail themselves of them all.

I don't hear a lot of complaints about these "brown" people, do you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Somebody convince me this isn't about racism.

Why? You've already made up your mind that it is. Let me see if I understand this. The school district voted on this to be their mural, (featuring real students from the district with an African-American prominently displayed front and center), granted more than $5000 for the project featuring the black and latino students, and wanted the "shading" to be lighter in portions to indicate the children coming into the "light" (it was supposed to be an uplifting depiction of the enlightenment of education). It was an artistic preference according to the principle with nothing to do with race. Remember, they all VOTED ON THE MURAL FEATURING THE ETHNICITIES IN QUESTION! You should read the article your site links where the school actually gets to speak for itself instead of this goofy link with the illustration of a Klansman on it.

I notice there's a neat little article on that site showing the horrors of eating meat too. Images of bloody, suffering animals that in their words are sure to turn all into vegetarians. Here's your friggin' stick back for reading such mind-numbing fear-mongering.