Census: 2011 data confirm trend of population diversity
By Stephanie Siek and Joe Sterling, CNN
(CNN)– U.S. minorities now represent more than half of America's population under the age of 1, the Census Bureau said, a historic demographic milestone with profound political, economic and social implications.
The bureau - defining a minority as anyone who is not "single race white" and "not Hispanic" - released estimates on Thursday showing that 50.4% of children younger than 1 were minorities as of July 1, 2011, up from 49.5% from the 2010 Census taken in April 2010.
"2011 is the first time the population of infants under age 1 is majority minority," said Robert Bernstein, a Census Bureau spokesman.
The latest statistics - which also count the national population younger than 5 as 49.7% minority in 2011, an increase from 49% in 2010 - portend a future of a more racially diverse America, with new and growing populations playing more important roles politically and economically in years to come, analysts say.
Like other analysts, Kenneth M. Johnson, senior demographer at the Carsey Institute and professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, isn't surprised at the trend.
"We've known it was going to come, but the question was what year the "crossover point" would happen, he said.
"Little children are in the vanguard of all this change coming to America." he said.
Johnson sees the trend as an opportunity for more Americans to embrace diversity. More children are going to be exposed to a more diverse group of classmates, and that will affect attitudes and outlook.
The changes are going to be felt first in hospitals, as well as schools, where an increasingly diverse child population has to be absorbed. Hospitals would need interpreters and translators, for example, Johnson said. English as a second language would be an educational priority.
While many regions such as Atlanta have a diverse population, other regions lack racial and ethnic variety and will have to deal with a new kind of population, he said. In declining rural counties, he said, an influx of groups like Hispanics would serve to renew communities and changes would ensue.
"For a country that's aging, we need young workers, and the growth of the minority population will contribute to the size of the young adult workforce," he said. "This is breathing new life into the United States."
Jeff Passell, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, called the Census numbers "a cumulative effect of 35 to 40 years of immigration" bringing large numbers of Latinos, Asians and other immigrants into the United States.
He said the Hispanic population in particular is very young, much more concentrated in child-bearing years, and has a higher fertility rate than the white, non-Hispanic population. Lately, he says, there are a lot more births among native Hispanics in the United States than new Hispanic immigrants, a "cumulative effect" of immigration.
If the trend continues, Passell says several decades from now, possibly in the late 2030s or early 2040s, the U.S. population will become less than 50% non-Hispanic white.
"This is a trend that we can reasonably expect to continue. The factors that determine this have been set into motion, and in demography things tend to change gradually," he said.
There were 114 million minorities in 2011, or 36.6% of the U.S. population, a bump of half a percentage point from 2010. The latest figures count Hispanics as the most populous and fastest growing minority group.
They numbered 52 million in 2011, and their population grew by 3.1% since 2010. The U.S. Hispanic population grew from 16.3% in 2010 to 16.7% in 2011.
"California had the largest Hispanic population of any state on July 1, 2011 (14.4 million), as well as the largest numeric increase within the Hispanic population since April 1, 2010, (346,000)," the Census said.
"New Mexico had the highest percentage of Hispanics at 46.7%. Los Angeles had the largest Hispanic population of any county (4.8 million) in 2011 and the largest numeric increase since 2010 (73,000). Starr County - on the Mexican border in Texas - had the highest share of Hispanics (95.6 percent)."
Asians numbered 18.2 million nationally in 2011, making them the second fastest-growing minority group - up by 3% since 2010. Figures show that California had the largest Asian population of any state at 5.8 million and the largest increase since 2010 at 131,000.
"Hawaii is our nation's only majority-Asian state, with people of this group comprising 57.1% of the total population. Los Angeles had the largest Asian population of any county (1.6 million) in 2011, and also the largest numeric increase (16,000) since 2010. At 61.2%, Honolulu had the highest percentage of Asians in the nation," the Census said.
African-Americans are the second largest minority group in the United States at 43.9 million in 2011, an increase of 1.6% from 2010. New York has the largest black population of any state with 3.7 million and Texas has the largest increase from 2010 of 84,000. Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, has the largest black population of any county at 1.3 million. Fulton County, Georgia, which includes Atlanta, has the largest increase since 2010 at 13,000.
The District of Columbia has the highest percentage of blacks at 52.2%. Mississippi has the second-largest at 38%.
America's native population - labeled "American Indian and Alaska Native population" by the Census - was about 6.3 million in 2011, up 2.1% from 2010. California had the largest such population at 1,050,000 and the largest increase at 23,000. Alaska had the highest share at 19%. Los Angeles had the largest such population of any county, with 231,000, and the largest increase, 9,000 since 2010.
The population classified as "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" was 1.4 million in 2011, up 2.9% since 2010. Hawaii had the largest such population of any state at 359,000 and the highest percentage at 26.1. California had the largest increase since 2010 at 9,000. Honolulu has the largest population of any county at 235,000. Los Angeles County had the largest increase since 2011 at 2,700.
Of single race non-Hispanic whites, California had the largest population at 15 million. Texas had the largest increase since 2010 at 80,000. Maine had the highest percentage of the non-Hispanic white alone population, 94.3 percent.
Four states and the District of Columbia have predominantly minority populations, Hawaii, at 77%, the District of Columbia at 64.7%, California, at 60.3%, New Mexico, at 59.8%, and Texas, at 55.2%. Minorities comprised the majority population in 11% of the nation's 3,143 counties.
Michael White, professor of sociology at Brown University, said the rise of minorities fits into a longer-term evolution of the U.S. population, a mosaic that has been adapting to ethnic change since the first Census was recorded in 1790. There have been many groups represented over time, from enslaved and indigenous peoples, those of European stock, and now to a population reflecting the wider world - truly a "melting pot," he said.
White says it's hard to say how the changes will affect politics and that one can't assume that ethnic patterns will determine voting patterns. Local economic issues, for example, will evolve differently in different states and cities, and there are economic benefits of having a younger population, he said.
"The political dimensions will play out differently," he said. And by the time the babies are old enough to cast ballots, "the United States will be a different place when they are walking into a voting booth."
William Frey, Brookings Institution demographer, sees political challenges for new immigrants and an economy benefiting from their presence. Many Hispanics and Asians are too young to vote or can't cast ballots because they haven't become citizens.
"It's going to take perhaps awhile before the younger people get more engaged in politics. They do have an impact in some places, like swing states, such as Nevada, Colorado and Florida. They can make a difference," he said.
He, too, says that newcomers to the United States bring an energy that invigorates the economic system and an older society.
"I think we're going to just see that the younger part of the population will have a different vibe," he said. "They are sort of needed to help our youthful image and to add to that vitality. They will bring a dimension and element we sorely need."
Why on earth would it? Are only white people racist?!
My missus is pretty racist, she says she really dislikes Asian (In the USA its more oriental) people, because at her high school half of them were from Korea and China and she said they were super racist.
I mean, I never had that prejudice, but its pretty good proof. Namely, everyone hates everyone.
I think racism is stupid, but its not merely a white phenomena. loads of blacks and mexicans and asians genuinely hate white people right? So why would you even say that?!
I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.
d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.
Why on earth would it? Are only white people racist?!
My missus is pretty racist, she says she really dislikes Asian (In the USA its more oriental) people, because at her high school half of them were from Korea and China and she said they were super racist.
I mean, I never had that prejudice, but its pretty good proof. Namely, everyone hates everyone.
I think racism is stupid, but its not merely a white phenomena. loads of blacks and mexicans and asians genuinely hate white people right? So why would you even say that?!
At the risk of sounding racist, I've gathered that a lot of non white people think whites are exceptionally racist for some reason. Melissia self identifies as a minority. 1+1=2?
That is weird because a lot of white people think that non-whites think that whites are exceptionally racist. Everyone wins?
If anything this will lead to a spike in racism (the overt kind) as those idiots feel more marginalized and under attack. If you believe in white superiority and you find yourself increasingly surrounded by non-whites, and whites that don't care they if they date/marry non-whites, you will feel as if your back is up against the wall. Either they will try to move or more likely, become more belligerent.
d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.
We can always hope.
Yeah well.. I'm the eternal pessimist.
They say America is a melting pot, over here they say London is one. But It's not a melting pot. Its a hedge maze of intolerance with barbed wire on top of all the bushes!
Blacks stick together, Asians stick together, whites stick together, latinos stick together. My missus is part Mexican so she has plenty of Mexican mates, and they have told me they themselves they are pretty racist against white people, the old "Apart from you Matty!"
The fact of the matter is, we can all get over our puny mammalian brains and get along, but its not as easy as sticking everyone together and hoping for the best. Lump everyone into London and everyone hates everyone else. Add some religion/tribalism into the mix, and its all go.
No, call me a pessimist, but I cant see intolerance going away because more immigrants come in. I think that our species is fething horrible and we all look out for number 1. I mean, I don't think its as grim as all that.. but intolerance aint going anywhere, its been here for millenia and its here to stay. gaks gonna stay the same until the sun goes out as long as puny evolved primates rule the world.
America got rid of the 'melting pot' analogy back when I was still in high school. They switched it to a salad of some sort, I believe, to show that each individual piece retains its own unique qualities while still contributing to the overall status of the total.
Or some such nonsense.
The fact is that humans, likely by nature, are a very clannish and tribal group. For every two people willing to comingle and mesh groups, there are numerous others who are quite content to stay within the racial group, thank you very much. I see this a lot in Maryland and DC.
Adding more people will indeed increase the number of minglers, but probably not as a statistically significant percentage.
Ahtman wrote:That is weird because a lot of white people think that non-whites think that whites are exceptionally racist. Everyone wins?
If anything this will lead to a spike in racism (the overt kind) as those idiots feel more marginalized and under attack. If you believe in white superiority and you find yourself increasingly surrounded by non-whites, and whites that don't care they if they date/marry non-whites, you will feel as if your back is up against the wall. Either they will try to move or more likely, become more belligerent.
You're actually impugning your argument. I guess the initial question is, are only whites racist? If you answer yes, then 1) You're ed in the head; 2) thats why you think racism will go up or down based on whites.
Mexicans can't stand Cubans who dislike Puerto Ricans. When I see a bunch of skinny chinned blonds in a group, my Slavic sense tingles and I have the sudden urge to lie down in a trench and randomly shout "for the Motherland! " We are tribes and there are idiots and baiters in every tribe.
d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.
We can always hope.
Worked for the Balkans. How could it be wrong?
This is the best joke I've seen you make yet, Frazzled.
streamdragon wrote:America got rid of the 'melting pot' analogy back when I was still in high school. They switched it to a salad of some sort, I believe, to show that each individual piece retains its own unique qualities while still contributing to the overall status of the total.
Or some such nonsense.
The fact is that humans, likely by nature, are a very clannish and tribal group. For every two people willing to comingle and mesh groups, there are numerous others who are quite content to stay within the racial group, thank you very much. I see this a lot in Maryland and DC.
Adding more people will indeed increase the number of minglers, but probably not as a statistically significant percentage.
So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?
streamdragon wrote:America got rid of the 'melting pot' analogy back when I was still in high school. They switched it to a salad of some sort, I believe, to show that each individual piece retains its own unique qualities while still contributing to the overall status of the total.
Or some such nonsense.
The fact is that humans, likely by nature, are a very clannish and tribal group. For every two people willing to comingle and mesh groups, there are numerous others who are quite content to stay within the racial group, thank you very much. I see this a lot in Maryland and DC.
Adding more people will indeed increase the number of minglers, but probably not as a statistically significant percentage.
So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?
Frazzled wrote:Mexicans can't stand Cubans who dislike Puerto Ricans.
I've always been amazed how much the various hispanic/latino/(I don't know the rest of the preferreed terms) groups dislike each other. I mean.. REALLY hate each other. At my high school, where the population of non-white and non-black students was very low, there were fights on a nearly weekly basis between various groups. And I don't mean one on one fights, I mean five to ten people per side just going at each other for seemingly random reasons.
I know, I know, anecdotal and all that, but it still sort of amazed me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?
treadhead1944 wrote:Call it tomato based chip dipping sauce
I suspect they went with salad as it's a fairly neutral term, yes. My school was somewhat ahead of its time with political correctness.
Frazzled wrote:You're actually impugning your argument.
Maybe you don't understand it then? My argument said nothing about only any one group being any one thing. I explicitly stated that overt white racists would become more belligerent as the numbers of non-whites increase. Overt white racists (Neo-nazis, KKK, ect) don't make up make up that large a segment of the population, and in fact are quite marginalized. I refer to them only because news like this will cause those idiotic groups the most consternation. Recognizing how one hate group will probably act in no way implies that they are the only hate group either.
Frazzled wrote:Mexicans can't stand Cubans who dislike Puerto Ricans.
I've always been amazed how much the various hispanic/latino/(I don't know the rest of the preferreed terms) groups dislike each other. I mean.. REALLY hate each other. At my high school, where the population of non-white and non-black students was very low, there were fights on a nearly weekly basis between various groups. And I don't mean one on one fights, I mean five to ten people per side just going at each other for seemingly random reasons.
I know, I know, anecdotal and all that, but it still sort of amazed me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?
treadhead1944 wrote:Call it tomato based chip dipping sauce
I suspect they went with salad as it's a fairly neutral term, yes. My school was somewhat ahead of its time with political correctness.
Why are you surprised? Conflict between "white" ethnic groups was and still is common in many places. Irish against Italians, Italians against Germans, etc. etc. My wife remembers a lot of that in Illinois where she grew up.
Heck in California where I lived there was conflict between the older generation hispanics and the new immigrants coming in from the same country.
Frazzled wrote:You're actually impugning your argument.
Maybe you don't understand it then? My argument said nothing about only any one group being any one thing. I explicitly stated that overt white racists would become more belligerent as the numbers of non-whites increase. Overt racists (Neo-nazis, KKK, ect) don't make up make up that large a segment of the population. I refer to them only because news like this will cause those idiotic groups the most consternation. Recognizing how one hate group will probably act in no way implies that they are the only hate group either.
Frazzled wrote:
Why are you surprised? Conflict between "white" ethnic groups was and still is common in many places. Irish against Italians, Italians against Germans, etc. etc. My wife remembers a lot of that in Illinois where she grew up.
Heck in California where I lived there was conflict between the older generation hispanics and the new immigrants coming in from the same country.
Texans against everybody else
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.
Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...
I think one could argue that it is basically the same thing, only the source of hate/contempt/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is based on a different factor.
Frazzled wrote:
Why are you surprised? Conflict between "white" ethnic groups was and still is common in many places. Irish against Italians, Italians against Germans, etc. etc. My wife remembers a lot of that in Illinois where she grew up.
Heck in California where I lived there was conflict between the older generation hispanics and the new immigrants coming in from the same country.
Texans against everybody else
It would take the rest of the world (outside of Australia) for it to be a fair fight.
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.
Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...
Having read some things on here from Europeans about Gypsies I'm not sure it doesn't fit at times, though certainly it wouldn't apply in all situations. Bigotry, prejudice, and ethnocentricism still have their place in European history in causing problems without the need for it to be racial. We do have Europe to thank for Judaism transitioning from a religion to a race though.
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.
Is it? I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...
I'd say it goes well beyond nationalism, but there is a lot of nationalistic pride thrown around as well.
Racial identifications in the sense that we know them now are a modern creation. Nationalist, religious, and location centric forms of discrimination were predominant before we learned to identify genetic heritages. Europe maintained religious and nationalistic discriminations into its colonial period, when it developed genetic discrimination. Europe is strange in that it's borders were often religious as well as national for a very long time but it now identifies strongly as a single homogeneous "white" population. They're conflicted.
Amaya wrote:Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?
Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.
Yes, but jewish genetic history is incredibly varied. They're not a race as we identify races today. The diaspora prevented them from being a homogeneous "race".
You guys make everything so complicated, as I said.. you don't need an excuse. Humans hate so much easier than they love.. Religion, skin colour, block, tribe, area, postcode.. people just fething hate each other!
Not to sound hippy or anything, I'm more like the comedian from Watchmen.
I saw some really fethed up stuff in Sierra Leone.. I could understand it if it was for theft or something, but.. just needlessly?
Anyway, I've never had nightmares, I don't think a burning orphanage would bother me. Nothing I ever saw upset me, just a grim sense of "Ah, I expected to see that gak anyway!"
Our species is awful, but there's no sense philosophising about it.
"The worlds a tough place, you just gotta be tougher right?"
Amaya wrote:Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?
Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.
Not really. Every group has considered itself special at one time or another. The key difference was that someone who was Jewish before could convert and they would be considered a Christian*, but if you make it a racial categorization you can never convert and you are always a Jew no matter what.
*There weren't a lot of Buddhists in 16th century Europe.
Amaya wrote:Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?
Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.
Yes, but jewish genetic history is incredibly varied. They're not a race as we identify races today. The diaspora prevented them from being a homogeneous "race".
I'm referring to their pre diaspora attitude.
mattyrm wrote: You guys make everything so complicated, as I said.. you don't need an excuse. Humans hate so much easier than they love.. Religion, skin colour, block, tribe, area, postcode.. people just fething hate each other!
Not to sound hippy or anything, I'm more like the comedian from Watchmen.
You're exactly right, humans are very hateful.
Spoiler:
The Comedian might be a bit of an ass and extremist, but he is right in a way.
Yes, but pre diaspora, they were genetically the same people as their neighbors, who they considered inferior. Granted, they would allow them to convert to Judaism.
Amaya wrote:Yes, but pre diaspora, they were genetically the same people as their neighbors, who they considered inferior. Granted, they would allow them to convert to Judaism.
Back then most populations were genetically homogeneous as we were no longer a nomadic species, but we didn't yet have the genetic distribution caused by rising and falling imperial powers and sea trade/travel. Europe wasn't really a thing until well after the diaspora. It was there, certainly, but most of it's populations and nations didn't come to be until after.
I don't get the people who say that racism and hatred is part of our nature, so we shouldn't care. A huge portion of murderers and racists are genetically inclined to be murderers and rapists, but that doesn't mean we should give up and say, "Ah well, let 'em rape and murder as much as they want. It's not their fault."
Amaya wrote:I'm referring to their pre diaspora attitude.
Even then it doesn't make them a race. The US has had the same attitude of being hand picked by god, and so have the Brits as well, but that doesn't mean all Americans are considered a separate race, nor the British.
LoneLictor wrote:I don't get the people who say that racism and hatred is part of our nature, so we shouldn't care. A huge portion of murderers and racists are genetically inclined to be murderers and rapists, but that doesn't mean we should give up and say, "Ah well, let 'em rape and murder as much as they want. It's not their fault."
No no.. That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying, why worry about gak you cant change?
I'm not saying, "LET people do whatever they want"
gak, Im all up for locking people up forever who get caught raping and murdering, im just saying its pointless hypothesising about why rape and murder occurs because its always going to regardless!
LoneLictor wrote:I don't get the people who say that racism and hatred is part of our nature, so we shouldn't care. A huge portion of murderers and racists are genetically inclined to be murderers and rapists, but that doesn't mean we should give up and say, "Ah well, let 'em rape and murder as much as they want. It's not their fault."
No no.. That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying, why worry about gak you cant change?
I'm not saying, "LET people do whatever they want"
gak, Im all up for locking people up forever who get caught raping and murdering, im just saying its pointless hypothesising about why rape and murder occurs because its always going to regardless!
Could you clarify this? It doesn't make much sense. So do you think we should actively fight racism or should we just let it slide? Do you think it's excusable because its human nature or do you think its inexcusable because of how immoral it is?
Amaya wrote:I'm referring to their pre diaspora attitude.
Even then it doesn't make them a race. The US has had the same attitude of being hand picked by god, and so have the Brits as well, but that doesn't mean all Americans are considered a separate race, nor the British.
I never said that they were a unique race pre diaspora. They were no different than their neighbors of the same race, but considered them inferior.
LoneLictor wrote:I don't get the people who say that racism and hatred is part of our nature, so we shouldn't care. A huge portion of murderers and racists are genetically inclined to be murderers and rapists, but that doesn't mean we should give up and say, "Ah well, let 'em rape and murder as much as they want. It's not their fault."
No one's said, we've just acknowledged that humans naturally have tribal tendencies.
LoneLictor wrote:I don't get the people who say that racism and hatred is part of our nature, so we shouldn't care. A huge portion of murderers and racists are genetically inclined to be murderers and rapists, but that doesn't mean we should give up and say, "Ah well, let 'em rape and murder as much as they want. It's not their fault."
No one's said, we've just acknowledged that humans naturally have tribal tendencies.
Good to know. My post was actually semiresponding to something I saw on the website Yo Is This Racist?, which is an excellent website. Basically an asian guy says the word "Yo" a lot and tells racists that they're racist. Then people get really mad at him and then he's like "Ah gak, you racist". Great website.
The Balkans, Isreal, Northern Ireland, pre-war Europe. Yeah I can see how this will turn out.
People of their own culture need to live with other people of their own culture. It's a basic human need to want to live with people who share their language, history, values, etc. Even in "multi-cultural" parts of the world, people of different ethnicities overwealmingly live alongside people of the same ethnicity.
Personally I would be surprised if the next 100 years will be as peaceful as the past 100 years were in the good ol' USA.
Joey wrote:The Balkans, Isreal, Northern Ireland, pre-war Europe. Yeah I can see how this will turn out.
People of their own culture need to live with other people of their own culture. It's a basic human need to want to live with people who share their language, history, values, etc. Even in "multi-cultural" parts of the world, people of different ethnicities overwealmingly live alongside people of the same ethnicity.
Personally I would be surprised if the next 100 years will be as peaceful as the past 100 years were in the good ol' USA.
Or, ya know, if people maybe took a step back and tried to stop being racist donkey-caves, then maybe multicultural and racial areas would do fine. That's my philosophy. Though human nature is assholeish, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be an donkey-cave.
Joey wrote:The Balkans, Isreal, Northern Ireland, pre-war Europe. Yeah I can see how this will turn out.
People of their own culture need to live with other people of their own culture. It's a basic human need to want to live with people who share their language, history, values, etc. Even in "multi-cultural" parts of the world, people of different ethnicities overwealmingly live alongside people of the same ethnicity.
Personally I would be surprised if the next 100 years will be as peaceful as the past 100 years were in the good ol' USA.
Or, ya know, if people maybe took a step back and tried to stop being racist donkey-caves, then maybe multicultural and racial areas would do fine. That's my philosophy. Though human nature is assholeish, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be an donkey-cave.
You wouldn't tell a starving man to stop thinking about food, why should bigotry be any different? We love those similar to us and we hate those who're different. Rolling your eyes and saying "well that's just human nature" is completely ignoring it.
Joey wrote:The Balkans, Isreal, Northern Ireland, pre-war Europe. Yeah I can see how this will turn out.
People of their own culture need to live with other people of their own culture. It's a basic human need to want to live with people who share their language, history, values, etc. Even in "multi-cultural" parts of the world, people of different ethnicities overwealmingly live alongside people of the same ethnicity.
Personally I would be surprised if the next 100 years will be as peaceful as the past 100 years were in the good ol' USA.
Or, ya know, if people maybe took a step back and tried to stop being racist donkey-caves, then maybe multicultural and racial areas would do fine. That's my philosophy. Though human nature is assholeish, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be an donkey-cave.
You wouldn't tell a starving man to stop thinking about food, why should bigotry be any different? We love those similar to us and we hate those who're different. Rolling your eyes and saying "well that's just human nature" is completely ignoring it.
I'm confused by what you're saying. What I'm saying is that racism is bad and people should try to stop being racist. Not really groundbreaking or anything, but I figered that I'd post it.
Because those who grow up around a large variety of people tend to be less bigoted than those who grow up isolated amongst a single group, at least in my experience.
I find it funny that when people say "thats just human nature" they are invariably talking about the worst aspects of human behaviour, and often it is things which are unjustifiable without resorting to that stock phrase. Just because people have done things like that for years, doesn't mean that they are incapable of acting any other way.
Bring on the alien invasion when we all realise we're not that different after all.
Man, I have no problem with people with different skin colors and whatnot. I am only mildly leery of immigrants. I do have a major problem with creating ethnic enclaves that basically stop being a part of the country. Integrate, man - western culture won, get on board!
When I lived in New Orleans for a couple of years, I was surprised to find Blacks judging other Blacks by how light or dark their skin was.
The lighter skinned Backs were called "high yellow" by the darker skinned Blacks. Those with light skin tones would look down at those darker than themselves.
All that being said, I don't know how wide spread it was, but I heard it mentioned in enough conversations down there that I just thought I'd mention it.
That's occurred for generations in America due to lighter skinned blacks frequently used as house slaves while darker ones were stuck in the fields. Even now it's common for images of blacks to be lightened, but I think that may be primarily restricted to females. It's a bit distressing.
Western culture hasn't won, it's ahead on points. Come back in century and things will look very different.
You say this like its a good thing.
It might well be, no offence to America but a fair whack of its populous aren't the sharpest knives in the draw (of course there are some incredibly clever, cultured and cosmopolitan people there too, in fact the majority I have met fall into this category), but those are the ones that seem to be appealed to so as politicians can claim and retain power. And America is a relatively young country which makes certain aspects of American foreign policy seem to an outsider to be boisterous, infantile and a little hysterical. Just my opinion, I mean we were probably worse when we had an empire, after all you guys didn't invent concentration camps, and don't really engage in the whole ethnic cleansing thing.
Western culture hasn't won, it's ahead on points. Come back in century and things will look very different.
You say this like its a good thing.
It might well be, no offence to America but a fair whack of its populous aren't the sharpest knives in the draw (of course there are some incredibly clever, cultured and cosmopolitan people there too, in fact the majority I have met fall into this category), but those are the ones that seem to be appealed to so as politicians can claim and retain power. And America is a relatively young country which makes certain aspects of American foreign policy seem to an outsider to be boisterous, infantile and a little hysterical. Just my opinion, I mean we were probably worse when we had an empire, after all you guys didn't invent concentration camps, and don't really engage in the whole ethnic cleansing thing.
I sense I may get pilloried for this.
You know Western culture is not just the US right? Its brought us sich niceties as the Reformation, the Renaissance, little things like voting, democracy, indeed the fconcept of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
I'll just note WWI and WWII didn't start here and I am sure our Americas women folk would much rather live under the enlightened regimes of the Middle East.
Indeed it isn't solely American, however you guys are the dominant power. And all the things listed are admirable (you missed the most important, the Enlightenment), apart from maybe democracy (imo turns important decisions into popularity contests, if there existed such a thing as a truely selfless person they would be the perfect leader. a la Plato's Republic).
I very much doubt the middle east will be very important once the oil runs out, that whole inventing zero thing is pretty old hat. China, India and Brazil on the other hand...
WW1 and 2 weren't started over there no, they were Germany getting uppity. But still, Invasion of Grenada (UN said it "deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State".) Invasion of Panama (UN "condemned the invasion as a flagrant violation of international law") the current Iraq war (unmandated by the UN). It all seems a little warmongery, with little or no regard for international law and civilian casualties.
dæl wrote:Indeed it isn't solely American, however you guys are the dominant power. And all the things listed are admirable (you missed the most important, the Enlightenment), apart from maybe democracy (imo turns important decisions into popularity contests, if there existed such a thing as a truely selfless person they would be the perfect leader. a la Plato's Republic).
I very much doubt the middle east will be very important once the oil runs out, that whole inventing zero thing is pretty old hat. China, India and Brazil on the other hand...
WW1 and 2 weren't started over there no, they were Germany getting uppity. But still, Invasion of Grenada (UN said it "deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State".) Invasion of Panama (UN "condemned the invasion as a flagrant violation of international law") the current Iraq war (unmandated by the UN). It all seems a little warmongery, with little or no regard for international law and civilian casualties.
Brazil is in most ways a "western culture" with heavy infusion of Pre-Spanish culture as well.
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
Why on earth should he be forced to speak a different language in his own country?
Go to a Spanish speaking country only speaking English and see how good you do...
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
Why on earth should he be forced to speak a different language in his own country?
Go to a Spanish speaking country only speaking English and see how good you do...
Well, actually, it would work well.
Most European countries teach English in the classroom, along with places like China and Malaysia. So yes, they would be able to talk (A bit broken) in English.
We should give the South Americans the same courtesy.
Don't Brazilians speak Portuguese? Also in certain areas of Spain there are people who live there and have never spoken a word of Spanish, trust the Brits to just emigrate on mass and refuse to integrate.
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
Why on earth should he be forced to speak a different language in his own country?
Go to a Spanish speaking country only speaking English and see how good you do...
Let me first note that there is not official language in the US, although English is the de facto national language. Some states do have an official language, and some states have more than one official language.
I'm not saying he should be forced to speak a different language, I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with learning another one, and I think learning one should be encouraged, not discouraged. And depending on which Spanish-speaking country we're talking about, you might be just fine only speaking English. I'm not necessarily recommending going to another country without knowing any of the local language, but you might be surprised how far you can get in a lot of countries with just English, and it's a hell of a lot farther than you could get in a lot of US states with only Spanish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Don't Brazilians speak Portuguese? Also in certain areas of Spain there are people who live there and have never spoken a word of Spanish, trust the Brits to just emigrate on mass and refuse to integrate.
Brazilians do speak Portuguese, and I'm sure many of them also speak Spanish as a second language.
There's also a bunch of different Romance languages spoken in different areas of Spain, like Catalan spoken in Catalonia.
And of course there's Basque country, where they speak Basque which isn't even an Indo-European language, much less a Romance language.
My personal opinion is that the Government serves the people, not the other way around.
If a large amount of people served by such government speak a different language, then the government needs to speak that language.
Just my opinion, and why I always vote against any english-only-official-language amendment.
That and living in Oklahoma, the state full of Native American tribes. So taking the "speak our language or get out of this land" road is extra insulting to me considering that fact.
Chowderhead wrote:
Well, actually, it would work well.
Most European countries teach English in the classroom, along with places like China and Malaysia. So yes, they would be able to talk (A bit broken) in English.
We should give the South Americans the same courtesy.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You are talking about a country that even translates foreign bands names into Spanish. Only 1,4% of Spaniards that graduate from college have a working knowledge of English, let alone the general population. Go speak to a normal person in the street and they wouldn't even identify the language that you were speaking, let alone understand it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:
Brazilians do speak Portuguese, and I'm sure many of them also speak Spanish as a second language.
Why on earth would a Brazilian speak Spanish as a second language? They speak Portuguese and a little bit of English, most of the time.
I feel that they should learn english just like everyone else who had to in order to survive outside of their cultural group.
The US has had large groups of immigrants from many countries but yet my Mchappy burger has writing in spanish? why are they so special? why do they deserve to have preferential treatment over everyone else?
Deathklaat wrote:I feel that they should learn english just like everyone else who had to in order to survive outside of their cultural group.
The US has had large groups of immigrants from many countries but yet my Mchappy burger has writing in spanish? why are they so special? why do they deserve to have preferential treatment over everyone else?
In the UK a lot of correspondence from the government is written in English, Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Greek, Gujurati, Hindi, Polish, Punjabi, Somali, Turkish, Urdu, and Vietnamese. (But not Welsh )
Edit: Checked the letter i was talking about, and it was asking if you needed an interpreter. Not quite the same thing.
Deathklaat wrote:I feel that they should learn english just like everyone else who had to in order to survive outside of their cultural group.
The US has had large groups of immigrants from many countries but yet my Mchappy burger has writing in spanish? why are they so special? why do they deserve to have preferential treatment over everyone else?
Capitalism?
If McHappy wants to maximize profits and sell stuff to Hispanics, then they have every right to market to Hispanics.
Unless you want the Government telling private business what to do and what language to speak
Chowderhead wrote:
Well, actually, it would work well.
Most European countries teach English in the classroom, along with places like China and Malaysia. So yes, they would be able to talk (A bit broken) in English.
We should give the South Americans the same courtesy.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You are talking about a country that even translates foreign bands names into Spanish. Only 1,4% of Spaniards that graduate from college have a working knowledge of English, let alone the general population. Go speak to a normal person in the street and they wouldn't even identify the language that you were speaking, let alone understand it!
I think you're exaggerating a bit. Do you have any sources to back that up? It's probably true that there are fewer people in Spain who speak reasonably good English than in other European countries like Germany or the Netherlands, but 1.4% seems extremely low. I guess it also depends on what level they consider to be a "working knowledge" though. It might be different in the countryside, but in urban areas you can definitely find people in the street who understand some English.
PhantomViper wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:
Brazilians do speak Portuguese, and I'm sure many of them also speak Spanish as a second language.
Why on earth would a Brazilian speak Spanish as a second language? They speak Portuguese and a little bit of English, most of the time.
Because Brazil is surrounded by Spanish-speaking countries and Spanish is taught as a foreign language in schools (English is as well, of course).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deathklaat wrote:I feel that they should learn english just like everyone else who had to in order to survive outside of their cultural group.
The US has had large groups of immigrants from many countries but yet my Mchappy burger has writing in spanish? why are they so special? why do they deserve to have preferential treatment over everyone else?
I'm not saying that immigrants to the US shouldn't also learn English, I think they definitely should. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea for American-born citizens to learn a bit of another language though.
Please consider carefully the prejudicial implications of certain metaphors before posting them. Dakka Dakka has a zero tolerance policy regarding racist comments.
Hordini wrote:
I'm not saying that immigrants to the US shouldn't also learn English, I think they definitely should. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea for American-born citizens to learn a bit of another language though.
Cantonese would be a good choice. Closely followed by something Latin based, probably Spanish.
Hordini wrote:
I'm not saying that immigrants to the US shouldn't also learn English, I think they definitely should. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea for American-born citizens to learn a bit of another language though.
Cantonese would be a good choice. Closely followed by something Latin based, probably Spanish.
In general, at least in terms of how much use you could get out of it without leaving the country, Spanish would be a much better choice than Cantonese at this point.
actually SPoD was a reference to Storm Troopers of Death's album, i just thought it was fitting.
i still think we need to build a wall along our Mexical border, something about the size of the Great Wall of China will do. That and cut PR loose or make them pay taxes for once.
The Asian chick in that poster is pretty mint like.
On topic, this thread is proper full of self loathing white hippies by the way. They always told me there was plenty of people like that, I just never met many.
Listen, foreigners arent some bastion of glory and intellectual prowess, ive been all over Europe, and in loads of places they speak feth all English. Italy, France, Spain.. they arent some sort of utopian society where everyone is Vegan, practices Feng Shui, speaks 12 languages and cycles everywhere.
People that speak English put themselves down all the time, Americans, Brits, Ozzies.. as if we suck and the rest of the world is awesome. Its a crock of gak.
Im all for making people speak your language. I don't expect to have an easy time In France or Spain so I learn some lingo, your damn straight I expect the same. feth em. If they want to move here, learn English, or piss off home.
When did that splendid old mantra "When in Rome" become bigotry incarnate? Its not wrong to expect a little bloody effort from the fethers when they come over. If I sent my kids to school in India, I would make the little gaks eat, dress, and speak like the locals. I think its respectful, and frankly I feel we are far too accommodating in the US/UK.
Hordini wrote:
I think you're exaggerating a bit. Do you have any sources to back that up? It's probably true that there are fewer people in Spain who speak reasonably good English than in other European countries like Germany or the Netherlands, but 1.4% seems extremely low. I guess it also depends on what level they consider to be a "working knowledge" though. It might be different in the countryside, but in urban areas you can definitely find people in the street who understand some English.
You mean other than my daily personal and professional relations with Spanish people? Other than that I leave right next door to Spain and have actually travelled there countless times?
Note that AFAIK, those measures haven't been implemented yet.
PhantomViper wrote:
Because Brazil is surrounded by Spanish-speaking countries and Spanish is taught as a foreign language in schools (English is as well, of course).
Spanish is taught as a foreign language, yes, but the students have to choose between Spanish or English, for example.
Brazil has 190 million people. Of those, 5 million have actively studied Spanish during school.
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
You mean like "Hola!" yea already there. In fact I'm fully versed in all phrases needed to get my face slapped in Spanish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Deathklaat wrote:joy just what the US needs more of...
now ill have to translate "stay off my lawn or ill shoot you in the face!" into Spanish now.
Maybe ill make something like the Rosetta Stone except it will only have one phrase written on it.. "Speak English or die."
Maybe you could try learning a few friendly greetings in Spanish instead? There's nothing wrong with learning to speak more than one language. There are a multitude of benefits and basically no downside.
Why on earth should he be forced to speak a different language in his own country?
Go to a Spanish speaking country only speaking English and see how good you do...
You're right. When I was in California, speaking English could be a real problem. Fortunately there were several people who could translate for me.
Whats interesting is how "hey cheeka" and "looking good there chola girl" almost got me married...
Hordini wrote:
I think you're exaggerating a bit. Do you have any sources to back that up? It's probably true that there are fewer people in Spain who speak reasonably good English than in other European countries like Germany or the Netherlands, but 1.4% seems extremely low. I guess it also depends on what level they consider to be a "working knowledge" though. It might be different in the countryside, but in urban areas you can definitely find people in the street who understand some English.
You mean other than my daily personal and professional relations with Spanish people? Other than that I leave right next door to Spain and have actually travelled there countless times?
Note that AFAIK, those measures haven't been implemented yet.
PhantomViper wrote:
Because Brazil is surrounded by Spanish-speaking countries and Spanish is taught as a foreign language in schools (English is as well, of course).
Spanish is taught as a foreign language, yes, but the students have to choose between Spanish or English, for example.
Brazil has 190 million people. Of those, 5 million have actively studied Spanish during school.
Yes, but I would bet that there are many who can understand and speak at least a bit of Spanish due to the similarities between Portuguese and Spanish and being surrounded by Spanish-speaking countries. Also note that when I say "speak," I'm not talking about speaking with 100% native-like fluency.
I'm quoting the article here:
According to a survey by Employment and Global Media Consultants, only 1.4% of Spanish university students graduate with the second-language levels (almost always English) necessary to find employment in multinationals.
I'm not saying that there are a ton of Spaniards who speak English fluently, or that there are a ton that you're going to be having deep philosophical conversations in English with. I'm saying there are enough Spaniards who speak a bit of English that you can get by in an urban area speaking primarily English. I've been to Spain too, and I was able to get by with English and a tiny bit of Spanish. Just because only 1.4% are fluent enough in English to be employed by a multinational, that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of others that you'll be able to communicate with enough to get by if you speak English.
Someone who speaks three languages? Tri-Lingual
Someone who speaks two languages? Bi-Lingual
Someone who speaks one language? American!
When my Great-Grandfather came to the US from Sicily in the 1890's, he did not speak a word of English. When he died in 1948, he spoke three phrases of English, and two of them were bad phrases.
I grew up speaking English. In High School I took Italian, and in college I took Italian, German and Spanish. I am fluent in none of them, but can speak enough to get by if necessary. Is it too much to ask an immigrant to learn English in America? Yes and No. My Great-Grand lived in Little Italy in New York, and then when he moved to Detroit, he lived in the Italian section of the city. He surrounded himself with "his" people. His children on the other hand went to American schools, got American jobs, and Etc., including the two children who were born in Palermo.
My point? In time you acclimate to the culture you live in, giving some of your culture back, and generation to generation the world slowly changes.
look in my family i have 12 cousin off which 5 could be calssified as minorities by a rcist person look from the outside.
4 of them are half-mexican-american-half germano french and they are just like the rest of us..
My other cousin is actually interesting she's half cherokee as are her brother and sister.
she has brown skin brown hair.
her sister has pale white skin black hair.
her brother has pale white skin Blonde hair.
so racism generally doesn't work out well for those who use it.
That said if 1/4 of those children come from asian or latin households they will be racist to just not against white people for the most part.
d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.
We can always hope.
Worked for the Balkans. How could it be wrong?
You know how scary it migth be, I am inclided to agree with you on this one. I just hope you people lay of the civil war/ etnical cleansing until I am gone from this world.
Bromsy wrote:
And I never had much trouble being understood anywhere in Europe with my awesome ability to always repeat myself slower and louder.
Pointing in a more and more rigorous manner helps too.
Pointing seems like such a gallic thing to do. I have been known to shake my fist though.
Every couple of years my uncle comes to visit from Germany. He doesn't speak a lick of English, but I am always in awe of his ability to communicate effectively using nothing but slow German, lots of hand gestures, and a never ending enthusiasm to just meet people.
treadhead1944 wrote:Someone who speaks three languages? Tri-Lingual
Someone who speaks two languages? Bi-Lingual
Someone who speaks one language? American!
When my Great-Grandfather came to the US from Sicily in the 1890's, he did not speak a word of English. When he died in 1948, he spoke three phrases of English, and two of them were bad phrases.
I grew up speaking English. In High School I took Italian, and in college I took Italian, German and Spanish. I am fluent in none of them, but can speak enough to get by if necessary. Is it too much to ask an immigrant to learn English in America? Yes and No. My Great-Grand lived in Little Italy in New York, and then when he moved to Detroit, he lived in the Italian section of the city. He surrounded himself with "his" people. His children on the other hand went to American schools, got American jobs, and Etc., including the two children who were born in Palermo.
My point? In time you acclimate to the culture you live in, giving some of your culture back, and generation to generation the world slowly changes.
Ah, but that only works if the only language in schools is english. Had your family had the option of being taught in Italian do you think they might have? The issue is becoming more that newer generations aren't acclimating either. It's not longer a generational melting pot. You can now be a second generation hispanic and not need to speak english at all. At least in SoCal.
My wife's great-great-grandfather came over from Germany. When they had kids they did not let them speak German at home. It was english only in their home since they were Americans now. That just isn't the mentality of many immigrants now. They are "insert culture"-American now instead of American.
Different times. Either way my kids are going to learn Spanish to since there is no point in pretending that it hasn't become the second language of America.
Yeah, or the temper part. I'm actually 50% irish, 25% german, 15% polish and 10% scottish. Plus she just reminded me that she's 20% german, 50% puerto rican 30% a mismash of nearly every european major eurpean ethnicity, to which I stated "so that half of your family really got around ,eh? *wink wink* *nudge nudge* she made a face, then I reminded her that if they looked half as good as her, they'd have to beat sutors off them with sticks. Thats what we call a save
Exalted Pariah wrote:Yeah, or the temper part. I'm actually 50% irish, 25% german, 15% polish and 10% scottish. Plus she just reminded me that she's 20% german, 50% puerto rican 30% a mismash of nearly every european major eurpean ethnicity, to which I stated "so that half of your family really got around ,eh? *wink wink* *nudge nudge* she made a face, then I reminded her that if they looked half as good as her, they'd have to beat sutors off them with sticks. Thats what we call a save
I love the way Americans figure all that gak out right down to percentages. Over here we don't much give a feth, I know to my grandparents and then never bothered to look any further. Like most Brits ive got Irish and Scottish, but I don't give a gak anyway.. I'm sure if you go back far enough were all mixed in together, and really, how accurate do you think your predictions are? Once you get past 4 generations you must be mixed in with half the continent! Thats like, 8 sets of parents already!
Anyway yeah.. I've always found it weird that people here don't care, and people there seem to know everything. My missus when I first met her said "Oh Im Spanish, Mexican, British, German, Cherokee, polish..."
Kovnik Obama wrote:Holy Frak do I hate the level of cynicism in this thread. I swear half of you don't have the maturity of a 16 years old emo...
Multiculturalism: Intentionally pointing out our differences to further divide us by race.
It works fine in Canada. Why can't YOU make it work is a better question to ask.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why on earth should he be forced to speak a different language in his own country?
Go to a Spanish speaking country only speaking English and see how good you do...
Yes, God forbid you would actually need to learn something in order to look polite and sophisticated. That would be so crass and un-WASPlike...
Multiculturalism only works in Canada because extreme weather gives people a common enemy, and hockey gives you a bloodsport to soothe your fury. Its a perfect storm of tolerance.
.... except for those riots that one time. But that was just people coming together.
Multiculturalism only works in Canada because extreme weather gives people a common enemy, and hockey gives you a bloodsport to soothe your fury. Its a perfect storm of tolerance.
.... except for those riots that one time. But that was just people coming together.
Then Metallica is obviously the reason why multiculturalism can't work in the States...
But one thing I just thought about ; Canada is in an exceptionnal position to have multiculturalism fail. 1) It's a melt-pot of successive (and still is) immigrations, 2) it's large enough for cultures and sub-cultures to develop without entering in contact with one another for a while, a 3) Not many other countries can claim having successfully maintained cohesion while having a secessionnist party representing about 10% of it's entire population. Beside the October Crisis (so 40 years ago), no one was harmed by what is essentially an ethnic issue between a large majority and a (audible) minority.
So, if we didn't come up with nationalistic or jingoistic traits in the last half century that would indeed make it impossible to remain a cohesive multiculture, what makes you say that it's impossible to avoid those same traits?
Multiculturalism only works in Canada because extreme weather gives people a common enemy, and hockey gives you a bloodsport to soothe your fury. Its a perfect storm of tolerance.
.... except for those riots that one time. But that was just people coming together.
Then Metallica is obviously the reason why multiculturalism can't work in the States...
Nah, Metallica is the reason why we are too awesome for multiculturalism to work. Not counting St. Anger.
mattyrm wrote: You guys make everything so complicated, as I said.. you don't need an excuse. Humans hate so much easier than they love.. Religion, skin colour, block, tribe, area, postcode.. people just fething hate each other!
Not to sound hippy or anything, I'm more like the comedian from Watchmen.
I saw some really fethed up stuff in Sierra Leone.. I could understand it if it was for theft or something, but.. just needlessly?
Anyway, I've never had nightmares, I don't think a burning orphanage would bother me. Nothing I ever saw upset me, just a grim sense of "Ah, I expected to see that gak anyway!"
Our species is awful, but there's no sense philosophising about it.
"The worlds a tough place, you just gotta be tougher right?"
Yes, I agree with you on this one.
Multi-culturism is not working in Australia, a lot of Ethnic groups run Gangs or smuggle in drugs. The refugees get Government Housing before Starving Homeless Australians. There is a lot of problems with the Lebonese in my area, the Chinese Triads smuggle in drugs. The only real benefit is comerical, food and other comerical assests. The groups also keep to themselves leading to multiple pocket cultures in Australia which is not really Multi-cultural. Many people also refuse to speak English. It's not working.
PhantomViper wrote:
You mean other than my daily personal and professional relations with Spanish people? Other than that I leave right next door to Spain and have actually travelled there countless times?
I spent a decent amount of time in Spain both before and after I became fluent in Spanish. Obviously it was easier to get by when my Spanish was better, but no knowing Spanish wasn't a huge issue in my daily life.
PhantomViper wrote:
Spanish is taught as a foreign language, yes, but the students have to choose between Spanish or English, for example.
Brazil has 190 million people. Of those, 5 million have actively studied Spanish during school.
I never studied Portuguese, but I had no problem getting by in Brazil using my Spanish as a knowledge base. It takes very little effort to understand and speak both languages once you know one of them.
mattyrm wrote: You guys make everything so complicated, as I said.. you don't need an excuse. Humans hate so much easier than they love.. Religion, skin colour, block, tribe, area, postcode.. people just fething hate each other!
Not to sound hippy or anything, I'm more like the comedian from Watchmen.
I saw some really fethed up stuff in Sierra Leone.. I could understand it if it was for theft or something, but.. just needlessly?
Anyway, I've never had nightmares, I don't think a burning orphanage would bother me. Nothing I ever saw upset me, just a grim sense of "Ah, I expected to see that gak anyway!"
Our species is awful, but there's no sense philosophising about it.
"The worlds a tough place, you just gotta be tougher right?"
Yes, I agree with you on this one. Multi-culturism is not working in Australia, a lot of Ethnic groups run Gangs or smuggle in drugs. The refugees get Government Housing before Starving Homeless Australians. There is a lot of problems with the Lebonese in my area, the Chinese Triads smuggle in drugs. The only real benefit is comerical, food and other comerical assests. The groups also keep to themselves leading to multiple pocket cultures in Australia which is not really Multi-cultural. Many people also refuse to speak English. It's not working.
I don't. Immoral behavior is akin to sick behaviour. Being insensitive to sickness is a sickness, or a symptom.
rockerbikie wrote:Multi-culturism is not working in Australia, a lot of Ethnic groups run Gangs or smuggle in drugs. The refugees get Government Housing before Starving Homeless Australians. There is a lot of problems with the Lebonese in my area, the Chinese Triads smuggle in drugs. The only real benefit is comerical, food and other comerical assests. The groups also keep to themselves leading to multiple pocket cultures in Australia which is not really Multi-cultural. Many people also refuse to speak English. It's not working.'
All of which are pretty much the tropes of cultural conservatism. But They Do Crime (tm). So do your ethnies. But Our Gov Is Unfair In Giving Them Advantages (tm). Yes, because everyone is just begging to live the refugee's life, since it's all government gravy... But They Create Ghettos (tm). So do your ethny, your's are just class based. But They Don't Speak Our Language (tm) then don't talk to them. It's fairly easy to do : see, I' m capable of avoiding all those pesky australian tourists with their ridiculously stupid accent...
Kovnik Obama wrote:Also, Rockerbikie, gotta love the way you capitalize Starving Homeless Australians... that actually sound like a prettty mean gang
Id gak myself if those guys lived next door!
....
O maybe we are wide of the mark.. and its a band?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Romper Stomper, man!
I saw that film when I was a teenager, I thought it was bad ass. I especially liked when one skinhead says to a guy with hardly any hair at all "You look like a fething hippy with your hair like that!"
rockerbikie wrote:
Yes, I agree with you on this one.
Multi-culturism is not working in Australia, a lot of Ethnic groups run Gangs or smuggle in drugs. The refugees get Government Housing before Starving Homeless Australians. There is a lot of problems with the Lebonese in my area, the Chinese Triads smuggle in drugs. The only real benefit is comerical, food and other comerical assests. The groups also keep to themselves leading to multiple pocket cultures in Australia which is not really Multi-cultural. Many people also refuse to speak English. It's not working.
My old man gave me that on VHS and said "watch this lads its fething quality!" when I was about 15 and me and my know it all teenage mates went "pah, its some old gak, it will suck!"
What am I supposed to look at, and more important, how do how interpret what I see? Aboriginal people everywhere in the world are facing harsh situations ; this is not an argument against multiculturalism. There are certainly arguments against it that can be founded on exemples of aboriginal problems ; like how aboriginals would be better off if they integrated fully in their respective modern Nations. Remains to see if those arguments invalidate the entire concept of a multiculture, or if they are not more misleading than anything ; I'd argue that Reserve Laws go entirely against the spirit of multiculturalism (which is the value of alterity) as they alienate one culture from another.
Kovnik Obama wrote:What am I supposed to look at, and more important, how do how interpret what I see? Aboriginal people everywhere in the world are facing harsh situations ; this is not an argument against multiculturalism. There are certainly arguments against it that can be founded on exemples of aboriginal problems ; like how aboriginals would be better off if they integrated fully in their respective modern Nations. Remains to see if those arguments invalidate the entire concept of a multiculture, or if they are not more misleading than anything ; I'd argue that Reserve Laws go entirely against the spirit of multiculturalism (which is the value of alterity) as they alienate one culture from another.
When someone says I should or my people should assimilate (I am a first nations person) to me it says that my culture has no value to you. People asking for assimilation only see the value of their own culture or see their culture as being superior. The reserves are ours as a consolation prize for surviving a failed genocide, our rights regularly get chipped away at the governments whim in the name of capitalism. I assure you any form of "compensation" someone may claim we may get is insufficient in our eyes as we continually see our lands and rights generate others wealth through dispossession of our resources and land.
I do not think reserves or reservations (in the states) alienate one culture from another. People can come and go as they please and reserves are not native only. Ownership of land can be an issue for non natives living on rez but people are welcome to live there if they don't mind leasing a plot for 99 years or other stipulations. Reserves protect our culture by stemming the flow of imposing culture keeping it from washing our culture away thus protecting multiculturalism by helping keep our identity. It is not a fence you cannot cross, but you wouldn't know that by how many people goto reservations or even now much about them.
First, I wasn't offering my rationale against Reserves, or said that the Natives should be assimilated. I said that saying : ''Look at them poor aboriginals'' wasn't a argument against multiculturalism, or an argument at all. Saying 'their culture causes them to be in those conditions, so they would be better off assimilated'', that's an argument, since theres implications that can be challenged against the facts of life. I don't like that argument. But I don't think it's even opposable to multiculturalism, because no assimilation is implied by multiculturalism, only alterity.
Second ;
I do not think reserves or reservations (in the states) alienate one culture from another.
The debate is still going on between the Quebec elders weither or not they should adopt the 'twin-path' or the 'crossed-path'. This is essentially wondering if complete isolationnism isn't better to the state of tutel the Native Nations are currently under. There is not greater alienation then isolationnism ; it's the social equivalent of autism.
It is not a fence you cannot cross, but you wouldn't know that by how many people goto reservations or even now much about them.
I'm Metis. My avatar is a pic of my ascendant, Ambroise-Didyme Lépine, General of Louis Riel during the Red River Rebellion. I've lived next to both the best and the worst reserves in Canada (Stadaconé in QC and that wasteland north of Red-Deer, Ab). Intuitively, I'd say that it is a deficient system. But that's just intuitions, and I do not pretend to offer any suggestions...
Kovnik Obama wrote:What am I supposed to look at, and more important, how do how interpret what I see? Aboriginal people everywhere in the world are facing harsh situations ; this is not an argument against multiculturalism. There are certainly arguments against it that can be founded on exemples of aboriginal problems ; like how aboriginals would be better off if they integrated fully in their respective modern Nations. Remains to see if those arguments invalidate the entire concept of a multiculture, or if they are not more misleading than anything ; I'd argue that Reserve Laws go entirely against the spirit of multiculturalism (which is the value of alterity) as they alienate one culture from another.
When someone says I should or my people should assimilate (I am a first nations person) to me it says that my culture has no value to you. People asking for assimilation only see the value of their own culture or see their culture as being superior. The reserves are ours as a consolation prize for surviving a failed genocide, our rights regularly get chipped away at the governments whim in the name of capitalism. I assure you any form of "compensation" someone may claim we may get is insufficient in our eyes as we continually see our lands and rights generate others wealth through dispossession of our resources and land.
I do not think reserves or reservations (in the states) alienate one culture from another. People can come and go as they please and reserves are not native only. Ownership of land can be an issue for non natives living on rez but people are welcome to live there if they don't mind leasing a plot for 99 years or other stipulations. Reserves protect our culture by stemming the flow of imposing culture keeping it from washing our culture away thus protecting multiculturalism by helping keep our identity. It is not a fence you cannot cross, but you wouldn't know that by how many people goto reservations or even now much about them.
If my ancestors had the same opinions I'd currently be knee-deep in gak and dying of tuberculosis.
I hope your kids appreciate the fact that you've consciously chosen to depreciate their life chances.
Kovnik Obama wrote:What am I supposed to look at, and more important, how do how interpret what I see? Aboriginal people everywhere in the world are facing harsh situations ; this is not an argument against multiculturalism. There are certainly arguments against it that can be founded on exemples of aboriginal problems ; like how aboriginals would be better off if they integrated fully in their respective modern Nations. Remains to see if those arguments invalidate the entire concept of a multiculture, or if they are not more misleading than anything ; I'd argue that Reserve Laws go entirely against the spirit of multiculturalism (which is the value of alterity) as they alienate one culture from another.
When someone says I should or my people should assimilate (I am a first nations person) to me it says that my culture has no value to you. People asking for assimilation only see the value of their own culture or see their culture as being superior. The reserves are ours as a consolation prize for surviving a failed genocide, our rights regularly get chipped away at the governments whim in the name of capitalism. I assure you any form of "compensation" someone may claim we may get is insufficient in our eyes as we continually see our lands and rights generate others wealth through dispossession of our resources and land.
I do not think reserves or reservations (in the states) alienate one culture from another. People can come and go as they please and reserves are not native only. Ownership of land can be an issue for non natives living on rez but people are welcome to live there if they don't mind leasing a plot for 99 years or other stipulations. Reserves protect our culture by stemming the flow of imposing culture keeping it from washing our culture away thus protecting multiculturalism by helping keep our identity. It is not a fence you cannot cross, but you wouldn't know that by how many people goto reservations or even now much about them.
If my ancestors had the same opinions I'd currently be knee-deep in gak and dying of tuberculosis. I hope your kids appreciate the fact that you've consciously chosen to depreciate their life chances.
Why do you assume I depreciate my families life chances? Just how do you think I live?
I think there is a gap between your perception and reality.
I own 2 cars, a house with an orchard, have a wife, kid, dog and cat. I goto work/college and pay my taxes. My father in law is a native chaplain at several prisons and sells artwork, my brother in law is a professional artist the other works in retail, my wife is a grad student at university where she teaches english. Much of my rural family grow food even though they work just because it is good to do. Some work for the tribe in elder assistance programs as they have nursing degrees, or archaeology helping preserve historical sites (our own, we still have some left). Many of my cousins attend college one even at Marquette. We attend powwows, and religious events, my in-laws sing, drum, sweat, pray, sell native artwork and dance all on top of having jobs. My cousins work in forestry or fire and some even in the armed forces, some do not work for tribes as they live off reservation where other job options are. Most of us hunt or fish in tribal lands as part of tradition (for funerals etc) or just because we hunt and fish. Amazingly my family can have jobs go to towns, get vaccinations, vote in elections and still be traditional.
Understand I live on a reservation where there are jobs, other reservations may not be so lucky with their circumstances. So lets say the unlucky assimilate, will jobs magically appear on their lands? Just what does assimilation mean? Who's god should we pray to? Or we should stop dancing and drumming? Will any of that correct the the high poverty rate among tribes? I quit dancing and my poverty cleared right up!
So how much more would you like us to assimilate and which part do I depreciate my families chances in life?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:First, I wasn't offering my rationale against Reserves, or said that the Natives should be assimilated. I said that saying : ''Look at them poor aboriginals'' wasn't a argument against multiculturalism, or an argument at all. Saying 'their culture causes them to be in those conditions, so they would be better off assimilated'', that's an argument, since theres implications that can be challenged against the facts of life. I don't like that argument. But I don't think it's even opposable to multiculturalism, because no assimilation is implied by multiculturalism, only alterity.
Second ;
I do not think reserves or reservations (in the states) alienate one culture from another.
The debate is still going on between the Quebec elders weither or not they should adopt the 'twin-path' or the 'crossed-path'. This is essentially wondering if complete isolationnism isn't better to the state of tutel the Native Nations are currently under. There is not greater alienation then isolationnism ; it's the social equivalent of autism.
It is not a fence you cannot cross, but you wouldn't know that by how many people goto reservations or even now much about them.
I'm Metis. My avatar is a pic of my ascendant, Ambroise-Didyme Lépine, General of Louis Riel during the Red River Rebellion. I've lived next to both the best and the worst reserves in Canada (Stadaconé in QC and that wasteland north of Red-Deer, Ab). Intuitively, I'd say that it is a deficient system. But that's just intuitions, and I do not pretend to offer any suggestions...
Sorry missed your post I just saw Joey's. I apologize I was not being clear, I was actually addressing the portion where you just name off that argument and my thoughts on it. I didn't mean for it to sound as if I directed it at you. Although I do see my use of the word "you" in my response to be confusing now!
The native system of reservations was not (is not) beneficial for both parties I agree. I also agree that isolationism is not the answer, or is it even an option in my opinion. They are in Quebec not exactly ideal for isolation, and if it were I would still be against it.
Agreed. Personal preference is that white women are better looking, but when a total babe comes around of any other color/background, she's about 20% sexier.
I don't know. I think that eventually, the whole tribal hatred and stuff will just break down. I mean, some parts of the world are still very, very racist , (ever been to small town Oklahoma as a long-haired redhead with a Hispanic dad? Not fun) But other areas seem to be becoming more and more multicultural and mixed. I mean, take the area I live in, which is in SO Cal, just outside of LA. We have pretty much every race you can think of, and we all coexist pretty well. I mean, for god sakes, my best friends are Chinese/Cambodian, Japanese/Puerto RIcan, A black guy who has no idea where he's from, and I'm an Irish-French-Polish-Austrian Mexican. (Real, Nauhautl Mexican too,)
ed in the head; 2) thats why you think racism will go up or down based on whites.
Its as ironic as having to not have criminal record to live in Australia.
Then Metallica is obviously the reason why multiculturalism can't work in the States...