http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/October/Muslims-Complaint-Sparks-Charges-on-Christian-Couple/
QuotePolice arrested Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, who run the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, after a Muslim woman complained that she was offended by comments made to her in March. Because the legal case is ongoing the couple cannot comment publicly.
According to newspaper reports, the debate at the hotel involved discussion of whether Jesus was the son of God or just a minor prophet of Islam. Newspapers also reported the debate included comments that Mohammed was a warlord and Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.
:bleeding:
Europe is falling before our very eyes. :(
Stuff like this make me think maybe the Swiss were right. Fucking mooslimbs
If Martim chimes in we'll have all the Forum's fascists here.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2009, 07:26:50 AM
If Martim chimes in we'll have all the Forum's fascists here.
If you would venture out of your basement, you would know I am pretty far from being a fascist. Real fascists would scare you to death, I am afraid.
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2009, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2009, 07:26:50 AM
If Martim chimes in we'll have all the Forum's fascists here.
If you would venture out of your basement, you would know I am pretty far from being a fascist. Real fascists would scare you to death, I am afraid.
You are a Hungarian. Hungarians are fascist.
I thought Britain was one of the freer societies. At least that's what Barrister Boy said.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2009, 07:34:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2009, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2009, 07:26:50 AM
If Martim chimes in we'll have all the Forum's fascists here.
If you would venture out of your basement, you would know I am pretty far from being a fascist. Real fascists would scare you to death, I am afraid.
You are a Hungarian. Hungarians are fascist.
Sorry, already used against Sarkozy in France :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2009, 07:22:54 AM
:bleeding:
Great Britain is falling before our very eyes. :(
Stuff like this make me think maybe the Swiss were right. Fucking mooslimbs
fixed it for ya...
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2009, 07:22:54 AM
Stuff like this make me think maybe the Swiss were right. Fucking mooslimbs
Really? That's your conclusion? :huh:
Very sad. :(
What it never occurred to you to check what the source of this was? Just Slargos puts a cropped quote and it's the end of the West? C'mon now. What's wrong with you people. It's from the fucking 700 club! There's probably an article in there about Muslim causing hurricanes.
Well, here's the news blurb from Guardian which pretty much says the same thing, except the arrest part (which I found dubious in Slargos's story).
QuoteA pair of Christian hoteliers who argued with a Muslim guest have been charged with a "religiously aggravated" public order offence. Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang run the Bounty House Hotel in Aintree, Liverpool. The incident took place in March when a guest came down to breakfast in a hijab. It is alleged Mr Vogelenzang said the prophet Muhammad was a warlord. He denies the claim. It is also claimed that Mrs Vogelenzang described the hijab as a form of bondage. The guest complained to police and the couple will appear before Liverpool magistrates on December 8.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/21/hotel-guest-row-hijab-religion
OMG Languish is dying!!!112223
Mohamy was a warlord. Think he'd go with the decapitation method to deal with this however.
What the fuck is a "'religiously aggravated' public order offence"?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 01, 2009, 08:14:12 AM
What the fuck is a "'religiously aggravated' public order offence"?
Calling a Muslim a wog, I would imagine.
Mohammed was a drunk that couldn't handle it.
So is the muslim also under charges for (allegedly) calling Jesus just some minor prophet of Islam? Because you know, he offendiered them Christians.
I'm impressed we can conclude that "British freedom of speech is dying" from one paragraph.
Question: Has the UK ever had freedom of speech to the extent that it is guaranteed by law in the US? I don't automatically assume all of the Western democracies do.... I mean look at Germany with the whole Nazi situation.
QuoteA pair of Christian hoteliers who argued with a Muslim guest have been charged with a "religiously aggravated" public order offence.
This is what some were refering to in the minarets thread when they were talking about religion creeping back in the public sphere. And this is something that's been growing since the increase in mass immigration from the poorer parts of the planet. The problem is not a muslim bitch screaming abuse (don't they always, for anything and everything?) - but overzealous officials scrambling to avoid offending minorities...
Tcha! <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 08:33:40 AM
This is what some were refering to in the minarets thread when they were talking about religion creeping back in the public sphere
Sensationalized anti-muslim bullshit?
Are the hotel owners supposed to lecture their quests on their religions?
:rolleyes:
Is it bad business? Yes.
Does it warrant having to appear before the police? Of course not.
I still suspect something must be missing from this story.
Surely there is more to the story than that...
Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2009, 08:30:16 AM
Question: Has the UK ever had freedom of speech to the extent that it is guaranteed by law in the US? I don't automatically assume all of the Western democracies do.... I mean look at Germany with the whole Nazi situation.
No they don't, and it is rather severely limited. It used to have blasphemy laws on the books for a long time and now has anti-offense laws that are very similar but applied to a broader category of cases (notably, not just Christianity but also other religions and I think also nationality or sexual orientation - but not sure about the latter).
They also have a much more broader defamation coverage - we even had a thread some time ago about problems with recognition of the UK anti-defamation judgements in the US, since the systems are so different.
Quote from: Sahib on December 01, 2009, 08:38:46 AM
Sensationalized anti-muslim bullshit?
Are the hotel owners supposed to lecture their quests on their religions?
As I said above - the officials should have dismissed this as frivolous - a private quarrel between citizens since from what we know it was a divergence of opinion on religion. Nothing that should concern the State or its representatives. At least that's what should be happening in a lay society, unless violence is used - in which case criminal law is invoked.
And unless there's more that hasn't been published, this looks like a typical case of triumphant multi-culturalism: punish members of the majority whenever some shrill representative of a visible minority makes a complaint.
G.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginmedia.com%2Fimages%2Fbasil_fawlty-290.jpg&hash=bef38388b8fe1461c44a8b54f48f10573730550f)
Don't mention the war!
That's the image I had when I first read this thread, but then I got distracted by the ideological issues. :blush:
Reactions to Muslims on this forum remind me of the stories I read about anti-semitism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries.
There is clearly something missing here. Unless we are to believe that no one debates the role of Jesus in religion anywhere in GB, this is an isolated case. It is possible that this couple saw she was a Muslim and decided to hassle her over her religion.
It would be the same if it was a Jewish person who walked in and the couple started to heckle over the question of why the Jews killed Jesus. If that was the case, I imagine there would be more compassion.
Those damn Jews. With their synagogues, and traditions. Why do they refuse to assimilate?
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:38:12 AM
Reactions to Muslims on this forum remind me of the stories I read about anti-semitism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries.
There is clearly something missing here. Unless we are to believe that no one debates the role of Jesus in religion anywhere in GB, this is an isolated case. It is possible that this couple saw she was a Muslim and decided to hassle her over her religion.
It would be the same if it was a Jewish person who walked in and the couple started to heckle over the question of why the Jews killed Jesus. If that was the case, I imagine there would be more compassion.
Those damn Jews. With their synagogues, and traditions. Why do they refuse to assimilate?
I am not sure if you are trolling or not, but yeah, this is my concern as well, which has started recently to temper my negative feelings towards Islam and its sexism, homophobia etc. I must say I don't know personally any Muslims.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 08:33:40 AM
QuoteA pair of Christian hoteliers who argued with a Muslim guest have been charged with a "religiously aggravated" public order offence.
This is what some were refering to in the minarets thread when they were talking about religion creeping back in the public sphere. And this is something that's been growing since the increase in mass immigration from the poorer parts of the planet. The problem is not a muslim bitch screaming abuse (don't they always, for anything and everything?) - but overzealous officials scrambling to avoid offending minorities...
Tcha! <_<
Exactly. Whiny, victim mentality is a fact of life for everyone these days. The problem is that the authorities have embraced moral cowardice.
You know, I'm going to miss liberalism and the enlightenment when they're gone, but they seem to be evolving to a point where they can no longer defend themselves.
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:38:12 AM
It would be the same if it was a Jewish person who walked in and the couple started to heckle over the question of why the Jews killed Jesus. If that was the case, I imagine there would be more compassion.
I rather doubt it.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:40:45 AM
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 08:33:40 AM
QuoteA pair of Christian hoteliers who argued with a Muslim guest have been charged with a "religiously aggravated" public order offence.
This is what some were refering to in the minarets thread when they were talking about religion creeping back in the public sphere. And this is something that's been growing since the increase in mass immigration from the poorer parts of the planet. The problem is not a muslim bitch screaming abuse (don't they always, for anything and everything?) - but overzealous officials scrambling to avoid offending minorities...
Tcha! <_<
Exactly. Whiny, victim mentality is a fact of life for everyone these days. The problem is that the authorities have embraced moral cowardice.
You know, I'm going to miss liberalism and the enlightenment when they're gone, but they seem to be evolving to a point where they can no longer defend themselves.
Seeing how liberalism/enlightenment is the only system that has not only survived the last two hundred years, but has thrived and defeated all other systems that attempted to challenge it (nazism, communism, absolutism etc.), I think your prophecies of its demise are grossly premature.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 09:07:04 AM
As I said above - the officials should have dismissed this as frivolous - a private quarrel between citizens since from what we know it was a divergence of opinion on religion. Nothing that should concern the State or its representatives. At least that's what should be happening in a lay society, unless violence is used - in which case criminal law is invoked.
And unless there's more that hasn't been published, this looks like a typical case of triumphant multi-culturalism: punish members of the majority whenever some shrill representative of a visible minority makes a complaint.
IIRC (from other forum when this discussed) there was state money involved, as people they were housing were some sort of convalescent. From that point of view, I would say it was the Christian couple that were "shrill" in this case.
Should police be involved? Well, on principle, I would say no. But I'm also opposing the tabloidesque spin this story was given and your genocidal ideas.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:44:47 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:38:12 AM
It would be the same if it was a Jewish person who walked in and the couple started to heckle over the question of why the Jews killed Jesus. If that was the case, I imagine there would be more compassion.
I rather doubt it.
Oh please. Whenever Jews are accosted, everyone on this forum comes running with open arms like a worried soccer mom.
Guilt is a powerfull thing.
Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2009, 08:30:16 AM
Question: Has the UK ever had freedom of speech to the extent that it is guaranteed by law in the US? I don't automatically assume all of the Western democracies do.... I mean look at Germany with the whole Nazi situation.
The thing with Germany isn't for their benefit it's for ours! It was either that or we just killed them all.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2009, 10:02:22 AM
The thing with Germany isn't for their benefit it's for ours! It was either that or we just killed them all.
:huh: Where did I say it was for anyone's benefit? It was just a statement of fact on my part.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 08:33:40 AM
The problem is not a muslim bitch screaming abuse but overzealous officials scrambling to avoid offending minorities...
Indeed. We really shouldn't blame the Muslims for Britain having shitty laws.
I'm afraid I couldn't possibly comment :zipped:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2009, 11:02:51 AM
I'm afraid I couldn't possibly comment :zipped:
:o
Everyone to the back room in five minutes!
Maybe this is the tyranny of the British Monarchy we fought against in the Revolution. The thought police of Elizabeth II are everywhere.
If only you could bear arms you could take care of this problem.
Sounds ridiculous, but I need more info about the statute and facts to give an opinion.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 11:24:54 AM
Sounds ridiculous, but I need more info about the statute and facts to give an opinion.
That isn't the Languish/internet way. :mad:
Some more details about the case :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216357/They-called-terrorist--Muslim-woman-hits-race-row-hotel-couple.html
Does the Mail usually give the property value of the homes of people they interview?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
Some more details about the case :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216357/They-called-terrorist--Muslim-woman-hits-race-row-hotel-couple.html
So it would seem this *was* mostly a matter of hurt feelings after all... Keep at this long enough Brits and Britain will either be unable to prevent all sorts of ethno cultural enclosures and differential rights from forming - or there'll be a drastic reaction against all this hand-wringning that could turn very ugly.
Such is the price one pays for indulging, nay - wallowing, in multi-culturalism.
G.
Do British newspapers put how much people's houses are worth in articles? Weird.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 11:47:59 AM
Does the Mail usually give the property value of the homes of people they interview?
Nearly always :lol:
It is the paper of "middle England", the lower middle-class, the value of their property is the chief financial difference between them and the working class and the swarms of assorted foreigners who threaten our cherished traditions ;)
Somebody has got to hold the line in England.
Edit: I never felt oppressed in london. Creeped out, yes. oppressed? Nah.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 11:57:41 AM
So it would seem this *was* mostly a matter of hurt feelings after all... Keep at this long enough Brits and Britain will either be unable to prevent all sorts of ethno cultural enclosures and differential rights from forming - or there'll be a drastic reaction against all this hand-wringning that could turn very ugly.
Such is the price one pays for indulging, nay - wallowing, in multi-culturalism.
The statute actually protects you as well, fag.
Mr. and Mrs. Hotel sound like real pricks, but I don't think criminalizing rudeness is a very good idea.
There has been no judgement yet. It may be thrown out of court. Alternatively the court may find the hoteliers guilty. There appear to have been plenty of witnesses. The court should be able to determine if a polite disagreement occurred or whether the hoteliers went into some sort of frenzy when confronted by a hotel guest in muslim garb.
Maybe these hoteliers discriminate against homosexuals as well, maybe they attack women who wear slutty tops to breakfast; maybe the muslim woman is an over-sensitive nutcase; we just don't know until the court proceedings have taken place.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 12:09:33 PM
Mr. and Mrs. Hotel sound like real pricks, but I don't think criminalizing rudeness is a very good idea.
I dunno. I
can see an argument that hotel operators are more vulnerable, and that people in the medical profession should be held to a higher standard. I don't agree with it, though, and that's what the statute isn't designed for.
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:47:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:44:47 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:38:12 AM
It would be the same if it was a Jewish person who walked in and the couple started to heckle over the question of why the Jews killed Jesus. If that was the case, I imagine there would be more compassion.
I rather doubt it.
Oh please. Whenever Jews are accosted, everyone on this forum comes running with open arms like a worried soccer mom.
Most of us don't really feel that the police should get involved because somebody had their feelings hurt.
Quote
The Muslim woman whose complaint about two Christian hoteliers led police to charge them with a religiously aggravated offence is a British-born convert who turned to Islam a year ago.
That alone is enough to prove mental insanity.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 11:57:41 AM
So it would seem this *was* mostly a matter of hurt feelings after all... Keep at this long enough Brits and Britain will either be unable to prevent all sorts of ethno cultural enclosures and differential rights from forming - or there'll be a drastic reaction against all this hand-wringning that could turn very ugly.
Such is the price one pays for indulging, nay - wallowing, in multi-culturalism.
The statute actually protects you as well, fag.
Actually, apparently not. Religious-motivated anti-gay hate speech is allowed in the UK:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=98998
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 01, 2009, 12:14:57 PM
Quote
The Muslim woman whose complaint about two Christian hoteliers led police to charge them with a religiously aggravated offence is a British-born convert who turned to Islam a year ago.
That alone is enough to prove mental insanity.
Indeed. A crazy neophyte with a huge chip on her shoulder is my guess after reading more fact.
For the record, I think the law is retarded just as the law banning minarets is retarded.
The poor muslim dude though, marries an English girl who then converts to some strict form of Islam, manages to get him involved in some ludicrous tiff at a hotel breakfast and probably gives him a bollocking if he ever dares to have a pint with his mates after an Everton match :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:40:45 AM
Exactly. Whiny, victim mentality is a fact of life for everyone these days. The problem is that the authorities have embraced moral cowardice.
You know, I'm going to miss liberalism and the enlightenment when they're gone, but they seem to be evolving to a point where they can no longer defend themselves.
Seeing how liberalism/enlightenment is the only system that has not only survived the last two hundred years, but has thrived and defeated all other systems that attempted to challenge it (nazism, communism, absolutism etc.), I think your prophecies of its demise are grossly premature.
It has to die sometime, does it not?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2009, 12:20:31 PM
The poor muslim dude though, marries an English girl who then converts to some strict form of Islam, manages to get him involved in some ludicrous tiff at a hotel breakfast and probably gives him a bollocking if he ever dares to have a pint with his mates after an Everton match :lol:
Heh, that actually seems likely. :D
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:40:45 AM
Exactly. Whiny, victim mentality is a fact of life for everyone these days. The problem is that the authorities have embraced moral cowardice.
You know, I'm going to miss liberalism and the enlightenment when they're gone, but they seem to be evolving to a point where they can no longer defend themselves.
Seeing how liberalism/enlightenment is the only system that has not only survived the last two hundred years, but has thrived and defeated all other systems that attempted to challenge it (nazism, communism, absolutism etc.), I think your prophecies of its demise are grossly premature.
It has to die sometime, does it not?
Well, all things do, eventually. Still, in comparison, I'd say nazism or communism were far more dangerous threats to it than muslim immigration is now, and still it beat them.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:23:12 PM
Well, all things do, eventually. Still, in comparison, I'd say nazism or communism were far more dangerous threats to it than muslim immigration is now, and still it beat them.
The West was a different place back then. Liberal, but also with a strong self-image and a willingness to take a stand.
There is actually quite a lot of unpleasant racism in the UK. I think the main risk is that the liberals here will produce too much overly-sensitive legislation and thus inflame the very feelings they are trying to suppress.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 12:38:42 PM
The West was a different place back then. Liberal, but also with a strong self-image and a willingness to take a stand.
Not to mention the 'ennemies' were external - now we simply invite them in! Perhaps that's the real symptom of decadence: the unwillingness to fight for one's beliefs? What was that quote again... about civilizations dying not from external threats but from internal corruption...?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 12:38:42 PM
The West was a different place back then. Liberal, but also with a strong self-image and a willingness to take a stand.
Not to mention the 'ennemies' were external - now we simply invite them in! Perhaps that's the real symptom of decadence: the unwillingness to fight for one's beliefs? What was that quote again... about civilizations dying not from external threats but from internal corruption...?
G.
People have been saying that about every single social change since the dawn of time, I suspect.
Western society/"our way of life" was collapsing because black people were allowed to vote. Or marry. Or women were allowed to vote. Or gay people were tolerated. Or, of course, them damn furriners are taking over. Or because the damn heretics are taking over/being tolerated. The Catholics are coming! The Catholics are going! The protestants are ruining everything! The Damned Sunnis are coming in! Oh no it's the huegenots!
Blahblahblah, slightly different tune each time, but always the same song of intolerance and hate for the evil "different".
Read this and we'll talk some more.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
G.
-----
Oh and this tasty quote from the article:
QuoteTake multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 11:47:59 AM
Does the Mail usually give the property value of the homes of people they interview?
Yes. It's a British obsession. For the true Daily Mail experience you'd just need to add how gay gypsy assylum seekers with TB are causing property prices to collapse :)
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:47:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:44:47 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 09:38:12 AM
It would be the same if it was a Jewish person who walked in and the couple started to heckle over the question of why the Jews killed Jesus. If that was the case, I imagine there would be more compassion.
I rather doubt it.
Oh please. Whenever Jews are accosted, everyone on this forum comes running with open arms like a worried soccer mom.
except for those doing the accosting, you mean.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
Maybe these hoteliers discriminate against homosexuals as well, maybe they attack women who wear slutty tops to breakfast; maybe the muslim woman is an over-sensitive nutcase; we just don't know until the court proceedings have taken place.
I think there have been cases about Christian hoteliers bitching at gay couples. Why do so many intense Christians open B&Bs? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2009, 01:30:40 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
Maybe these hoteliers discriminate against homosexuals as well, maybe they attack women who wear slutty tops to breakfast; maybe the muslim woman is an over-sensitive nutcase; we just don't know until the court proceedings have taken place.
I think there have been cases about Christian hoteliers bitching at gay couples. Why do so many intense Christians open B&Bs? :mellow:
Intense people in general.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Ftelegraph%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00782%2Ffawlty-towers460_782228c.jpg&hash=23c74bd496b096878dd8fd00997ac31d2adf21cf)
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 01:11:11 PM
Read this and we'll talk some more.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
G.
-----
Oh and this tasty quote from the article:
QuoteTake multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.
That's a pretty stupid definition of multiculturalism. Full of snide assumptions. So probably this is exactly how many people see multiculturalism. Too bad for them. It sucks that there are so many self righteous gasbags out there.
Real "multiculturalism" is not about replacing one set of superstitions or rituals with another, or even having to be exposed to them. It's about having the opportunity to be exposed to them. You don't have to participate or even watch or even be aware that the other cultures are there, unless you want to.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on December 01, 2009, 01:36:55 PM
Real "multiculturalism" is not about replacing one set of superstitions or rituals with another, or even having to be exposed to them. It's about having the opportunity to be exposed to them. You don't have to participate or even watch or even be aware that the other cultures are there, unless you want to.
Where is this "real" multiculturalism? In many/most cases, the multiculturalism I know tends to be forced on people. Like in school, for example.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on December 01, 2009, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 01:11:11 PM
Read this and we'll talk some more.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760)
G.
-----
Oh and this tasty quote from the article:
QuoteTake multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.
That's a pretty stupid definition of multiculturalism. Full of snide assumptions. So probably this is exactly how many people see multiculturalism. Too bad for them. It sucks that there are so many self righteous gasbags out there.
Real "multiculturalism" is not about replacing one set of superstitions or rituals with another, or even having to be exposed to them. It's about having the opportunity to be exposed to them. You don't have to participate or even watch or even be aware that the other cultures are there, unless you want to.
I'm sorting this gem right beside "The Soviet Union wasn't really communist and as such casts no shadow on the communist ideology".
Do they attempt culture enriching in school these days? They didn't when I was a lad, but that was back when official multiculturalism was in it's infancy, and was still mostly based on anti-Americanism.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2009, 12:20:31 PM
The poor muslim dude though, marries an English girl who then converts to some strict form of Islam, manages to get him involved in some ludicrous tiff at a hotel breakfast and probably gives him a bollocking if he ever dares to have a pint with his mates after an Everton match :lol:
Yes, and here you hit upon the real problem:
women.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 12:51:58 PMNot to mention the 'ennemies' were external - now we simply invite them in! Perhaps that's the real symptom of decadence: the unwillingness to fight for one's beliefs? What was that quote again... about civilizations dying not from external threats but from internal corruption...?
What are your beliefs, by the way Grallon? From your posts here it seems that they are that life and love is futile and that muslims are subhuman. Not much there to fight for, to be honest.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2009, 12:57:57 PM
Western society/"our way of life" was collapsing because black people were allowed to vote. Or marry. Or women were allowed to vote. Or gay people were tolerated. Or, of course, them damn furriners are taking over. Or because the damn heretics are taking over/being tolerated. The Catholics are coming! The Catholics are going! The protestants are ruining everything! The Damned Sunnis are coming in! Oh no it's the huegenots!
Look at the state of America today and tell me they were wrong. ^_^
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
Do they attempt culture enriching in school these days? They didn't when I was a lad, but that was back when official multiculturalism was in it's infancy, and was still mostly based on anti-Americanism.
I had a class on world cultures in highschool. To learn about the caste system, we had a day where the upper caste could force the lower castes to do whatever we wanted (in reason...somewhat). The lower castes hated us.
Did you get to be a brahmin, garbo? :)
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 08:33:40 AM
QuoteA pair of Christian hoteliers who argued with a Muslim guest have been charged with a "religiously aggravated" public order offence.
This is what some were refering to in the minarets thread when they were talking about religion creeping back in the public sphere. And this is something that's been growing since the increase in mass immigration from the poorer parts of the planet. The problem is not a muslim bitch screaming abuse (don't they always, for anything and everything?) - but overzealous officials scrambling to avoid offending minorities...
Tcha! <_<
G.
I have the same contempt for multi-culturalism that you do. The problem is, multi-culturalism isn't what it pretends to be. What it actually is in practice boils down to a vague belief that white males are the cause of all the world's problems, and that we should feel guilty and defer to anyone who isn't a white male (and for this purpose, Muslims, no matter what their ethnic or national background, count as non-white, but Jews count as white, so veiled, or, indeed, not-so-veiled anti-Semitism is OK). I reject that. What it claims to be, OTOH, is tolerance for people with other cultural backgrounds. I don't reject that, but it appears that you do, at least when it comes to Muslims.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
I have the same contempt for multi-culturalism that you do. The problem is, multi-culturalism isn't what it pretends to be. What it actually is in practice boils down to a vague belief that white males are the cause of all the world's problems, and that we should feel guilty and defer to anyone who isn't a white male (and for this purpose, Muslims, no matter what their ethnic or national background, count as non-white, but Jews count as white, so veiled, or, indeed, not-so-veiled anti-Semitism is OK). I reject that.
That's because you're white, isn't it?
Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2009, 03:53:09 PM
Did you get to be a brahmin, garbo? :)
If I recall correctly, I was supposed to be of the lowest caste but I cheated in whatever the selection process was so that I'd be high up. Faked my caste. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
I have the same contempt for multi-culturalism that you do. The problem is, multi-culturalism isn't what it pretends to be. What it actually is in practice boils down to a vague belief that white males are the cause of all the world's problems, and that we should feel guilty and defer to anyone who isn't a white male (and for this purpose, Muslims, no matter what their ethnic or national background, count as non-white, but Jews count as white, so veiled, or, indeed, not-so-veiled anti-Semitism is OK). I reject that.
That's because you're white, isn't it?
Possibly.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
I have the same contempt for multi-culturalism that you do. The problem is, multi-culturalism isn't what it pretends to be. What it actually is in practice boils down to a vague belief that white males are the cause of all the world's problems, and that we should feel guilty and defer to anyone who isn't a white male (and for this purpose, Muslims, no matter what their ethnic or national background, count as non-white, but Jews count as white, so veiled, or, indeed, not-so-veiled anti-Semitism is OK). I reject that. What it claims to be, OTOH, is tolerance for people with other cultural backgrounds. I don't reject that, but it appears that you do, at least when it comes to Muslims.
Oh yeah, the supposed multi-culturalist ideology that anyone not bent on spiting Muslims in every conceivable and completely illiberal fashion apparently espouses.
Great strawman, right there.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
... What it claims to be, OTOH, is tolerance for people with other cultural backgrounds. I don't reject that, but it appears that you do, at least when it comes to Muslims.
One must differentiate the value of an individual as a person and the value of the collectivity these persons are a product of/originate from.
I'll be tolerant of a man (insert any muslim background here) with his wife wearing a burqa and walking 3 steps behind, if I see this on TV, in a documentary about the quaint customs of some faraway land - not if I see it in the Montreal subway like I did some time ago.
Seing such a thing here means that this person does not intend to adopt the value (shared by most in his new country) that women are the equals of men (otherwise she wouldn't have been wearing that overheated mobile tent (she was actually stumbling in it!), and wouldn't have been walking behind her 'lord') - but raher that he can '
eat his cake and keep it too'. That is: globalization and the ambiant multiculturalism allows him to keep on living as if he was still in the algerian backcountry while at the same time benefiting from a relative stability and prosperity *denied* him in his original country *because* of said retrograde values and/or customs.
In other words the man is a parasite! Now if you add many more thousands like him, every year - who are allowed, by our negligence and misplaced sense of fairness, to believe they can 'eat it and keep it' - you'll end up having a problem. Because at some point they'll be numerous enough to demand that such and such custom be enshrined in the law. And they'll have the right of it since there will have been precedents, for years on end.
G.
How could you have a law that prevents a man from having his wife walk behind him? :huh:
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
Do they attempt culture enriching in school these days? They didn't when I was a lad, but that was back when official multiculturalism was in it's infancy, and was still mostly based on anti-Americanism.
Yeah, it wasn't as bad when I was a kid, but it was there. It was a far cry from that one school in California where you were required to "be a Muslim" for a couple weeks.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 05:52:36 PM
How could you have a law that prevents a man from having his wife walk behind him? :huh:
Contrarian is thy name, and disingenuous is thy middle name. <_<
One does not make a law to prevent such a thing - one simply does not allow people who believe in such things to enter one's country!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 06:04:52 PM
Contrarian is thy name, and disingenuous is thy middle name. <_<
One does not make a law to prevent such a thing - one simply does not allow people who believe in such things to enter one's country!
G.
What happens if they are born in your country?
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 06:04:01 PM
Yeah, it wasn't as bad when I was a kid, but it was there. It was a far cry from that one school in California where you were required to "be a Muslim" for a couple weeks.
OMG, that California. So wacky.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 05:50:38 PM
I'll be tolerant of a man (insert any muslim background here) with his wife wearing a burqa and walking 3 steps behind, if I see this on TV, in a documentary about the quaint customs of some faraway land - not if I see it in the Montreal subway like I did some time ago.
...
You're not even fun to make fun of.
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 06:04:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
Do they attempt culture enriching in school these days? They didn't when I was a lad, but that was back when official multiculturalism was in it's infancy, and was still mostly based on anti-Americanism.
Yeah, it wasn't as bad when I was a kid, but it was there. It was a far cry from that one school in California where you were required to "be a Muslim" for a couple weeks.
I was required to "be a hetero" for my entire time at high school.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 06:04:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
Do they attempt culture enriching in school these days? They didn't when I was a lad, but that was back when official multiculturalism was in it's infancy, and was still mostly based on anti-Americanism.
Yeah, it wasn't as bad when I was a kid, but it was there. It was a far cry from that one school in California where you were required to "be a Muslim" for a couple weeks.
I was required to "be a hetero" for my entire time at high school.
Your silk scarves were a dead giveaway.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 06:04:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 05:52:36 PM
How could you have a law that prevents a man from having his wife walk behind him? :huh:
Contrarian is thy name, and disingenuous is thy middle name. <_<
One does not make a law to prevent such a thing - one simply does not allow people who believe in such things to enter one's country!
G.
And you think that the attitude that a man is the lord and master of his wife is restricted to particular ethnic, cultural, or religious groups, so you can easily identify them and keep them out?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 06:54:44 PM
I was required to "be a hetero" for my entire time at high school.
You gave up too soon.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 06:19:47 PM
You're not even fun to make fun of.
Soit beau et tais-toi mon joli! :)
G.
Zut allors! Mange poisson avec moi.
Içi, on parle en anglais, car Wolfe a gagner.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 02:06:17 PM
Where is this "real" multiculturalism? In many/most cases, the multiculturalism I know tends to be forced on people. Like in school, for example.
London seems close to the successful real multicultiness.
I always thought multiculturalism was actually a sort of way of dealing with numerous cultures within a society or a city. I didn't realise that it was really religious education classes about Hinduism :mellow:
I've never liked multicultural as a term, it seems inaccurate to me, a better description would be broadminded and tolerant.
So, we can welcome Islam and muslims, but not Islam as it is practised in Saudi Arabia.......for example.
So, a muslim that accepted these overarching values of tolerance and secularism trumping religion would not belong to a different culture IMO, he would be a Westerner.
The Ottoman empire was a multicultural state in that it had different laws for people with different cultures. A country like Britain has the same laws for all, so, if we are multicultural, then we continuously hobble and restrict the component cultures.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:29:18 PM
Zut allors! Mange poisson avec moi.
Içi, on parle en anglais, car Wolfe a gagner.
Grey Wolf-like grammar/spelling, vorsicht!
Zut alors! Mange du poisson avec moi(sic).
Ici, on parle (en) anglais, car Wolfe a gagné.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 01:47:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 02:06:17 PM
Where is this "real" multiculturalism? In many/most cases, the multiculturalism I know tends to be forced on people. Like in school, for example.
London seems close to the successful real multicultiness.
I always thought multiculturalism was actually a sort of way of dealing with numerous cultures within a society or a city. I didn't realise that it was really religious education classes about Hinduism :mellow:
You learn something everyday.
I associate the word multicultural with institutional acts. Hindu appreciation day at school, Mexican pride week, that sort of thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 08:05:08 AM
I associate the word multicultural with institutional acts. Hindu appreciation day at school, Mexican pride week, that sort of thing.
I always thought it was a sort of encouragement for different cultures to maintain their separate cultural identities within a larger multi-cultural context and, obviously, so far as cultural practices didn't conflict with British law.
In contrast to the US where my impression was that all identities melt into one (the melting pot - I believe multi-culti, in a desire for a food metaphor, was described as the salad bowl) or the French system of semi-enforced 'Republican' values.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:26:01 AM
I always thought it was a sort of encouragement for different cultures to maintain their separate cultural identities within a larger multi-cultural context and, obviously, so far as cultural practices didn't conflict with British law.
I think it has to do much more with the dominant majority's attitudes towards minorities rather than minorities' attitudes about themselves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 08:48:37 AM
I think it has to do much more with the dominant majority's attitudes towards minorities rather than minorities' attitudes about themselves.
Carry on, because I'm not sure what you mean in relation to what I said.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 01:47:18 AM
London seems close to the successful real multicultiness.
Not really. It is creating a London culture. New York has been "multicultural" forever but that is just an interim phase on the way to melding everything together. It is not like London is going to be a city of distinct colonies of different cultures living side by side. People will intermarry, come together, old ways of doing things will fade and new ways will emerge as a result of the cultural exchange.
Just, you know, like every other international city in the history of the world. There is nothing revolutionary or new going on in London.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:10:41 AM
Just, you know, like every other international city in the history of the world. There is nothing revolutionary or new going on in London.
But punk was invented there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:26:01 AM
I always thought it was a sort of encouragement for different cultures to maintain their separate cultural identities within a larger multi-cultural context and, obviously, so far as cultural practices didn't conflict with British law.
Yeah I don't see what is productive about that. It sounds like a desire to create ghettos and colonies of different cultures and that simply will never happen without conflict and discrimination keeping the groups apart. Besides why fear change? Why encourage the preservation of old ways unnecessarily in a new context they were never intended for?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:57:32 AM
Carry on, because I'm not sure what you mean in relation to what I said.
Schools hold Hindu appreciation day because we want to elevate the respect whitey has for dotheads, not because we want dotheads to keep on dotting.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:12:58 AM
Yeah I don't see what is productive about that. It sounds like a desire to create ghettos and colonies of different cultures and that simply will never happen without conflict and discrimination keeping the groups apart. Besides why fear change? Why encourage the preservation of old ways unnecessarily in a new context they were never intended for?
I describe London as a city that is real multi-culti, not because it's special but because that's what the process means to me. It's not ghettoised to any significant degree - indeed one sign of how successful its been in London and a few other cities is that we have multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic gangs :lol:
QuotePeople will intermarry, come together, old ways of doing things will fade and new ways will emerge as a result of the cultural exchange.
This is exactly what I think multi-culturalism's about. A number of cultures that live in an area able to have pride in their culture so that cultural interchange can happen.
QuoteSchools hold Hindu appreciation day because we want to elevate the respect whitey has for dotheads, not because we want dotheads to keep on dotting.
I don't know what you're talking about though. I've no idea what a Hindu appreciation day would be. In the UK all children learn about the 6 major global faiths as part of their curriculum. The closest I can think is that some schools may try and do a few extra lessons around Diwali to teach about that festival and that schools in areas with a significant Hindu population will be closed on Diwali - but that's precisely to allow Hindus to celebrate their religious festival without disrupting the kids' education.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:10:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 01:47:18 AM
London seems close to the successful real multicultiness.
Not really. It is creating a London culture. New York has been "multicultural" forever but that is just an interim phase on the way to melding everything together. It is not like London is going to be a city of distinct colonies of different cultures living side by side. People will intermarry, come together, old ways of doing things will fade and new ways will emerge as a result of the cultural exchange.
Just, you know, like every other international city in the history of the world. There is nothing revolutionary or new going on in London.
Immigration isn't a one-off event. Multiculturalism works in London because there's little friction, in the grand scheme of things, between
successive waves of large-scale immigration. And for all the melting into a "London" culture (a concept probably invented by someone who doesn't live in London), there are actually continuing cultural differences between the various communities in the city.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:12:58 AM
Yeah I don't see what is productive about that. It sounds like a desire to create ghettos and colonies of different cultures and that simply will never happen without conflict and discrimination keeping the groups apart. Besides why fear change? Why encourage the preservation of old ways unnecessarily in a new context they were never intended for?
Precisely what I was saying before - the 'eat the cake and keep it' attitude. Multiculturalism, as understood in the UK, Canada and Australia (the US being its own special case of course), leads to this absurd situation where people are invited to settle here, not to become brits or canadians, that's not even required anymore! They are encouraged to remain nigerians or gabonese who happen to live in London or Toronto. The rationale being that so long as these people observe the local laws everything is fine.
It's a purely utilitarian approach that may serve the private sector in need of cheap labor but that also disregard the long term consequences for the host societies.
G.
QuoteThey are encouraged to remain nigerians or gabonese who happen to live in London or Toronto. The rationale being that so long as these people observe the local laws everything is fine.
:lol:
Well of course. That is the very purpose of liberalism. You know, the same set of philosophical principles that stop the government from shooting you because you're gay.
Quote from: Grallon on December 02, 2009, 09:44:14 AM
Precisely what I was saying before - the 'eat the cake and keep it' attitude. Multiculturalism, as understood in the UK, Canada and Australia (the US being its own special case of course), leads to this absurd situation where people are invited to settle here, not to become brits or canadians, that's not even required anymore! They are encouraged to remain nigerians or gabonese who happen to live in London or Toronto. The rationale being that so long as these people observe the local laws everything is fine.
But the immigrants and the host societies must inevitably change. I remember a friend of mine whose family are Punjabi telling me about the first time he went to Punjab. His mum and dad were really excited that he was visiting the family, he was going back to 'his country' he was going to love it and so on. He gets off the plane in Delhi and is picked up by an uncle. They drive for about 15 hours into a village in the Punjab. He gets out in his white trainers and shorts and steps right into an enormous pile of cow shit over his trainers and socks. He said that was the moment when he realised that however much his family may be in Punjab it wasn't his country :lol:
I think by keeping cultures alive the bits that work within a London or a Birmingham sense will survive and the rest won't because they'll seem distant to future generations of Ghanian Londoners. That organic nature of multi-culturalism makes far more sense than a false uniformity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 09:40:08 AM
This is exactly what I think multi-culturalism's about. A number of cultures that live in an area able to have pride in their culture so that cultural interchange can happen.
The only culture these new brits should find pride in is Britain's... Especially if said new citizens arrive from some 3rd world shithole whose culture didn't manage to create a society like Britain's - to which they moved.
G.
Quote from: Warspite on December 02, 2009, 09:47:51 AM
Well of course. That is the very purpose of liberalism. You know, the same set of philosophical principles that stop the government from shooting you because you're gay.
:rolleyes:
You're confusing liberalism with something else. And get off your high horse with me.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 02, 2009, 09:49:04 AM
The only culture these new brits should find pride in is Britain's... Especially if said new citizens arrive from some 3rd world shithole whose culture didn't manage to create a society like Britain's - to which they moved.
Well I think it's unfair to the rest of the world. When we talk about taking pride in British culture I mean Shakespeare, Purcell, Henry James, Gothic Cathedrals, pubs, cream tea, gin and so on. The problem with that list is that it's all pretty old school. Modern British culture is Cheryl Cole, turboshandies and a vom on the night bus. Now I don't necessarily condemn that (I'm no Daily Mail declinist, I quite enjoy binge Britain) but it seems unfair to compare Britain's glorious historical heritage while dooming all understanding of anywhere else to the present.
Quote from: Warspite on December 02, 2009, 09:44:11 AM
Immigration isn't a one-off event. Multiculturalism works in London because there's little friction, in the grand scheme of things, between successive waves of large-scale immigration. And for all the melting into a "London" culture (a concept probably invented by someone who doesn't live in London), there are actually continuing cultural differences between the various communities in the city.
Seeing as how I compared it to New York I don't see how you could possibly interpret that to mean I think immigration is one-off event.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 09:49:00 AM
He said that was the moment when he realised that however much his family may be in Punjab it wasn't his country :lol:
I think by keeping cultures alive the bits that work within a London or a Birmingham sense will survive and the rest won't because they'll seem distant to future generations of Ghanian Londoners. That organic nature of multi-culturalism makes far more sense than a false uniformity.
Yeah that is precisely what I am talking about. I don't view that as "multi-culturalism" at all but rather integration. Eventually you just organically stop being 'Punjabi' and become British-Punjabi which is different and after a couple generations it will be difficult to imagine what Britain was like before the Punjabis came and put their stamp on it. I do not consider integration to mean everybody comes over and becomes exactly like a pre-immigration Briton because well that would require...I don't know...massive brainwashing or something ridiculous.
Without active discrimination and an active attempt to stay separate I think that is a totally natural and inevitable evolution.
Quote from: Grallon on December 02, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 02, 2009, 09:47:51 AM
Well of course. That is the very purpose of liberalism. You know, the same set of philosophical principles that stop the government from shooting you because you're gay.
:rolleyes:
You're confusing liberalism with something else. And get off your high horse with me.
G.
Not really. If you insist on taking the whole "purpose" or "social benefit" theory of, say, allowing muslims to freely practice their faith or indeed immigrate here, then you would be hard press to find one for allowing gays to be gays.
From a perspective of the "collective benefit" for the "Western society" as you see it, it would be better to force every productive white male to take a wife and sire children, and deter deviant behaviour like yours or mine with severe penalties. Since you regard individual freedom as irrelevant for this equation (even a freedom to engage in behaviour that is not optimally productive from the perspective of the society as a whole), this line of reasoning should be rather up your alley.
It's actually quite funny how you bitch and moan about the muslim demographics flood, but you have not done anything to sway the balance in favour of the "white West".
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2009, 10:11:36 AM
it would be better to force every productive white male to take a wife and sire children, and deter deviant behaviour like yours or mine with severe penalties.
My plan is to extract sperm from every gay man and impregnate every gay women with it in order to keep the population up.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 10:08:43 AM
Yeah that is precisely what I am talking about. I don't view that as "multi-culturalism" at all but rather integration. Eventually you just organically stop being 'Punjabi' and become British-Punjabi which is different and after a couple generations it will be difficult to imagine what Britain was like before the Punjabis came and put their stamp on it. I do not consider integration to mean everybody comes over and becomes exactly like a pre-immigration Briton because well that would require...I don't know...massive brainwashing or something ridiculous.
Then we're broadly talking about the same thing and just using different language about it. I think, for what it's worth, that we've reached the point where it is impossible and terrifying to imagine Britain without immigration - a return to the pre-Windrush sort of society. I can't imagine British society without a Punjabi, a Bengali or Afro-Caribbean community.
But you know we always need to keep perspective. In Britain's case we've had non-white migration since about 1948. That's barely 60 years.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2009, 10:11:36 AM
It's actually quite funny how you bitch and moan about the muslim demographics flood, but you have not done anything to sway the balance in favour of the "white West".
I detest how people here keep on trying to portray me as some sort if white supremacist. I'm not talking about people' skins - but about people's brains.
I don't see how I can make this any simpler: bringning a million new citizens necessarily imply accepting to bring all their cultural luggage as well... Including the honnor killings, the gay killings, the prayer 5 times a day, etc Bring enough and they'll simply refuse to abandon that luggage - bad bits as well as good bits.
Some people puts too much faith in humans and their will to change or adapt - especially in a context where anything goes and changing is no longer demanded.
As for my part in populating this country - I can donate sperm every week and have a thousand bastards if it's necessary. But give me a phial - not a woman.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
My plan is to extract sperm from every gay man and impregnate every gay women with it in order to keep the population up.
How exactly are you planning to extract said sperm? :unsure: :P
My problem with your view Grallon is that I think you mix the trivial with the rather important. I don't think anyone believes that we should allow honour killings or gay bashing in any form. But should we really get angry over people praying 5 times a day?
I don't think change is generally willed, or even conscious. I think it happens for the most part naturally and organically.
Quote from: Grallon on December 02, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
:rolleyes:
You're confusing liberalism with something else. And get off your high horse with me.
G.
The old "that cannot be liberalism because I consider myself a liberal and don't believe it" defense! :lol:
Only allowing government, the church, or big business to interfere with peoples' lives when there is no other choice
is liberalism. So, the idea that "so long as these people observe the local laws everything is fine" is a liberal concept.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 11:14:10 AM
I don't think change is generally willed, or even conscious. I think it happens for the most part naturally and organically.
And I think the context of an advanced globalized meta-society short-circuit what used to be 'normal', organic, processes of integration. Aside form that damnable multici discourse, the simple fact you can travel to the home country on a regular basis, remain in contact whith your relatives and friends daily through the internet, and keep appraised of everything that's happening over there through 24/7 newsfeed kind of lessen the pressure to integrate. or at least slows down that 'organic' process considerably.
I'm all for some hybridization but I fear it's us who'll end up hybrids of less advanced cultures rather than the other way around as it should. The resurgence of the religious, which parallels the expension of the globalization process, is but one exemple of that.
G.
Quote from: HVC on December 02, 2009, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
My plan is to extract sperm from every gay man and impregnate every gay women with it in order to keep the population up.
How exactly are you planning to extract said sperm? :unsure: :P
Um...next question!
How are you planning to impregnate the gay women?
Mulitculturalism obviously means different things to different people. Reading this thread makes me think that Vancouver, along with London and perhaps other places, have moved to a kind of post multicultural model where the fabric of society is very much a creation of the contributions of a variety of ethnic communities and yet those communities are also able to keep their distinctive qualities.
The old melting pot metaphor I used to hear in the US doesnt describe this process adequately. It isnt quite integration because unique characteristics are kept. Multiculturalism isnt quite right either because communities dont keep entirely distince either.
Until someone comes up with a better term I will stick with post Multicultural Society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Mulitculturalism obviously means different things to different people. Reading this thread makes me think that Vancouver, along with London and perhaps other places, have moved to a kind of post multicultural model where the fabric of society is very much a creation of the contributions of a variety of ethnic communities and yet those communities are also able to keep their distinctive qualities.
The old melting pot metaphor I used to hear in the US doesnt describe this process adequately. It isnt quite integration because unique characteristics are kept. Multiculturalism isnt quite right either because communities dont keep entirely distince either.
Until someone comes up with a better term I will stick with post Multicultural Society.
This is no different than the "melting pot". It is just a matter of time. There is plenty of "unique characteristics" in NYC or Boston or Chicago, for example.
What Throbby said. But the term you're looking for is mosaic I think.
I've heard the term "salad bowl" used instead of melting pot for the very same reasons CC cites.
Quote from: frunk on December 02, 2009, 01:59:31 PM
How are you planning to impregnate the gay women?
:cool:
Quote from: Caliga on December 02, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
I've heard the term "salad bowl" used instead of melting pot for the very same reasons CC cites.
Yeah, I just don't buy that there is any actual, rather than semantic, difference.
To the extent there is a difference, it is a matter of degrees, rather than anything substantial. And pretty hard to tell if the difference is simply due to different time frames, and even different cultures and the speed at which they integrate.
It is all Heinz 57 in the end, I suspect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 01:47:18 AMLondon seems close to the successful real multicultiness.
I always thought multiculturalism was actually a sort of way of dealing with numerous cultures within a society or a city. I didn't realise that it was really religious education classes about Hinduism :mellow:
Yeah, pretty much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 09:40:08 AMI describe London as a city that is real multi-culti, not because it's special but because that's what the process means to me. It's not ghettoised to any significant degree - indeed one sign of how successful its been in London and a few other cities is that we have multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic gangs :lol:
Yeah, same in Vancouver. One of them is even called the "United Nations" :lol:
Right bunch of murderous bastards, it seems.
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 02:59:10 PM
Yeah, same in Vancouver. One of them is even called the "United Nations" :lol:
Right bunch of murderous bastards, it seems.
Do they tag stop signs in Esperanto? :(
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 02:59:10 PM
Yeah, same in Vancouver. One of them is even called the "United Nations" :lol:
Right bunch of murderous bastards, it seems.
:yes: I heard about them at the BC Crown conference I went to right before meeting you guys.
Most of the other gangs though are very unicultural though (assuming you can call "bikers" a culture).
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 02:44:38 PMYeah, I just don't buy that there is any actual, rather than semantic, difference.
To the extent there is a difference, it is a matter of degrees, rather than anything substantial. And pretty hard to tell if the difference is simply due to different time frames, and even different cultures and the speed at which they integrate.
It is all Heinz 57 in the end, I suspect.
Yeah, I think you're right. The distinctions (amongst places that welcome immigrants) are more down to where a particular place is in the process and what the particular characteristics of the new immigrants and the older community they're immigrating too. Your Canadian multiculturalism/ melting pot/ mosaic/ whatever is going to be little bit different than your US because there are some differences in values and because the immigrant groups are different; similarly there'll be some differences between a multicultural LA vs New York and multicultural Toronto vs Montreal vs Vancouver.
Quote from: Caliga on December 02, 2009, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 02:59:10 PM
Yeah, same in Vancouver. One of them is even called the "United Nations" :lol:
Right bunch of murderous bastards, it seems.
Do they tag stop signs in Esperanto? :(
No. Mostly they deal drugs and shoot members of rival gangs (and get shot).
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 03:07:07 PM
No. Mostly they deal drugs and shoot members of rival gangs (and get shot).
How unoriginal. -_-
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 02:16:50 PM
This is no different than the "melting pot". It is just a matter of time. There is plenty of "unique characteristics" in NYC or Boston or Chicago, for example.
That is why the melting pot metaphor doesnt work in NYC either. People dont get melted together and all end up being the same thing.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 02:44:38 PM
Yeah, I just don't buy that there is any actual, rather than semantic, difference.
To the extent there is a difference, it is a matter of degrees, rather than anything substantial. And pretty hard to tell if the difference is simply due to different time frames, and even different cultures and the speed at which they integrate.
It is all Heinz 57 in the end, I suspect.
This could be the case. Who knows, in another 100 years Indians might be moaning about plastic Punjabi Brits talking up their Indian heritage :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 03:13:46 PMThis could be the case. Who knows, in another 100 years Indians might be moaning about plastic Punjabi Brits talking up their Indian heritage :lol:
I'm pretty sure there's a bit of that stuff already.
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 03:18:09 PM
I'm pretty sure there's a bit of that stuff already.
You're probably right I think there are jokes about that sort of thing in 'Goodness Gracious Me'.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:12:35 PM
That is why the melting pot metaphor doesnt work in NYC either. People dont get melted together and all end up being the same thing.
Have the original Dutch settlers maintained a unique culture?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:12:35 PM
That is why the melting pot metaphor doesnt work in NYC either. People dont get melted together and all end up being the same thing.
Have the original Dutch settlers maintained a unique culture?
I dont know. You tell me. Also, tell me what the relevance of you question is. Do all people in NY, or any other American city have the same culture or is the melting pot metaphor flawed in some way?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
Have the original Dutch settlers maintained a unique culture?
Is Massachusetts a hot-bed of Protestant puritans?
Edit: Hot-beds an unfortunate word choice for puritans....:(
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:27:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:12:35 PM
That is why the melting pot metaphor doesnt work in NYC either. People dont get melted together and all end up being the same thing.
Have the original Dutch settlers maintained a unique culture?
I dont know. You tell me. Also, tell me what the relevance of you question is. Do all people in NY, or any other American city have the same culture or is the melting pot metaphor flawed in some way?
The "melting pot" metaphor is just that - a metaphor. Demanding that it have some kind of rigid objective definition (which of course it will fail) is a bit silly.
the "salad bowl" is just as much a metaphor, and both of them while trying to differentiate between two different supposed states, are, IMO, describing the exact same process, without any real differentiation beyond that one would expect from the differences in timeframes and cultures involved.
Quote from: Caliga on December 02, 2009, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 02:59:10 PM
Yeah, same in Vancouver. One of them is even called the "United Nations" :lol:
Right bunch of murderous bastards, it seems.
Do they tag stop signs in Esperanto? :(
I suppose they publish declarations in turged prose about how they "deplore" the activities of rival gangs. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:27:37 PM
I dont know. You tell me. Also, tell me what the relevance of you question is. Do all people in NY, or any other American city have the same culture or is the melting pot metaphor flawed in some way?
Not that I'm aware of.
The melting pot is an ongoing process. No one is claiming that immigrants step off the plane and magically transform into Mr. and Mrs. White Suburbanite with 2.2 kids.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 03:31:28 PM
the "salad bowl" is just as much a metaphor, and both of them while trying to differentiate between two different supposed states, are, IMO, describing the exact same process, without any real differentiation beyond that one would expect from the differences in timeframes and cultures involved.
You are missing the point. The metaphor was used in the US to try to say that it was not a nation of different nationalities but rather one nation of one people. It was a good powerful myth and probably continues to be but it is a myth nontheless.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 03:31:28 PM
the "salad bowl" is just as much a metaphor, and both of them while trying to differentiate between two different supposed states, are, IMO, describing the exact same process, without any real differentiation beyond that one would expect from the differences in timeframes and cultures involved.
You are missing the point. The metaphor was used in the US to try to say that it was not a nation of different nationalities but rather one nation of one people. It was a good powerful myth and probably continues to be but it is a myth nontheless.
No, actually I think I am exactly getting the point. Of course it is not a "myth" - or rather, it isn't so much a myth as it is a metaphor, like I said. Metaphiors are not perfect, nor are they "myths" just because they don't perfectly describe what is happening.
And that is not at all the what it was trying to say - it is simply saying that the US is a combination of many different cultures, all coming together to create something new. Not a perfect description of course, but not inaccurate either. Certainly not a myth, good, powerful, or otherwise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
No one is claiming that immigrants step off the plane and magically transform into Mr. and Mrs. White Suburbanite with 2.2 kids.
No, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same. A quick wiki check on the use of the term in American history confirms my observation. Here is an early quote desribing the melting pot "process"
Quote"What then is the American, this new man?" that the American is one who "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 03:54:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 03:31:28 PM
the "salad bowl" is just as much a metaphor, and both of them while trying to differentiate between two different supposed states, are, IMO, describing the exact same process, without any real differentiation beyond that one would expect from the differences in timeframes and cultures involved.
You are missing the point. The metaphor was used in the US to try to say that it was not a nation of different nationalities but rather one nation of one people. It was a good powerful myth and probably continues to be but it is a myth nontheless.
No, actually I think I am exactly getting the point. Of course it is not a "myth" - or rather, it isn't so much a myth as it is a metaphor, like I said. Metaphiors are not perfect, nor are they "myths" just because they don't perfectly describe what is happening.
And that is not at all the what it was trying to say - it is simply saying that the US is a combination of many different cultures, all coming together to create something new. Not a perfect description of course, but not inaccurate either. Certainly not a myth, good, powerful, or otherwise.
Go back and look at the historical use of the term within your country.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
No one is claiming that immigrants step off the plane and magically transform into Mr. and Mrs. White Suburbanite with 2.2 kids.
No, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same.
OK, if you re-define the term to only mean what YOU want it to mean, then you can proudly declare it a myth.
QuoteA quick wiki check on the use of the term in American history confirms my observation. Here is an early quote desribing the melting pot "process"
Quote"What then is the American, this new man?" that the American is one who "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."
This doesn't say anything about making everyone the same - it says that different cultures will come together and create a new culture which is a combination of the others. Again - it is a metaphor. It doesn't really happen in some kind of augimagical manner, nor did anyone really believe that it did. At no point in American history has anyone thought that America was one homogeneous culture.
You aren't enlightening anyone CC. We know the "melting pot" thing isn't a literal description.
Quote"Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."
Really Berkut. I am wrong about the melting pot metaphor being used to describe the creation of a new nation out of other nations?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Quote"Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."
Really Berkut. I am wrong about the melting pot metaphor being used to describe the creation of a new nation out of other nations?
Of course not - but you are wrong when you claim the "melting pot" metaphor is a myth because it "didn't make all people the same".
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:54:49 PM
No, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same. A quick wiki check on the use of the term in American history confirms my observation. Here is an early quote desribing the melting pot "process"
It doesn't make individuals the same, it just makes them part of the same culture. For evidence that it does work to a great extent, I present Tim, Yi, Katmai, Jaron, Garbon etc.(not to mention that "Irish-Americans" "German-Americans" "Polish-Americans" etc are utterly indistinguishable.)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 02, 2009, 04:06:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 03:54:49 PM
No, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same. A quick wiki check on the use of the term in American history confirms my observation. Here is an early quote desribing the melting pot "process"
It doesn't make individuals the same, it just makes them part of the same culture. For evidence that it does work to a great extent, I present Tim, Yi, Katmai, Jaron, Garbon etc.(not to mention that "Irish-Americans" "German-Americans" "Polish-Americans" etc are utterly indistinguishable.)
Yes we are talking about culture here so the reference to sameness means the same culture ;) but of course Americans dont share the same culture. America is an incredibly culturally diverse country. In Canada we like to think we are culturally diverse because we have french speakers amongst us but the amount of difference across the US is really something to experience.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 04:03:34 PM
Of course not - but you are wrong when you claim the "melting pot" metaphor is a myth because it "didn't make all people the same".
If I had claimed that I would indeed be wrong. My claim is that the melting pot metaphor was and is a nation building myth that is flawed for a number of reasons. A quick review of wiki will lead you on the road of discovery if you but take the first step.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Mulitculturalism obviously means different things to different people. Reading this thread makes me think that Vancouver, along with London and perhaps other places, have moved to a kind of post multicultural model where the fabric of society is very much a creation of the contributions of a variety of ethnic communities and yet those communities are also able to keep their distinctive qualities.
Wow that sounds like central Texas in the 19th century. Yeah that is so very post modern and new.
The distinctive communities will remain for as long as they are needed. We had tons of very distinctive Italian and German communities for as long as Italian and German immigrants were coming. Over time as immigration from a particular place went away those communities gradually faded.
I also object to the bizarre idea that somehow everybody ends up the same. That strikes me as a strawman to scare immigrants from joining the culture and keeping them separate. That they will somehow lose themselves. Nonsense.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Mulitculturalism obviously means different things to different people. Reading this thread makes me think that Vancouver, along with London and perhaps other places, have moved to a kind of post multicultural model where the fabric of society is very much a creation of the contributions of a variety of ethnic communities and yet those communities are also able to keep their distinctive qualities.
Wow that sounds like central Texas in the 19th century. Yeah that is so very post modern and new.
The distinctive communities will remain for as long as they are needed. We had tons of very distinctive Italian and German communities for as long as Italian and German immigrants were coming. Over time as immigration from a particular place went away those communities gradually faded.
I also object to the bizarre idea that somehow everybody ends up the same. That strikes me as a strawman to scare immigrants from joining the culture and keeping them separate. That they will somehow lose themselves. Nonsense.
You are right. The melting pot analogy is bizarre.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:16:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 04:03:34 PM
Of course not - but you are wrong when you claim the "melting pot" metaphor is a myth because it "didn't make all people the same".
If I had claimed that I would indeed be wrong.
Quote from: CCNo, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same.
Glad we cleared up that you are indeed wrong.
Quote
My claim is that the melting pot metaphor was and is a nation building myth that is flawed for a number of reasons.
It isn't a myth, it is a metaphor, nor is it "flawed" because it is a metaphor, and doesn't perfectly or literally describe what is and has happened.
Quote
A quick review of wiki will lead you on the road of discovery if you but take the first step.
A quick review of your posts will show that you are babbling about something that you do not understand. The wiki articles you posted prove MY point, rather than your own.
Bonus points for snipping out of context. Bravo. *golf clap*
I am really surprised that Americans would deny that the their theory of the melting pot was a foundational nation building myth. But it is not the first time I have been surprised by the comments made here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:15:06 PM
Yes we are talking about culture here so the reference to sameness means the same culture ;) but of course Americans dont share the same culture. America is an incredibly culturally diverse country. In Canada we like to think we are culturally diverse because we have french speakers amongst us but the amount of difference across the US is really something to experience.
It's debatable whether we have different cultures or just different takes on the same culture*, but they are *new* cultures either way. Our immigrants come and become like the people around them and the people around them become a little bit like the immigrants. It's a good metaphor for what's happened in our experience imo.
*There are plenty of people who listen to rock, country and hiphop, who watch NASCAR and Woody Allen movies, who eat pizza, tacos, and General Tso's chicken.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:32:48 PM
Bonus points for snipping out of context. Bravo. *golf clap*
I am really surprised that Americans would deny that the their theory of the melting pot was a foundational nation building myth. But it is not the first time I have been surprised by the comments made here.
Ahhh, so somehow if your quote was "in context" it would mean something entirely different? Please, provide this context that will change the meaning of your words.
I am not at all surprised that you would take a metaphor, re-define it to mean something nobody else agrees that it means, then proudly inform us all that it is a "myth" like you've been talking to the burning bush and our enlightening all us ignorant savages. But this is not the last time you won't surprise us, I am sure.
The way I've had it described to me is as follows:
Originally, immigration was only desired from Anglo countries, with some allowances for other North Europeans who weren't too culturally different and who could be assimilated into the dominant Anglo culture without too much difficulty.
Later, a "melting pot" approach to immigration became the ideal - it's okay that you're from some far off place and you're not white, but you have to adopt the cultural values of the dominant Anglo culture on a fairly broad basis. Whatever you do that diverges from the dominant culture is seen as ranging somewhere from quaint to offensive.
The most recent approach is that as long as you adopt a few core values (mainly related to individual rights and mutual respect and tolerance) the rest of your cultural values are your own business. Whatever you do that diverges from the dominant culture is seen as ranging somewhere from a strength to quaint (as long as it doesn't offend against core principles listed above). This has been termed "multiculturalism" or a "mosaic" or even the "salad bowl" metaphor.
I think Canada and the US have moved along that same trajectory roughly at the same pace, with local variations. There was a moment (under Trudeau) where Canada explicitly embraced the "multicultural" approach while the US was still officially following the "melting pot" approach and thus, in Canada, those two terms have very distinct meanings and sometimes also become a marker of national differences between us and the US.
In reality, I believe the US has continued along the trajectory outlined above using different terms so that "melting pot" (if it's still used) means something different in the US than it did in the 70s and that it does in a Canadian context.
I think there are significant differences between the approaches I term "melting pot" and "multiculturalism" above and while those two terms are fairly clearly defined in a Canadian context there is no inherent value in those specific definitions. If you want to call what I call "multiculturalism" the "melting pot" and reserve "multiculturalism" to mean "pointless exercise by overweening authority figures" then I'm in favour of the "melting pot" and that's cool.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
You are right. The melting pot analogy is bizarre.
I think it is half-right. It missed the key point that the host culture changes as the immigrants "melt" into it, suggesting instead that they work to give up their old ways conciously. I do not believe that is necessary or helpful. It happens on its own to the extent it happens at all. Also you talk about the cultural diversity in the US well that already existed, more so I would say, when the melting pot idea was in full force and there was no percieved contradiction. A culture can be inclusive. For instance the Jew or the Italian guy is about as American an image as exists. There practically has to be one in every single American TV show especially when New York is involved (which is about 90% of our TV shows).
There exists such a thing as Indian culture even though India is as ridiculously diverse as you will find anywhere. Their languages are even incomprehensible to each other in many cases.
And to add, the definitions I'm used to of "the melting pot" resources spent by or on recent immigrants to preserve or celebrate their original cultures was seen as being counterproductive while under "a multiculturalist" approach they're seen as a good thing ("strength in diversity" and all that).
That affects both the pace and tenor of the natural and inevitable integration.
But again, I'm not wedded to the terms "melting pot" and "multicultural" even though those are the most common definitions around these parts.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
You are right. The melting pot analogy is bizarre.
I think it is half-right. It missed the key point that the host culture changes as the immigrants "melt" into it, suggesting instead that they work to give up their old ways conciously. I do not believe that is necessary or helpful. It happens on its own to the extent it happens at all.
While I generally agree, I do think the metaphor was helpful, in that it established an ideal for tolerance and acceptance of immigration, and a pretty new concept of what it means to be an American - where it doesn't matter (at least in theory) where you come from, only where you are now. This was a pretty original idea in the time of heavy US immigration.
The idea that someone could "become" an American was very useful, and a great strength to the country, IMO.
Obviously the reality was much more mixed, with plenty of intolerance, fighting, and generally not as melty as the theory would suggest, but as a guiding principle it was extremely useful - and still is.
The melting pot term has now been replaced. The new term is a salad bowl or mixed salad or something to the like.
I agree with Berkut on this - the idea that anyone could become American no matter where they're from was pretty damn progressive (but probably also very necessary) compared to what went before, but I think both the US and Canada (and the UK) have moved beyond that. It seems like large parts of Europe is still stuck with the once progressive idea that "if you adopt our values and behaviours you can become part of our society" (which is much better than "you have to be mostly like us already before you can become part of our society"), while large parts of the UK, Canada and the UK are now somewhere in the vicinity of "adopt a few core values and you're good to go, the rest is tasty flavour and your choice".
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2009, 04:47:06 PM
The melting pot term has now been replaced. The new term is a salad bowl or mixed salad or something to the like.
That's what I thought, but luckily that hasn't stopped people from arguing heatedly about it.
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2009, 04:51:06 PM
I agree with Berkut on this - the idea that anyone could become American no matter where they're from was pretty damn progressive (but probably also very necessary)
Well yeah - it was a damn big country, and Manifest Destiny could not wait for normal population growth to fill it up!
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
I am not at all surprised that you would take a metaphor, re-define it to mean something nobody else agrees that it means, then proudly inform us all that it is a "myth" like you've been talking to the burning bush and our enlightening all us ignorant savages.
Did you read the quotes I posted. Its not me the defines it as a nation building myth it is your historical forefathers.... I am glad that I am shining a light into the depths of your ignorance. Happy to help.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:58:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
I am not at all surprised that you would take a metaphor, re-define it to mean something nobody else agrees that it means, then proudly inform us all that it is a "myth" like you've been talking to the burning bush and our enlightening all us ignorant savages.
Did you read the quotes I posted. Its not me the defines it as a nation building myth it is your historical forefathers.... I am glad that I am shining a light into the depths of your ignorance. Happy to help.
Is there some special context I have to read them that would somehow reveal them claiming to be myths? Because neither of the quotes you posted said anything about them being myths, or defined them as myths, nation building or otherwise.
Or is this another context issue, where you make things up and then pretend like you said something else entirely, which would make sense if only we knew the elusive "context"?
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2009, 04:47:06 PM
The melting pot term has now been replaced. The new term is a salad bowl or mixed salad or something to the like.
I know but they both have the image of different things being blended together to make something new.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 05:09:24 PM
I know but they both have the image of different things being blended together to make something new.
I don't know what kind of salads you eat. :P
In my salads, every element is distinct and yet works together. That's a bit different from something like fudge where all those individual ingredients are melted into something entirely unrecognizable from what they were before.
There really is a difference between the two, which is why the salad metaphor came about.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 05:02:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 04:58:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
I am not at all surprised that you would take a metaphor, re-define it to mean something nobody else agrees that it means, then proudly inform us all that it is a "myth" like you've been talking to the burning bush and our enlightening all us ignorant savages.
Did you read the quotes I posted. Its not me the defines it as a nation building myth it is your historical forefathers.... I am glad that I am shining a light into the depths of your ignorance. Happy to help.
Is there some special context I have to read them that would somehow reveal them claiming to be myths? Because neither of the quotes you posted said anything about them being myths, or defined them as myths, nation building or otherwise.
Or is this another context issue, where you make things up and then pretend like you said something else entirely, which would make sense if only we knew the elusive "context"?
Also, he was quoting wiki articles, and I'm pretty sure that our forefathers didn't spend much time posting on wikipedia. :D
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 05:02:55 PM
Is there some special context I have to read them that would somehow reveal them claiming to be myths? Because neither of the quotes you posted said anything about them being myths, or defined them as myths, nation building or otherwise.
Or is this another context issue, where you make things up and then pretend like you said something else entirely, which would make sense if only we knew the elusive "context"?
The whole concept of Europeans being transformed into Americans through the crucible of the melting pot once they land at Ellis Island.
Quote from: dps on December 02, 2009, 05:50:53 PM
Also, he was quoting wiki articles, and I'm pretty sure that our forefathers didn't spend much time posting on wikipedia. :D
Only pretty sure. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 05:02:55 PM
Is there some special context I have to read them that would somehow reveal them claiming to be myths? Because neither of the quotes you posted said anything about them being myths, or defined them as myths, nation building or otherwise.
Or is this another context issue, where you make things up and then pretend like you said something else entirely, which would make sense if only we knew the elusive "context"?
The whole concept of Europeans being transformed into Americans through the crucible of the melting pot once they land at Ellis Island.
That happens to their kids and grandkids.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 02, 2009, 06:00:17 PM
That happens to their kids and grandkids.
Probably, but if you read the rhetoric that created the term "melting pot" it happened to those who landed. Which is the basis of why I say it was a compelling nation building myth.
For example:
QuoteIn Henry Ford's Ford English School (established in 1914), the graduation ceremony for immigrant employees involved symbolically stepping off an immigrant ship and passing through the melting pot, entering at one end in costumes designating their nationality and emerging at the other end in identical suits and waving American flags
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2009, 05:46:12 PM
I don't know what kind of salads you eat. :P
In my salads, every element is distinct and yet works together. That's a bit different from something like fudge where all those individual ingredients are melted into something entirely unrecognizable from what they were before.
There really is a difference between the two, which is why the salad metaphor came about.
The Wiki summary would agree.
QuoteSince the 1960s, most of the research in Sociology and History has disregarded the melting pot theory for describing inter ethnic relations in the United States and other countries[9][10][11]. The theory of multiculturalism offers alternative analogies for ethnic interaction including salad bowl theory, or, as it is known in Canada, the cultural mosaic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 02, 2009, 06:00:17 PM
That happens to their kids and grandkids.
Probably, but if you read the rhetoric that created the term "melting pot" it happened to those who landed. Which is the basis of why I say it was a compelling nation building myth.
For example:
QuoteIn Henry Ford's Ford English School (established in 1914), the graduation ceremony for immigrant employees involved symbolically stepping off an immigrant ship and passing through the melting pot, entering at one end in costumes designating their nationality and emerging at the other end in identical suits and waving American flags
Gotta let the new helots know who is in charge.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 06:11:50 PM
The Wiki summary would agree.
Well as Wiki notes you never hear the term salad bowl outside of sociological circles.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:24:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 06:11:50 PM
The Wiki summary would agree.
Well as Wiki notes you never hear the term salad bowl outside of sociological circles.
that makes sense since that is primarily where the academic discussion would take place.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 02, 2009, 06:00:17 PM
That happens to their kids and grandkids.
Probably, but if you read the rhetoric that created the term "melting pot" it happened to those who landed. Which is the basis of why I say it was a compelling nation building myth.
For example:
QuoteIn Henry Ford's Ford English School (established in 1914), the graduation ceremony for immigrant employees involved symbolically stepping off an immigrant ship and passing through the melting pot, entering at one end in costumes designating their nationality and emerging at the other end in identical suits and waving American flags
Ford was pretty infamous for that sorta thing. However at the time there were different language newspapers, towns, political organizations, and on and on and on in the immigrants languages. In fact one of the favorite tricks of management was to set the different ethnic groups against each other and break up attempts to unionize by exploiting ethnic and racial tensions. Different nationalistic groups forwarded their European agendas over here, famously the Czechs and Slovaks forged their plan for a Czechoslovak state over here. The Germans were particularly stubborn and it was not until anti-German sentiment really set in during WWI and WWII that alot of them finally started to learn English...in Texas there were German-only speaking towns that existed for almost 100 years from 1849 to the 1940s.
Man let me tell you Nativists really fretted about all that going on (see Henry Ford) but cooler heads fought against the reactionaries assuring them there was no reason to, for example, outlaw German newspapers and that they would go away on their own. They did.
I really don't see how that is different at all from the situation now with the Latinos with the possible exception that they have much easier contact with their home countries now thanks to modern technology.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 09:30:25 PM
that makes sense since that is primarily where the academic discussion would take place.
Well immigration is a topic discussed in far more places than just academia.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2009, 04:47:06 PM
The melting pot term has now been replaced. The new term is a salad bowl or mixed salad or something to the like.
:lol: Sure it has, Emperor Norton! Everybody will obey your command to use the new term... er, whatever it is.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:36:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 09:30:25 PM
that makes sense since that is primarily where the academic discussion would take place.
Well immigration is a topic discussed in far more places than just academia.
Indeed. The academic discussion of terminology is frankly not of any real significance, IMO, because it generally has just been about how to define something that none of the academics really understand anyway. Kinda like the Conclave of Cardinals debating whether fellatio was sex or foreplay. :lol:
The melting pot metaphor is used in common parlance, and people who use it understand that the result is not a bunch of identical WASPs, but rather a nation without nationalities. The "melting pot" is about identity, not dress or what holidays you celebrate.
As an aside, the melting pot was once much more of an idea about change. My maternal grandparents both came to the US speaking not a word of English, and yet the only Finnish words my mother learned were swear words. My maternal grandparents decided that, as they were now Americans, they would speak only English, even to one another. They still ate Finnish dishes and celebrated Finnish holidays, though.
grumbler, that cannot be true, because wiki said the melting pot was just a myth.
You should talk to your grandparents, and set them straight.
I didn't realize we had immigrants from Finland in the 17th century. :huh:
grumbler is addicted to lizard porn?
Had my grandparents not fled the country, I suppose I would be! :D
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2009, 09:31:05 AM
Had my grandparents not fled the country, I suppose I would be! :D
:o Do you like mouth sugar?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 09:02:04 AM
I didn't realize we had immigrants from Finland in the 17th century. :huh:
Actually, we did (seriously). IIRC most of the settlers of New Sweden (present day Delaware and SE Pennsylvania) were Finns.
:yes: Remember, Europe kept all their best at home.
Quote from: Caliga on December 03, 2009, 09:36:16 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 09:02:04 AM
I didn't realize we had immigrants from Finland in the 17th century. :huh:
Actually, we did (seriously). IIRC most of the settlers of New Sweden (present day Delaware and SE Pennsylvania) were Finns.
Knew I should have gone earlier. <_<
Quote from: Caliga on December 03, 2009, 09:36:16 AM
Actually, we did (seriously). IIRC most of the settlers of New Sweden (present day Delaware and SE Pennsylvania) were Finns.
Source me baby.
I think many posters here still like the melting pot idea, that lovely thought that any immigrant can be made more pleasing when dropped into a 1600 degree furnace.
Wait, maybe I am missing the analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden) ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on December 03, 2009, 09:59:37 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden) ^_^
You just wrote that!
Nein. :mad:
The map looks like a purple dildo. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 10:03:31 AM
The map looks like a purple dildo. :lol:
You should be focused on the blue butt plug rather than the purple dildo. :)
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 08:54:03 AM
grumbler, that cannot be true, because wiki said the melting pot was just a myth.
You should talk to your grandparents, and set them straight.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2009, 07:04:28 AM
:lol: Sure it has, Emperor Norton! Everybody will obey your command to use the new term... er, whatever it is.
I don't recall demanding that anyone use the term. Just seems silly to use a rather inaccurate (in my opinion) term like melting pot. Oh and by the way, it was in high school that I was taught not to use melting pot. Hardly the rarefied heights of academia or sociological circles.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2009, 12:51:41 PM
I don't recall demanding that anyone use the term. Just seems silly to use a rather inaccurate (in my opinion) term like melting pot. Oh and by the way, it was in high school that I was taught not to use melting pot. Hardly the rarefied heights of academia or sociological circles.
If you were taught not to use it, rather than simply not being taught to use it, that sounds like a political agenda at work.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2009, 12:51:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2009, 07:04:28 AM
:lol: Sure it has, Emperor Norton! Everybody will obey your command to use the new term... er, whatever it is.
I don't recall demanding that anyone use the term. Just seems silly to use a rather inaccurate (in my opinion) term like melting pot.
How is it more inaccurate than "salad bowl"?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 01:25:41 PM
If you were taught not to use it, rather than simply not being taught to use it, that sounds like a political agenda at work.
Well it was in the textbook as outmoded theory. Not much the teachers could do about that.
The salad bowl doesn't account for intermarriage. The melting pot does.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
The salad bowl doesn't account for intermarriage. The melting pot does.
Plus the salad bowl is full of salad, and who really like salad anyway?
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2009, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 01:25:41 PM
If you were taught not to use it, rather than simply not being taught to use it, that sounds like a political agenda at work.
Well it was in the textbook as outmoded theory.
It isn't a theory, so how could it be an outmoded theory?
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 01:38:44 PM
Plus the salad bowl is full of salad, and who really like salad anyway?
The thin and glamorous.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 01:39:22 PM
It isn't a theory, so how could it be an outmoded theory?
Sorry, I'm not up for word games this morning. Concept, idea, metaphor, whatever.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 01:39:22 PM
It isn't a theory, so how could it be an outmoded theory?
To the some of the politically correct, it is unacceptable, and since one cannot dismiss a metaphor, they upgraded it to a theory so that it could be dismissed as "outmoded."
Boy, you two really are a barrel of fun.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2009, 01:44:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 01:39:22 PM
It isn't a theory, so how could it be an outmoded theory?
Sorry, I'm not up for word games this morning. Concept, idea, metaphor, whatever.
It is no more outmoded a concept, theory, metaphor, idea, or whatever than the "salad bowl". They are both metaphors that attempt to describe what happens when people immigrate from one culture into a different one, and what happens to the host culture and the immigrating culture.
They are both right in some cases, and wrong in others - such is the nature of a metaphor. It is certainly the case that not every culture integrates and disappears completely, but it is also certainly the case that not every culture maintains itself without blending.
I would argue that the difference between the two metaphors is simply one of time. In the short run, it may look like a salad bowl, but in the long run they all blend together to make something new. The speed at which this happens is dependent on a variety of variables, but the end result is inevitable.
However, I think the salad bowl metaphor is, in large part, wishful thinking - how people want it to be, rather than how it actually is. It seems so nice, everyone gets to maintain their cultural identity forever, while we all mix together in peace and harmony, with a nice basalmic vinagrette! And croutons!
Cultural mixing and integration have been going on since cultures existed. The idea that they maintain some kind of identity and don't change is so consistently disproven throughout history, it is a wonder that people desperately hang on to that fiction.
An old salad begins to meld into one as it rots. :P
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2009, 01:55:46 PM
An old salad begins to meld into one as it rots. :P
Or as it is consumed and digested. ;)
I think the real "problem" with multiculturalism is that it's a crap term. Obviously nobody can agree on what it's supposed to mean. To me it means things like festivals and fairs that celebrate the diversity of the various Canadian (or American or whereverian that has large immigrant populations) peoples' roots.
A great example is Winnipeg's Folklorama, every August for a week or two, Every vaguely ethnic community in the city gets together in a hall or a gym somewhere and puts on cultural displays of their root culture (Yes natives participate too) ... You get a "passport" and go to as many of the pavilions as you can over that time, getting drunk in as many cultures as allow drinking, and eat lots of home cooked ethnic food.
There are great examples of these kinds of events all across the world. That to me is multiculturalism at work... legislating it and trying to make it part of the bureaucracy is missing the point.
If the various govs of the world want to embrace it, they need to do so in this way, festivals, ethnic community centres, (with useful things like ESL classes, and other classes to prepare newcomers for living (and learning about) in another culture, while still retaining their own sense of where they are from.
In Switzerland they have the rather outmoded "fondue set", hence the problems with the minarets :swiss:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 03, 2009, 02:00:13 PM
In Switzerland they have the rather outmoded "fondue set", hence the problems with the minarets :swiss:
Their pots just are not big enough.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 08:54:03 AM
grumbler, that cannot be true, because wiki said the melting pot was just a myth.
Lay off the 'just a myth' national myths are largely how national identity is created. Myths aren't untrue, nor are they necessarily true and they're not just stories. They're often a way for a society to explain itself to itself and are quite useful in terms of understanding how a people understand themselves.
I'd say the blitz spirit is a British national myth - which doesn't mean it's untrue or is just a story but that rather it's a more important element in the creation of British identity after the war.
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2009, 07:15:48 AMAs an aside, the melting pot was once much more of an idea about change. My maternal grandparents both came to the US speaking not a word of English, and yet the only Finnish words my mother learned were swear words. My maternal grandparents decided that, as they were now Americans, they would speak only English, even to one another. They still ate Finnish dishes and celebrated Finnish holidays, though.
Well that seems to fit exactly the change I'm talking about with earlier uses of the "melting pot" being about change, whereas now it is less so. Some people have coined a different term for it, be it "multiculturalism" (in Canada, and some parts of the US?), "the sald bowl" (academia) but it seems we agree that that the expectations of how new immigrants integrate has changed from your parents' generation to what is happening now, whether we still refer to the integration process as a "melting pot" or not.
Jacob,
To what extent to you think immigrants are expected to integrate? Do you feel pressure to conform or do you feel the freedom to express your own culture?
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 01:51:41 PMIt is no more outmoded a concept, theory, metaphor, idea, or whatever than the "salad bowl". They are both metaphors that attempt to describe what happens when people immigrate from one culture into a different one, and what happens to the host culture and the immigrating culture.
They are both right in some cases, and wrong in others - such is the nature of a metaphor. It is certainly the case that not every culture integrates and disappears completely, but it is also certainly the case that not every culture maintains itself without blending.
I would argue that the difference between the two metaphors is simply one of time. In the short run, it may look like a salad bowl, but in the long run they all blend together to make something new. The speed at which this happens is dependent on a variety of variables, but the end result is inevitable.
However, I think the salad bowl metaphor is, in large part, wishful thinking - how people want it to be, rather than how it actually is. It seems so nice, everyone gets to maintain their cultural identity forever, while we all mix together in peace and harmony, with a nice basalmic vinagrette! And croutons!
Cultural mixing and integration have been going on since cultures existed. The idea that they maintain some kind of identity and don't change is so consistently disproven throughout history, it is a wonder that people desperately hang on to that fiction.
I agree that the "melting pot" and "salad bowl" metaphors describe different moments in time in the integration process, but I think the shift from one metaphor or myth is still somewhat significant.
The focus on different times in the process means that there are different expectations on how we deal with new immigrants even if the result is ultimately the same.
As I see it if we focus on the "melting pot" part of the process it gives greater opportunities for people to get angry at new immigrants for not integrating fast enough, while with the "salad bowl"/"multiculturalism" focus means it's okay that they don't go that fast
In either case the end result is that the descendants of new immigrants will be pretty much fully integrated and assimilated, barring a few culinary preferences and whatnot. It might take two, three or four generations depending on the focus and pressures but that's okay.
Quote from: Malthus on December 03, 2009, 01:56:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2009, 01:55:46 PM
An old salad begins to meld into one as it rots. :P
Or as it is consumed and digested. ;)
As the Chinese take their place on line at the American salad bar.... :cry:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 03, 2009, 03:22:35 PM
As the Chinese take their place on line
That would be a first.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Jacob,
To what extent to you think immigrants are expected to integrate? Do you feel pressure to conform or do you feel the freedom to express your own culture?
In Canada it seems to me that the pressure is fairly minimal outside a few basic things. The official pressure is on things like individual rights, the unofficial pressure on learning the language (though there is some offical pressure as well, but I think the unofficial pressure is stronger).
Other than that I've never felt people were expecting me to become more Canadian than I was at any given time. I didn't have what grumbler's grandparents did, the feeling that "I'm in Canada, I should be Canadian", neither internally nor externally. I've always felt that whatever I was it was Canadian in and of itself and not contradicted by whatever part of me that was Danish. But over the years that's still become more 'not-Danish' and more specific to my situation in Canada, if you see what I mean. My kids are going to be very Canadian and that's not contradicted in the slightest by however much they're also going to be Chinese or Danish. The pieces all fit together and overlap, without conflict.
So the short answer: Outside a few not big but very crucial realms (rule of law, individual rights) there is not a lot of pressure to conform and a plenty of freedom to express your original identity, and that's cool.
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 03:27:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Jacob,
To what extent to you think immigrants are expected to integrate? Do you feel pressure to conform or do you feel the freedom to express your own culture?
In Canada it seems to me that the pressure is fairly minimal outside a few basic things. The official pressure is on things like individual rights, the unofficial pressure on learning the language (though there is some offical pressure as well, but I think the unofficial pressure is stronger).
Other than that I've never felt people were expecting me to become more Canadian than I was at any given time. I didn't have what grumbler's grandparents did, the feeling that "I'm in Canada, I should be Canadian", neither internally nor externally. I've always felt that whatever I was it was Canadian in and of itself and not contradicted by whatever part of me that was Danish. But over the years that's still become more 'not-Danish' and more specific to my situation in Canada, if you see what I mean. My kids are going to be very Canadian and that's not contradicted in the slightest by however much they're also going to be Chinese or Danish. The pieces all fit together and overlap, without conflict.
So the short answer: Outside a few not big but very crucial realms (rule of law, individual rights) there is not a lot of pressure to conform and a plenty of freedom to express your original identity, and that's cool.
Of course, you aren't really a good example of the pressure or problems. It's not like your Danish culture really clashes with Canadian mores or cultural norms anyway. You are a "good" immigrant in a very tolerant country.
I've never really understood the animosity people in the US, for example, hold towards Hispanic immigrants, and I come from the Southwest. Their culture is not particularly alien or anything. There are obvious economic issues with a lot of the illegal immigration, of course, but that doesn't really explain the anger and sometimes hatred though.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Of course, you aren't really a good example of the pressure or problems. It's not like your Danish culture really clashes with Canadian mores or cultural norms anyway. You are a "good" immigrant in a very tolerant country.
One of the reasons I was wondering about Jacob's view is the one thing he does not benefit from, which a lot of other immigrants have, is an identifiable cultural community here in Vancouver. There might be a Danish community here but I am not aware of them in any numbers. A person coming from China or South East Asia will have a large community of support here. So I am not so sure I would assume he did not experience pressure or problems unless you also assume there is no difference between the culture of Denmark and the culture of Canada. It might be so but I am not going to make that assumption.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PMOf course, you aren't really a good example of the pressure or problems. It's not like your Danish culture really clashes with Canadian mores or cultural norms anyway. You are a "good" immigrant in a very tolerant country.
Yeah, true enough. It's my impression that it holds true for others in Canada as well, however. I think the problems manifest more when the new immigrants are part of a first batch of their kind somewhere where the locals aren't used to them and, between 2nd generation immigrants and their parents.
But to the first point, saying we have "multiculturalism" rather than "a melting pot" (combined with recent history of immigration to the country) makes it easier to argue away or avoid some of the more common points of conflict, I think.
QuoteI've never really understood the animosity people in the US, for example, hold towards Hispanic immigrants, and I come from the Southwest. Their culture is not particularly alien or anything. There are obvious economic issues with a lot of the illegal immigration, of course, but that doesn't really explain the anger and sometimes hatred though.
Yeah I don't know. It's pretty strange to me.
Quote from: crazy canuckOne of the reasons I was wondering about Jacob's view is the one thing he does not benefit from, which a lot of other immigrants have, is an identifiable cultural community here in Vancouver. There might be a Danish community here but I am not aware of them in any numbers. A person coming from China or South East Asia will have a large community of support here. So I am not so sure I would assume he did not experience pressure or problems unless you also assume there is no difference between the culture of Denmark and the culture of Canada. It might be so but I am not going to make that assumption.
Well, there definitely wasn't an easily accessible Danish community that helped me interface with Canada. It was just me.
I guess you could say there was some pressure to accomodate and fit in with Canadian culture for me, in that there wasn't really a choice and that there wasn't any concessions made. It didn't really feel like that however, it was just a series of day-to-day choices and experiences. Certainly there was no specific pressure on specific things that I recall.
To me it was (and is) pretty much a non-issue, and it has seemed to be a non-issue to everyone around me as well. I was who I was and that I was an immigrant was just a fact and neither bad nor good. To what degree that was a feature specific to my localities (Ottawa and Vancouver) and to what degree it's an expression of a general Canadian situation I'm not sure.
It's definitely a different experience than the one I've observed my Chinese or Japanese immigrant friends having gone through, or my Bosnian buddy (with whom I often discussed this sort of stuff) or even the new wave of Irish immigrants (there's a whole lot of Irish people in Vancouver since the crash, not sure how long they'll stay), but the fundamentals still seem to be the same - you immigrate to Canada and you only divest yourself of your baggage from "back home" at your own chosen pace, and that's cool and barring a few idiots here and there, no one gives you a hard time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:43:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Of course, you aren't really a good example of the pressure or problems. It's not like your Danish culture really clashes with Canadian mores or cultural norms anyway. You are a "good" immigrant in a very tolerant country.
One of the reasons I was wondering about Jacob's view is the one thing he does not benefit from, which a lot of other immigrants have, is an identifiable cultural community here in Vancouver. There might be a Danish community here but I am not aware of them in any numbers. A person coming from China or South East Asia will have a large community of support here. So I am not so sure I would assume he did not experience pressure or problems unless you also assume there is no difference between the culture of Denmark and the culture of Canada. It might be so but I am not going to make that assumption.
I think that can actually be a benefit though. He may not have the support group, but the lack of other Danes mans there isn't an identification of Danes as a bunch of no good immigrants coming and taking our jobs.
More of a novelty.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PMI've never really understood the animosity people in the US, for example, hold towards Hispanic immigrants, and I come from the Southwest. Their culture is not particularly alien or anything. There are obvious economic issues with a lot of the illegal immigration, of course, but that doesn't really explain the anger and sometimes hatred though.
I think it is racism and the preception that Latinos are corrupt, lazy, Spanish is an inferior language, they love to sell druge...you know the whole song and dance.
Then there are others who simply do not like illegal immigration.
I wouldn't mind seeing them all move in here personally. I vastly prefer them to the wacky Baptist White Texan....except Colt McCoy who gets a pass for being awesome.
I think American ex-pat groups are a dangerous tempting thing to Americans moving overseas. I mean you want to get out there and meet the people but man...those comfortable expat communities are tempting. It really slows you down in trying to learn how to get along.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 04:50:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PMI've never really understood the animosity people in the US, for example, hold towards Hispanic immigrants, and I come from the Southwest. Their culture is not particularly alien or anything. There are obvious economic issues with a lot of the illegal immigration, of course, but that doesn't really explain the anger and sometimes hatred though.
I think it is racism and the preception that Latinos are corrupt, lazy, Spanish is an inferior language, they love to sell druge...you know the whole song and dance.
Then there are others who simply do not like illegal immigration.
I wouldn't mind seeing them all move in here personally. I vastly prefer them to the wacky Baptist White Texan....except Colt McCoy who gets a pass for being awesome.
I blame George Lopez and Carlos Mencia.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
I've never really understood the animosity people in the US, for example, hold towards Hispanic immigrants, and I come from the Southwest. Their culture is not particularly alien or anything. There are obvious economic issues with a lot of the illegal immigration, of course, but that doesn't really explain the anger and sometimes hatred though.
Southpark summed it up pretty well: They took err jerbs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU)
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 04:11:32 PMI think that can actually be a benefit though. He may not have the support group, but the lack of other Danes mans there isn't an identification of Danes as a bunch of no good immigrants coming and taking our jobs.
More of a novelty.
If I wanted to play that game I could easily argue that being perceived as a novelty and having my cultural background summed up as "inoffensive and irrelevant" is detrimental. It obviously wouldn't convince you, but it could get plenty of traction elsewhere.
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 04:11:32 PMI think that can actually be a benefit though. He may not have the support group, but the lack of other Danes mans there isn't an identification of Danes as a bunch of no good immigrants coming and taking our jobs.
More of a novelty.
If I wanted to play that game I could easily argue that being perceived as a novelty and having my cultural background summed up as "inoffensive and irrelevant" is detrimental. It obviously wouldn't convince you, but it could get plenty of traction elsewhere.
Heh, it would be hard to argue that situation isn't a lot better than where the locals have a negative stereotype of one's ethnicity and the ethnicity in issue is visible.
Quote from: Malthus on December 03, 2009, 06:43:15 PMHeh, it would be hard to argue that situation isn't a lot better than where the locals have a negative stereotype of one's ethnicity and the ethnicity in issue is visible.
Of course it's better than being attacked. But it'd be hard for someone to argue that having ones identity utterly marginalized and trivialized is appropriate.
Perhaps it wouldn't work in a court of law, but it'd be good enough for academia :)
Of course it would depend on where and how I used it. The few times I did bring it up was to find a solid place to stand in the face of somewhat overwrought identity-political arguments rather than to pull a dorsey.
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 06:48:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 03, 2009, 06:43:15 PMHeh, it would be hard to argue that situation isn't a lot better than where the locals have a negative stereotype of one's ethnicity and the ethnicity in issue is visible.
Of course it's better than being attacked. But it'd be hard for someone to argue that having ones identity utterly marginalized and trivialized is appropriate.
Perhaps it wouldn't work in a court of law, but it'd be good enough for academia :)
Of course it would depend on where and how I used it. The few times I did bring it up was to find a solid place to stand in the face of somewhat overwrought identity-political arguments rather than to pull a dorsey.
I'm sure if I thought hard enough about it, I could figure out a way I'm a victim, too - if required. :D
Quote from: Malthus on December 03, 2009, 06:51:27 PMI'm sure if I thought hard enough about it, I could figure out a way I'm a victim, too - if required. :D
Exactly :)
Spanish is an inferior language.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
Lay off the 'just a myth' national myths are largely how national identity is created. Myths aren't untrue, nor are they necessarily true and they're not just stories. They're often a way for a society to explain itself to itself and are quite useful in terms of understanding how a people understand themselves.
THIS is what people don't get
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 04:11:32 PMI think that can actually be a benefit though. He may not have the support group, but the lack of other Danes mans there isn't an identification of Danes as a bunch of no good immigrants coming and taking our jobs.
More of a novelty.
If I wanted to play that game I could easily argue that being perceived as a novelty and having my cultural background summed up as "inoffensive and irrelevant" is detrimental. It obviously wouldn't convince you, but it could get plenty of traction elsewhere.
More importantly though, I don't think it would convince YOU.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 09:49:46 PMMore importantly though, I don't think it would convince YOU.
Well... yeah :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2009, 07:15:48 AMAs an aside, the melting pot was once much more of an idea about change. My maternal grandparents both came to the US speaking not a word of English, and yet the only Finnish words my mother learned were swear words. My maternal grandparents decided that, as they were now Americans, they would speak only English, even to one another. They still ate Finnish dishes and celebrated Finnish holidays, though.
Well that seems to fit exactly the change I'm talking about with earlier uses of the "melting pot" being about change, whereas now it is less so. Some people have coined a different term for it, be it "multiculturalism" (in Canada, and some parts of the US?), "the sald bowl" (academia) but it seems we agree that that the expectations of how new immigrants integrate has changed from your parents' generation to what is happening now, whether we still refer to the integration process as a "melting pot" or not.
I don't speak Spanish. I don't celebrate any Puerto Rican holidays. Most of my cousins similarly speak very little Spanish or none. The expectations haven't changed in America for new immigrants.
Sure, if you live in an urban neighborhood surrounded by immigrants from the old country you can hang on to the language for another generation but that's about it and it's always been like that. The only real exception were the German communities of the 19th century.
It doesn't matter Tim. We could put on whiteface and speak with British accents. They'll never accept us as Americans until we can dilute our bloodlines down so that non white blood is at untracable levels.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cartoonstock.com%2Fnewscartoons%2Fcartoonists%2Fkta%2Flowres%2Fktan118l.jpg&hash=e724770bae4cb14456ff9a46827904416fc690dc)
Quote from: Jaron on December 04, 2009, 12:38:46 AM
It doesn't matter Tim. We could put on whiteface and speak with British accents. They'll never accept us as Americans until we can dilute our bloodlines down so that non white blood is at untracable levels.
Sir your self pity and rage shows that you are indeed a true American.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:34:05 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 04, 2009, 12:38:46 AM
It doesn't matter Tim. We could put on whiteface and speak with British accents. They'll never accept us as Americans until we can dilute our bloodlines down so that non white blood is at untracable levels.
Sir your self pity and rage shows that you are indeed a true American.
Or a member of La Raza. ;)
Quote from: citizen k on December 04, 2009, 02:21:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 01:34:05 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 04, 2009, 12:38:46 AM
It doesn't matter Tim. We could put on whiteface and speak with British accents. They'll never accept us as Americans until we can dilute our bloodlines down so that non white blood is at untracable levels.
Sir your self pity and rage shows that you are indeed a true American.
Or a member of La Raza. ;)
La Raza is Spanish for " The Razgovory"
Case dismissed :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8404212.stm
This really does sound like Fawlty Towers:
QuoteMr Vogelenzang admitted that his wife may have referred to the hijab as a form of bondage, but said he only listed historical figures such as Hitler, Nero and Mao to make light of the situation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2009, 01:58:50 PM
This really does sound like Fawlty Towers:
QuoteMr Vogelenzang admitted that his wife may have referred to the hijab as a form of bondage, but said he only listed historical figures such as Hitler, Nero and Mao to make light of the situation.
Naturally, in any tense situation comparing those you disagree with to Hitler, Nero and Mao will lighten the mood :lol:
Breakfast in a large B&B can be a pretty tense situation............all those respectable British people who don't really know how to converse, talking about Hitler is always a good icebreaker :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2009, 01:58:50 PM
This really does sound like Fawlty Towers:
QuoteMr Vogelenzang admitted that his wife may have referred to the hijab as a form of bondage, but said he only listed historical figures such as Hitler, Nero and Mao to make light of the situation.
:lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 09, 2009, 05:40:43 PM
Breakfast in a large B&B can be a pretty tense situation............all those respectable British people who don't really know how to converse, talking about Hitler is always a good icebreaker :)
Roll the Fawlty Towers vid. ;)