Full quote.

"We're a pluralistic society. We're diverse, we have people that come from everywhere. We're not multicultural. We have a set of shared values that defines our national identity, and we should never veer away from that because that creates the extraordinary nature of our country."

Thoughts? Comments? Rage? Applause?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/jeb-bush-free-stuff-black-voters/index.html

I agree that we have and should focus on our shared national identity instead of the insane focus on diversity and differences. The former promotes unity, the latter only promotes division.

And here is the article that actually matters in regards to the quote the OP used, as Jeb was using multicultural in its literal sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/jeb-bush-multiculturalism-attacks/index.html?eref=rss_politics

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And here is the article that actually matters in regards to the quote the OP used, as Jeb was using multicultural in its literal sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/jeb-bush-multiculturalism-attacks/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Solid link.

I guess the question at hand is whether or not one believes that the goal of immigration should be assimilation into the culture immigrated into.

We have a set of shared values that defines our national identity

Depends on what one thinks those "shared values" that "define our national identity" are.

I sympathized with Bush's comments here. I am left-wing, but for decades now, we have had an academic and media explosion of "multiculturalism" and "celebrate diversity", which in and of itself I suppose is not so bad, but it has led to the erosion of a common national identity, which I think in turn has encouraged some people and groups to feel that their differences are more important than their similarities with other Americans.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

I guess the question at hand is whether or not one believes that the goal of immigration should be assimilation into the culture immigrated into.

I absolutely agree that assimilation should be part of our immigration experience in the United States (to include learning English). I'm think might sorta agree with Bush on some immigration issues, or so it would seem. I think we sort of view it as helping people out of a bad situation, but we should also be pursuing policies that make immigration an economic driver, as he's said in both debates.

 Psienesis wrote:

We have a set of shared values that defines our national identity

Depends on what one thinks those "shared values" that "define our national identity" are.

Yes, very much so. People who say stuff like that tend to mean their vaules.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that we have and should focus on our shared national identity instead of the insane focus on diversity and differences. The former promotes unity, the latter only promotes division.

Translation: "Everyone should think and look just like me because it's the only way to be a real American. If you don't think, act, and look just like me, you're just 'dividing' the country."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that we have and should focus on our shared national identity instead of the insane focus on diversity and differences. The former promotes unity, the latter only promotes division.

Translation: "Everyone should think and look just like me because it's the only way to be a real American. If you don't think, act, and look just like me, you're just 'dividing' the country."

Got something constructive? Or just a flamebaity response?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Full quoteThoughts? Comments? Rage? Applause?

His statement is oxymoronic and I don't think he knows what the words "pluralistic' 'diverse' or 'multicultural' mean.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that we have and should focus on our shared national identity instead of the insane focus on diversity and differences. The former promotes unity, the latter only promotes division.

Translation: "Everyone should think and look just like me because it's the only way to be a real American. If you don't think, act, and look just like me, you're just 'dividing' the country."

Got something constructive? Or just a flamebaity response?

Shouldn't you take your own advice? Saying everyone should be uniform isn't really all that constructive either.

I didn't say we should be uniform. I said we should focus on our shared culture instead of whats different about everyone.

<Nevermind, the quote I posted is disputed>

Edit: Nah, not gonna argue w/someone.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I didn't say we should be uniform. I said we should focus on our shared culture instead of whats different about everyone.

What is our "shared culture"? What defines it? How would you describe it to someone? What practices does it involve and include?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I didn't say we should be uniform. I said we should focus on our shared culture instead of whats different about everyone.

Your idea of "our shared culture and values" is just code for what you believe in. Even though I'm a white American-born man from the Mid-Atlantic region, my values include diversity as part of our national heritage because we're a diverse nation.

You're just jumping on the "everyone who doesn't think like me is the real reason why America is 'divided'" train that seems to be running full steam as of late.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I didn't say we should be uniform. I said we should focus on our shared culture instead of whats different about everyone.

Your idea of "our shared culture and values" is just code for what you believe in. Even though I'm a white American-born man from the Mid-Atlantic region, my values include diversity as part of our national heritage because we're a diverse nation.

You're just jumping on the "everyone who doesn't think like me is the real reason why America is 'divided'" train that seems to be running full steam as of late.

We are diverse yes, but one would think cultures comming into a new culture would attempt to assimilate into their new home culture just a little bit, instead of expecting the new culture to bend over backwards for them.

I mean all the irish/italian/german/etc immigrants of the 1900's kept their traditions and cultures strong, but still assimilated by learning the language and laws of the land

Its not an unreasonable expectation.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I didn't say we should be uniform. I said we should focus on our shared culture instead of whats different about everyone.

Your idea of "our shared culture and values" is just code for what you believe in. Even though I'm a white American-born man from the Mid-Atlantic region, my values include diversity as part of our national heritage because we're a diverse nation.

You're just jumping on the "everyone who doesn't think like me is the real reason why America is 'divided'" train that seems to be running full steam as of late.

We are diverse yes, but one would think cultures comming into a new culture would attempt to assimilate into their new home culture just a little bit, instead of expecting the new culture to bend over backwards for them.

I mean all the irish/italian/german/etc immigrants of the 1900's kept their traditions and cultures strong, but still assimilated by learning the language and laws of the land

Its not an unreasonable expectation.

The language, cultures and laws of the land also took on aspects of the Irish/Italian/German immigrants though.

That is just part of the process. As immigrants assimilate into our culture, our culture will also assimilate the traditions and values that they bring to our country. Our culture is not the same it was 50 years ago, and it won't be the same in 50 years. Our culture is defined by the people that make up this country today, it is not defined by the people that made up our country 50 years ago. But the culture of our future will be made up by the people of the future. Culture shifts won't be as fast and radical as the shift that is expected of immigrants into our culture, but it is still shaped by them and it will change. That is just the nature of things.

I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

I'd settle for everyone to at least speak the same language to be honest, whatever that may end up being. Dont need a 'tower of babel' situation so to speak. I dont think thats really unreasonable or offensive.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I'd settle for everyone to at least speak the same language to be honest, whatever that may end up being. Dont need a 'tower of babel' situation so to speak. I dont think thats really unreasonable or offensive.

We have never done that, however. America, since before it was even "America", was a mix of English, French, Spanish, German and Dutch colonists.

Hell, when the Articles of Confederation were being written, German was nearly selected to be the national language! Instead, we decided to not have one at all.

True its not officially written down anywhere

But realistically there is one thats all but 'official'. I dont think you can really argue against that.

I mean when I went through school, i didnt have 5 different language courses "just in case"

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Speak English...

Follow that laws of our land...

Pay taxes...

And... that's it. Do whatever floats your boat.

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Define English/French/Russian/whatever culture.

Its not like its a cut and dried thing, but generally speak our language, adhere to customs, and generally assimilate. That does mean losing a lot of your original culture too.

My question is, why should they? If anyone doesn't want to speak English, doesn't want to follow customs/values, doesn't want to assimilate, there is nothing wrong with that. I say, just let people dicside what they want to do instead of pressuring them.

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

McDonalds

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My question is, why should they? If anyone doesn't want to speak English, doesn't want to follow customs/values, doesn't want to assimilate, there is nothing wrong with that. I say, just let people dicside what they want to do instead of pressuring them.

You really dont see anything wrong with that? For starters its incredibly rude and arrogant.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My question is, why should they? If anyone doesn't want to speak English, doesn't want to follow customs/values, doesn't want to assimilate, there is nothing wrong with that. I say, just let people dicside what they want to do instead of pressuring them.

You really dont see anything wrong with that? For starters its incredibly rude and arrogant.

Really? It's rude for them to not want to change their culture to suit you? I'm not seeing it.


And arrogant? They want to hold on to what they know. What they grew up with. They are proud of their culture, so they don't want to change it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My question is, why should they? If anyone doesn't want to speak English, doesn't want to follow customs/values, doesn't want to assimilate, there is nothing wrong with that. I say, just let people dicside what they want to do instead of pressuring them.

...then they can stay in whatever country they came from.

Yup. I wouldn't dream of moving anywhere if I didn't speak the language and had to rely on there being enough people there that spoke my language so I could function.

Yet things have become so muddled that not knowing Spanish in certain areas of the country is a serious handicap.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My question is, why should they? If anyone doesn't want to speak English, doesn't want to follow customs/values, doesn't want to assimilate, there is nothing wrong with that. I say, just let people dicside what they want to do instead of pressuring them.

You really dont see anything wrong with that? For starters its incredibly rude and arrogant.

Really? It's rude for them to not want to change their culture to suit you? I'm not seeing it.


And arrogant? They want to hold on to what they know. What they grew up with. They are proud of their culture, so they don't want to change it.

I think a balance is needed here. For example people who don't learn the language of the country they decide to live in should be pressured to learn the language of the country.

However we should not force them to do away with their attire or their food they grew up with.

It works both ways, this is one way culture changes over time. It would be silly to think you can move to another culture and live your life exactly as you did and even if you try to live exactly as you once did then your kids will certainly assimilate into the culture of the country.

It works both ways, one must be tolerant while the other must be understanding.

If Government derives its power from the people, then it should speak the language of the people. That might just be libertarian silly talk on my part though, so whatever floats your boat.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My question is, why should they? If anyone doesn't want to speak English, doesn't want to follow customs/values, doesn't want to assimilate, there is nothing wrong with that. I say, just let people dicside what they want to do instead of pressuring them.

You really dont see anything wrong with that? For starters its incredibly rude and arrogant.

Really? It's rude for them to not want to change their culture to suit you? I'm not seeing it.


And arrogant? They want to hold on to what they know. What they grew up with. They are proud of their culture, so they don't want to change it.

Then why did they leave...?

Maybe its just me, but if I moved to say...Japan, I wouldnt refuse to even attempt to learn the language and continue acting like a typical 'donkey-cave American". It would be rude and disrepsectful to the new culture I'm a part of.

 Swastakowey wrote:

I think a balance is needed here. For example people who don't learn the language of the country they decide to live in should be pressured to learn the language of the country.

However we should not force them to do away with their attire or their food they grew up with.

It works both ways, this is one way culture changes over time. It would be silly to think you can move to another culture and live your life exactly as you did and even if you try to live exactly as you once did then your kids will certainly assimilate into the culture of the country.

It works both ways, one must be tolerant while the other must be understanding.

My family is an interesting example of generational differences, even though we all moved to the country at the same time. I am a US citizen by birth, but my mother and my younger brother are permanent residents. But I spend the first 16 years of my life in Germany and grew up as a German, only learning the little bit of English that I learned in the German school system (and let me tell you how much help rudimentary British English really is when you end up in redneck Oklahoma). Despite my citizenship by birth I very much consider myself an immigrant as well.

My mother is a good example of a first generation immigrant: moved here in her 40s, spend all her adult life in Germany before moving here, keeps very much in touch with all her old friends at home, identifies as German, observes German customs, we speak German to each other, and she is upset that my younger brother won't really speak German.

I am a good example of what you normally see in a second generation immigrant: I still had exposure to Germany so it influenced me, but I also finished maturing in the US so the American mindset is also very much a part of my identity. I solidly identify as German as well as American. I learned English by immersion and speak it fluently, but I still speak German to my family and I am making sure that my daughter learns it as part of her heritage. I celebrate German holidays as well as US holidays, although I am very much more German than American when it comes to Christmas traditions. I still have a lot of the German mindset when it comes to certain areas (you get somewhere on time, none of that "if they say 4 then we should be a little late" business) but I also have a lot of the US values as well. For certain holidays I will fly the German flag, but if I have the German flag (or the Bavarian or Franconian flag) hanging I always have the US flag hanging in the proper place of honor as well. And while I really don't care if any of my German flags are laying crumbled up on the floor, the US flag always gets folded and put back on the shelf where it belongs when it's done.

My younger brother is a good example of what you would normally see in a third generation immigrant: he was 8 when we moved here, but he very much identifies as American. Doesn't really speak German to my mom, although I'm still managing to get him to talk German to me. His dad was a jackass, so his US step-dad is his father to him which also pushes him more towards his identify as an American. He is about as Okie as you can get growing up in western Oklahoma.

We were all shaped by our cultures, both old and new, and as we grow into these cultures they are also shaped by us.

+1 For that post

Thanks for sharing

 Swastakowey wrote:


I think a balance is needed here. For example people who don't learn the language of the country they decide to live in should be pressured to learn the language of the country.

However we should not force them to do away with their attire or their food they grew up with.

It works both ways, this is one way culture changes over time. It would be silly to think you can move to another culture and live your life exactly as you did and even if you try to live exactly as you once did then your kids will certainly assimilate into the culture of the country.

It works both ways, one must be tolerant while the other must be understanding.

I say, as long as they can operate, it's fine. And if they can't operate, that's what will push them. Change will happen naturally, and pushing it can be less beneficial, as a complete rejection may occur.

Basically, just leave people alone, don't try and force them to do anything.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


I think a balance is needed here. For example people who don't learn the language of the country they decide to live in should be pressured to learn the language of the country.

However we should not force them to do away with their attire or their food they grew up with.

It works both ways, this is one way culture changes over time. It would be silly to think you can move to another culture and live your life exactly as you did and even if you try to live exactly as you once did then your kids will certainly assimilate into the culture of the country.

It works both ways, one must be tolerant while the other must be understanding.

I say, as long as they can operate, it's fine. And if they can't operate, that's what will push them. Change will happen naturally, and pushing it can be less beneficial, as a complete rejection may occur.

Basically, just leave people alone, don't try and force them to do anything.

With that attitude one my of my friends would still be jobless in my friends basement playing video games all day... I would not have done any school work as a kid if that was my parents attitude... Hell if I had that attitude who knows how my children would start behaving.

Many people need to be pushed. It's easy to say "leave everyone ALONE!" but in practice it fails.

If you can't speak English in an English country it means you cannot work properly (or at all), it means you can't properly socialize, you will struggle to be educated and the list goes on. Under your version of the world these people will just come and get money for nothing (because how can they get money without the language?) etc and do nothing with themselves (not all but some could) and we as a society do not want people who contribute nothing to society.

So yes we should force some culture on those who dwell there, but not erase their culture in the process. It makes sense to do this.

Diversity is all well and good, overspecialization leads to extinction and all that. But as far as nations go: united we stand, divided we fall. People can be diverse while still sharing an overarching common purpose, such as national unity.

 d-usa wrote:
My mother is a good example of a first generation immigrant: moved here in her 40s, spend all her adult life in Germany before moving here, keeps very much in touch with all her old friends at home, identifies as German, observes German customs, we speak German to each other, and she is upset that my younger brother won't really speak German.

Oh man, my family went totally differently. Although it's not immigrating, exactly, when my grandmother moved to NYC from Puerto Rico (late 20s, spoke only broken english), if any of her kids spoke spanish in the house she would beat them bloody. It might not be a great example because she was a crazy person, though (sadly, "beat them bloody" was neither hyperbole nor relegated solely towards the speaking of spanish).

It's a shame because as a result, my mother only speaks bad spanish, and i speak no spanish, and wish I did. I think I'm too old and stupid to learn now, though. So in my opinion, it's great that you're passing that on to your daughter, as I wish my mom had passed it to me.

Apparently my Great-Grandfather, who moved to the US in the 20-30s from Italy, wouldn't let any of his kids learn Italian for the same reasons with essentially the same results.

Dear Mexico, I will accept your tacos and tequila as they are tasty and good. Siestas are also welcomed as I am on board with anything that helps me dodge out of work. These things I will gladly assimilate into my culture.

However I draw the line at speaking Spanish or you know... accepting your people.

Sincerely,

America

@Ahtman, Ouze

I suspect a lot of that may just be what it was like in those times. People came to America to be a part of America. Now, it seems like people come to America just to be in America. It's kind of like that first line in The Godfather "I believe in America. America has made my fortune." Both of those lines were true back then, but today people may only be seeking the fortune? I don't know, just thinking out loud here.

America isn't a multicultural state. It is not how our immigration system is supposed to work. America is the borg, assimilate....

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yet things have become so muddled that not knowing Spanish in certain areas of the country is a serious handicap.

Are you going to back that up with any facts or is it just going to be one of those things you accept as true just because you said it?

Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

But we love capitalism, so why is that a problem?

If there has been anything that has more eroded our sense of national identity more than the Internet and Netflix, I am not aware of it. Blame liberal professors and the education of multiculturalism all you want, but it is in our lack of a shared base entertainment that is the real cause. As a liberal college professor of film for many years who tries to keep politics out of class because I get paid to educate students to think for themselves and write analyses based upon their perceptions, and outside evidence --that is the real culprit--a lack of a shared medium.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

But we love capitalism, so why is that a problem?

Nothing is wrong with needing it. Its a legitimate need. Whats an issue is why its so necessary in the first place.

This is a bad example, but its similar. Its like how we need doctors because people get sick.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

But we love capitalism, so why is that a problem?

Nothing is wrong with needing it. Its a legitimate need. Whats an issue is why its so necessary in the first place.

This is a bad example, but its similar. Its like how we need doctors because people get sick.

Language skills, and the cultural competencies that go hand-in-hand with them, will always be necessary in a globalized world, and that necessity isn't going to start shrinking anytime soon. It's growing, and will continue to do so. Anyone in America who is pushing for less language education and foreign language learning is, quite frankly, foolish. As a country, we are already incredibly behind the curve compared to many, many other countries. The majority of the world's population is multilingual. The fact that most Americans are monolingual is nothing but a detriment.

I agree 100% that immigrants to the US ought to learn English as soon as possible. I do not think that we should be pushing for English at the expense of other languages, however, which seems to be what a puzzlingly large segment of the more conservative American population seems to be striving for.

The fact that many native English speakers can't even write competently in their own language isn't exactly a good sign. Some of my best students as far as writing essays and having basic grammatical skills have been ESL students.

Thats usually true for anyone learning a foreign language. You're going to be sloppy with your native language, not one you had to learn in school.

America has always had some friction with immigrants. And we have had a history of immigrant groups that created their own neighborhoods. A few cities had a Little Italy or a Chinatown with people that spoke non English languages in public and for business. It is just the nature of a country of immigrants. Some will integrate; some will not. It's always been like this; there are places that you can go where people only speak Spanish, Amharic, Vietnamese, and a few other languages. I don't see the problem. If you wish to deal with them, you learn their language. They have to when they decide to deal with the outside world.

American culture really is a nebulous term; it really differs based based on where in the country you are. The culture of ATL is totally different than Nome, Alaska. But they are both American.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats usually true for anyone learning a foreign language. You're going to be sloppy with your native language, not one you had to learn in school.

So hooray for not learning a foreign language because it makes you better at that language and better at your own language? Umm... Yea? Go USA?

I'm not saying people shouldn't learn a foreign language. I'm saying its a little ridiculous to need one to function in your own country AND for someone to move to another country and not learn the language. Its also very silly for immigrants to make their own little ghettos and not at least partially assimilate.

Ahh, I got you now. The more languages, the better. I couldn't agree more. Sorry for the confusion.

Just read the bible, god agrees too.

Gordon Shumway wrote:The fact that many native English speakers can't even write competently in their own language isn't exactly a good sign. Some of my best students as far as writing essays and having basic grammatical skills have been ESL students.

Grey Templar wrote:Thats usually true for anyone learning a foreign language. You're going to be sloppy with your native language, not one you had to learn in school.

Grey Templar has the right of it. Many people are sloppy in their native language. Also, while important, writing isn't the only communicative competency when it comes to language.

In my experience, learning a foreign language actually made me better at my native language as well. And in terms of grammar rules and understanding the way the language is structured, someone who studied a foreign language to a high level (whether at a university or on their own) are often more knowledgeable in the mechanics of the language than many native speakers, particularly native speakers that didn't study the language at university. That doesn't necessarily translate into being able to communicate in the language better than a native speaker, however, although it's certainly possible to reach a native-like or near-native level.

Using poor writing skills in English as an excuse to ignore or degrade foreign language education isn't much more than a red herring.

Plus while you might have a technical knowledge of the language, it doesn't mean you are any good at speaking it conversationally.

My family hosted several exchange students. All of them had "mastered" their English courses in school, but they had very bad conversational English till they'd lived here for a few months.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm not saying people shouldn't learn a foreign language. I'm saying its a little ridiculous to need one to function in your own country AND for someone to move to another country and not learn the language. Its also very silly for immigrants to make their own little ghettos and not at least partially assimilate.

Well, to be fair, there are a lot of countries where the average person speaks multiple languages regularly, out of necessity.

You certainly don't need anything other than English to function in the US. And while I don't recommend it, there are also quite a few countries in which English is not the native language, but you can get away with only speaking English.

Depends on where you live.

As someone who lives in CA, and will be working in agriculture, I am retaking Spanish because I would be pretty fethed if I didn't speak at least some and I remember almost nothing from when I took it in high school.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Plus while you might have a technical knowledge of the language, it doesn't mean you are any good at speaking it conversationally.

My family hosted several exchange students. All of them had "mastered" their English courses in school, but they had very bad conversational English till they'd lived here for a few months.

Exactly, hence my comment on it not necessarily translating into the ability to actually communicate better than a native speaker. Communicative competencies like conversational speech are skills that require practice, like learning a musical instrument or a sport. If the courses they took consisted primarily of reading and writing and little or no actual speaking, they're not going to be good at speaking. Just as a course focused exclusively on speaking isn't going to produce someone who can competently read and write in a language. This kind of thing is also how we end up with native speakers who are illiterate. Pretty much everyone speaks something in day to day life, but even as a native speaker, if no one ever teaches you to read and write, you're not going to spontaneously learn how just because you can speak the language at a native level.

I think thats because writing systems that don't use pictographs are completely arbitrary. They have no inherent logic other than what is given to it arbitrarily.

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Have you ever read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or recited the Pledge of Allegiance? Those three items define what it means to be American.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think thats because writing systems that don't use pictographs are completely arbitrary. They have no inherent logic other than what is given to it arbitrarily.

That's certainly part of it. Language in general, when you get down to it, could be seen as arbitrary. They make sense as a system, but you have to be familiar with the system, otherwise you have no frame of reference.

Think of an object, like a leaf, for example. What is a leaf? A leaf isn't really a thing, leaf is just the word we use for the thing that we call a leaf. A leaf is what it is, no matter what we call it. If we called it something else, it would still be what it is.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Some of my best students as far as writing essays and having basic grammatical skills have been ESL students.

I'm on a campus with 36,000 undergrads and I can tell you that this is certainly not the case at my school. Writing a 15 page properly formatted research paper with appropriate in text citations, grammar, and structure is not the strong suit of the foreign national students or ESL students where I'm at. But hooray for having an "Undocumented Student Center" when there are people living in this town that can't get a slot at the school.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Have you never read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or recited the Pledge of Allegiance? Those three items define what it means to be American.

I think you could even boil it down further to just the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I might include the Declaration of Independence in there as well. I realize it's not a legally binding thing like the Constitution, but I would include it as a sort of guiding document, if that makes sense.

I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Yeah, I used to feel differently, but I'm not big on the pledge anymore quite honestly. I'm not necessarily against it, but I don't feel the need to say it to prove my patriotism or loyalty or whatever, and I find its origins somewhat suspect. I'm not pushing to get rid of it if people want to say it, but if it was done away with, I wouldn't have an issue with that either.

 Hordini wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Have you never read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or recited the Pledge of Allegiance? Those three items define what it means to be American.

I think you could even boil it down further to just the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I might include the Declaration of Independence in there as well. I realize it's not a legally binding thing like the Constitution, but I would include it as a sort of guiding document, if that makes sense.

Solid.

I think the Bill of Rights is kind of the summation of what it means to be an American citizen. Those are the enumerated fundamental rights which define our identity. I would say that the Declaration is semi-lyrical description of the underlying values of those defined rights. The Pledge defines our relationship to the state.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Yeah, I used to feel differently, but I'm not big on the pledge anymore quite honestly. I'm not necessarily against it, but I don't feel the need to say it to prove my patriotism or loyalty or whatever, and I find its origins somewhat suspect. I'm not pushing to get rid of it if people want to say it, but if it was done away with, I wouldn't have an issue with that either.

I went back and forth.

When I moved here and we said it every morning in school, I never said it. I stood up out of respect to everyone else, but I felt like I would be betraying "my" country that I grew up in (that tricky being a citizen from birth but feeling like an immigrant bit).

During my early and mid twenties I said the pledge without any problems.

During my late twenties on I started to feel like pledging to a piece of cloth is silly and that the oath I swore to the constitution was worth more than any pledge to a symbol. Together with the flag-burning issue it caused me to stop pledging.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

I think it depends. I think if someone has sworn an oath to the Constitution, there's really no need to continue pledging, as I would agree with d-usa that the oath takes precedence and renders the pledge redundant in that individual's case. If you're not oath-bound and want to affirm your allegiance or loyalty, then it makes more sense.

After much reflection on the matter, I also agree with d-usa that it's somewhat silly to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. I respect the flag as a symbol and believe in what it stands for, but at the end of the day, my allegiance is to the country, not the cloth. If the flag was changed to something else or done away with, it wouldn't change my allegiance. If the Constitution was done away with, that would cause some issues.

 Hordini wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

I think it depends. I think if someone has sworn an oath to the Constitution, there's really no need to continue pledging, as I would agree with d-usa that the oath takes precedence and renders the pledge redundant in that individual's case. If you're not oath-bound and want to affirm your allegiance or loyalty, then it makes more sense.

After much reflection on the matter, I also agree with d-usa that it's somewhat silly to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. I respect the flag as a symbol and believe in what it stands for, but at the end of the day, my allegiance is to the country, not the cloth. If the flag was changed to something else or done away with, it wouldn't change my allegiance. If the Constitution was done away with, that would cause some issues.

Hmmm.

As someone who has sworn an oath, I can't disagree with the logic. I guess for me the flag is the representation of the nation-state, not just a piece of cloth. I think that the Pledge is an affirmation of loyalty to both the Constitution and the state (not to mention the citizenry) rather than a literal pledge to the flag itself.

<shrug> But yeah, I do see your point.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

I think it depends. I think if someone has sworn an oath to the Constitution, there's really no need to continue pledging, as I would agree with d-usa that the oath takes precedence and renders the pledge redundant in that individual's case. If you're not oath-bound and want to affirm your allegiance or loyalty, then it makes more sense.

After much reflection on the matter, I also agree with d-usa that it's somewhat silly to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. I respect the flag as a symbol and believe in what it stands for, but at the end of the day, my allegiance is to the country, not the cloth. If the flag was changed to something else or done away with, it wouldn't change my allegiance. If the Constitution was done away with, that would cause some issues.

Hmmm.

As someone who has sworn an oath, I can't disagree with the logic. I guess for me the flag is the representation of the nation-state, not just a piece of cloth. I think that the Pledge is an affirmation of loyalty to both the Constitution and the state (not to mention the citizenry) rather than a literal pledge to the flag itself.

<shrug> But yeah, I do see your point.

And just to be clear, I'm not completely poo-pooing the pledge or anything, I don't have a problem with people saying it, I wouldn't discourage anyone from saying it if they want to, and I'm not saying I would never say it again under any circumstances. But if someone tried to tell me that I wasn't a "real" American or I wasn't a "good" American if I didn't say the pledge, I would certainly disagree with that. I also understand that it's really important to some people and that's okay too. But I don't think it's a necessity for some sort of litmus test of American culture as much as the Constitution or Bill of Rights should be.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

Honestly, a couple of reasons.

1) The pledge, at the very core, was nothing more than a marketing gimmick by a socialist who wanted to sell more flags. So he invented a ritual that required that you purchase a flag, and thus his sales went up. At a later point there was some religion added to it, and that is how we got where we are today.

2) None of our rights or freedoms come from the flag. It's a symbol of our rights and freedoms, but if every single flag was suddenly gone tomorrow nothing in our lives would change.

3) People want to make it illegal to burn it. And honestly, that to me is the biggest reason why I no longer pledge to it because I realized how dangerous it can be to put a symbol on a pedestal. The flag is a symbol of our rights, including the right to free speech. And free speech includes the right to burn the flag, wear it as a diaper, tear it to shreds, put Obama's face on it, replace the stripes with the gay rainbow colors, blow your nose on it, and do whatever the heck you want with it. The flag isn't great because it just happens to be pretty colors, or because of those nifty 13 stripes and 50 stars, it is great because it is a symbol of our freedoms. That's why people fight for the flag. They don't fight for that piece of cloth, they fight for what it stands for. But none of our freedoms come from the flag. And I feel that once a symbol becomes more important than what it represents, then you have entered into dangerous territory. When protecting the flag becomes more important than protecting the freedoms it stands for, then the flag has lost its meaning.

I know that there are a lot of people who will disagree with that, and you won't find me trying to talk people out of saying the pledge. I don't think it should be mandatory and people should have the right to opt out of saying it in school as long as they are doing so in a respectful manner to those that are participating, but I'm not against the pledge itself. I don't like flag burning or any other acts of flag desecration, and I think it is a disrespectful act. I fly the flag on holidays, I keep it folded up and stored in a safe spot when it is not flying, I participated in many flag retirement ceremonies with the VFW and it was always an honor to help those vets with paying their last respect to those flags. I try to follow the flag code and I won't even buy flag-pattern plates because I feel like a flag shouldn't be used to serve your hot dog on and you shouldn't throw a flag in the trash or wipe your face with it in the form of a napkin. I have a great of respect for the flag, but my allegiance goes to the constitution and not the symbol.

To bring this back to culture: I think part of that might also be growing up in a country where we don't really place much emphasis on flags. We identify with our city and state more than our country, and you are much more likely to find local flags flying instead of national flags. Growing up as a German I am also mindful of symbols becoming more powerful than rights and freedoms. So that might have something to do with it as well.

I hope that makes sense. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I hope that you can at least see why I feel this way.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Some of my best students as far as writing essays and having basic grammatical skills have been ESL students.

I'm on a campus with 36,000 undergrads and I can tell you that this is certainly not the case at my school. Writing a 15 page properly formatted research paper with appropriate in text citations, grammar, and structure is not the strong suit of the foreign national students or ESL students where I'm at. But hooray for having an "Undocumented Student Center" when there are people living in this town that can't get a slot at the school.

Weird. I live in SD where the acceptance criteria is pretty low, admittedly (18 on the ACT or equivalency exams) and I haven't found that to be the case at all in twenty years of teaching 125 students per semester or so. Where do you teach?

 d-usa wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

Honestly, a couple of reasons.

1) The pledge, at the very core, was nothing more than a marketing gimmick by a socialist who wanted to sell more flags. So he invented a ritual that required that you purchase a flag, and thus his sales went up. At a later point there was some religion added to it, and that is how we got where we are today.

2) None of our rights or freedoms come from the flag. It's a symbol of our rights and freedoms, but if every single flag was suddenly gone tomorrow nothing in our lives would change.

3) People want to make it illegal to burn it. And honestly, that to me is the biggest reason why I no longer pledge to it because I realized how dangerous it can be to put a symbol on a pedestal. The flag is a symbol of our rights, including the right to free speech. And free speech includes the right to burn the flag, wear it as a diaper, tear it to shreds, put Obama's face on it, replace the stripes with the gay rainbow colors, blow your nose on it, and do whatever the heck you want with it. The flag isn't great because it just happens to be pretty colors, or because of those nifty 13 stripes and 50 stars, it is great because it is a symbol of our freedoms. That's why people fight for the flag. They don't fight for that piece of cloth, they fight for what it stands for. But none of our freedoms come from the flag. And I feel that once a symbol becomes more important than what it represents, then you have entered into dangerous territory. When protecting the flag becomes more important than protecting the freedoms it stands for, then the flag has lost its meaning.

I know that there are a lot of people who will disagree with that, and you won't find me trying to talk people out of saying the pledge. I don't think it should be mandatory and people should have the right to opt out of saying it in school as long as they are doing so in a respectful manner to those that are participating, but I'm not against the pledge itself. I don't like flag burning or any other acts of flag desecration, and I think it is a disrespectful act. I fly the flag on holidays, I keep it folded up and stored in a safe spot when it is not flying, I participated in many flag retirement ceremonies with the VFW and it was always an honor to help those vets with paying their last respect to those flags. I try to follow the flag code and I won't even buy flag-pattern plates because I feel like a flag shouldn't be used to serve your hot dog on and you shouldn't throw a flag in the trash or wipe your face with it in the form of a napkin. I have a great of respect for the flag, but my allegiance goes to the constitution and not the symbol.

To bring this back to culture: I think part of that might also be growing up in a country where we don't really place much emphasis on flags. We identify with our city and state more than our country, and you are much more likely to find local flags flying instead of national flags. Growing up as a German I am also mindful of symbols becoming more powerful than rights and freedoms. So that might have something to do with it as well.

I hope that makes sense. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I hope that you can at least see why I feel this way.

I don't think I could agree more.

 d-usa wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

Honestly, a couple of reasons.

1) The pledge, at the very core, was nothing more than a marketing gimmick by a socialist who wanted to sell more flags. So he invented a ritual that required that you purchase a flag, and thus his sales went up. At a later point there was some religion added to it, and that is how we got where we are today.

2) None of our rights or freedoms come from the flag. It's a symbol of our rights and freedoms, but if every single flag was suddenly gone tomorrow nothing in our lives would change.

3) People want to make it illegal to burn it. And honestly, that to me is the biggest reason why I no longer pledge to it because I realized how dangerous it can be to put a symbol on a pedestal. The flag is a symbol of our rights, including the right to free speech. And free speech includes the right to burn the flag, wear it as a diaper, tear it to shreds, put Obama's face on it, replace the stripes with the gay rainbow colors, blow your nose on it, and do whatever the heck you want with it. The flag isn't great because it just happens to be pretty colors, or because of those nifty 13 stripes and 50 stars, it is great because it is a symbol of our freedoms. That's why people fight for the flag. They don't fight for that piece of cloth, they fight for what it stands for. But none of our freedoms come from the flag. And I feel that once a symbol becomes more important than what it represents, then you have entered into dangerous territory. When protecting the flag becomes more important than protecting the freedoms it stands for, then the flag has lost its meaning.

I know that there are a lot of people who will disagree with that, and you won't find me trying to talk people out of saying the pledge. I don't think it should be mandatory and people should have the right to opt out of saying it in school as long as they are doing so in a respectful manner to those that are participating, but I'm not against the pledge itself. I don't like flag burning or any other acts of flag desecration, and I think it is a disrespectful act. I fly the flag on holidays, I keep it folded up and stored in a safe spot when it is not flying, I participated in many flag retirement ceremonies with the VFW and it was always an honor to help those vets with paying their last respect to those flags. I try to follow the flag code and I won't even buy flag-pattern plates because I feel like a flag shouldn't be used to serve your hot dog on and you shouldn't throw a flag in the trash or wipe your face with it in the form of a napkin. I have a great of respect for the flag, but my allegiance goes to the constitution and not the symbol.

To bring this back to culture: I think part of that might also be growing up in a country where we don't really place much emphasis on flags. We identify with our city and state more than our country, and you are much more likely to find local flags flying instead of national flags. Growing up as a German I am also mindful of symbols becoming more powerful than rights and freedoms. So that might have something to do with it as well.

I hope that makes sense. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I hope that you can at least see why I feel this way.

Great comment, agree 100%. I love my country, the constitution, freedom, and capitalism...but this flag idolatry needs to stop. Worshipping the object takes away from the actual thing the object represents.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The fact that many native English speakers can't even write competently in their own language isn't exactly a good sign. Some of my best students as far as writing essays and having basic grammatical skills have been ESL students.

To be fair, I taught undergraduates for a few years and some of my worst writers were foreign students. These weren't immigrants though.

The woman I was dating at the time was a full professor with her doctorate and foreign applicants often referred to her as "Mrs" or "ms" and took very informal tones with their correspondences. These applications of course went right in the trash. Meanwhile students referred to me as Dr. Even before I earned my PhD. There was a good bit of sexism from many of the foreign students but according to some in this thread, that's their culture and we should respect it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't say the pledge, I guess I'm a bad American...

Why?

Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents. Personally I feel that it negates the enormous sacrifices that people have made to form that state, and its also a slap in the face to every immigrant who has worked to obtain that citizenship.

Honestly, a couple of reasons.

1) The pledge, at the very core, was nothing more than a marketing gimmick by a socialist who wanted to sell more flags. So he invented a ritual that required that you purchase a flag, and thus his sales went up. At a later point there was some religion added to it, and that is how we got where we are today.

2) None of our rights or freedoms come from the flag. It's a symbol of our rights and freedoms, but if every single flag was suddenly gone tomorrow nothing in our lives would change.

3) People want to make it illegal to burn it. And honestly, that to me is the biggest reason why I no longer pledge to it because I realized how dangerous it can be to put a symbol on a pedestal. The flag is a symbol of our rights, including the right to free speech. And free speech includes the right to burn the flag, wear it as a diaper, tear it to shreds, put Obama's face on it, replace the stripes with the gay rainbow colors, blow your nose on it, and do whatever the heck you want with it. The flag isn't great because it just happens to be pretty colors, or because of those nifty 13 stripes and 50 stars, it is great because it is a symbol of our freedoms. That's why people fight for the flag. They don't fight for that piece of cloth, they fight for what it stands for. But none of our freedoms come from the flag. And I feel that once a symbol becomes more important than what it represents, then you have entered into dangerous territory. When protecting the flag becomes more important than protecting the freedoms it stands for, then the flag has lost its meaning.

I know that there are a lot of people who will disagree with that, and you won't find me trying to talk people out of saying the pledge. I don't think it should be mandatory and people should have the right to opt out of saying it in school as long as they are doing so in a respectful manner to those that are participating, but I'm not against the pledge itself. I don't like flag burning or any other acts of flag desecration, and I think it is a disrespectful act. I fly the flag on holidays, I keep it folded up and stored in a safe spot when it is not flying, I participated in many flag retirement ceremonies with the VFW and it was always an honor to help those vets with paying their last respect to those flags. I try to follow the flag code and I won't even buy flag-pattern plates because I feel like a flag shouldn't be used to serve your hot dog on and you shouldn't throw a flag in the trash or wipe your face with it in the form of a napkin. I have a great of respect for the flag, but my allegiance goes to the constitution and not the symbol.

To bring this back to culture: I think part of that might also be growing up in a country where we don't really place much emphasis on flags. We identify with our city and state more than our country, and you are much more likely to find local flags flying instead of national flags. Growing up as a German I am also mindful of symbols becoming more powerful than rights and freedoms. So that might have something to do with it as well.

I hope that makes sense. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I hope that you can at least see why I feel this way.

Pretty great post. A+, would exalt again.

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Careful what you wish for. Some years ago, the Australian government instituted a test covering values, history and general legal structure that forms part of the requirements for becoming a citizen. Surveys showed that around two-thirds of Australians were unable to pass that test.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

So I'm going to take that as a "no?"

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Refusal to recite the Pledge, as a US citizen, is a 100% refutation of everything that the state represents.

No, it really doesn't.

I love my country bu I don't say the pledge for a number of reasons, a lot of which d-usa already covered, especially point number three.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hmmm.

As someone who has sworn an oath, I can't disagree with the logic. I guess for me the flag is the representation of the nation-state, not just a piece of cloth. I think that the Pledge is an affirmation of loyalty to both the Constitution and the state (not to mention the citizenry) rather than a literal pledge to the flag itself.

<shrug> But yeah, I do see your point.

I have never quite understood the prevelance of oath-making and/or pledging in America (or indeed anywhere else). It is even more baffling when these are made to a flag, rather than to a nation, institution or set of values. It is also quite annoying in many of these things that one has to also get everything signed off by a magical being (though I understand that at least that component is at least being seen as optional in some situations ).

The vocalisation of your supposed intent in no way represents your genuine feelings on the matter. A person who is going to lie in court will do so, no matter what oath they make. A person who pledges to a flag to uphold liberty and justice for all can still be a biggoted donkey cave and attempt to deny people their rights because of the colour of their skin, the direction they face to pray, who they love, or the fact that they are wearing blended fabrics...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hmmm.

As someone who has sworn an oath, I can't disagree with the logic. I guess for me the flag is the representation of the nation-state, not just a piece of cloth. I think that the Pledge is an affirmation of loyalty to both the Constitution and the state (not to mention the citizenry) rather than a literal pledge to the flag itself.

<shrug> But yeah, I do see your point.

I have never quite understood the prevelance of oath-making and/or pledging in America (or indeed anywhere else).

Well then you likely never will understand it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

The vocalisation of your supposed intent in no way represents your genuine feelings on the matter. A person who is going to lie in court will do so, no matter what oath they make. A person who pledges to a flag to uphold liberty and justice for all can still be a biggoted donkey cave and attempt to deny people their rights because of the colour of their skin, the direction they face to pray, who they love, or the fact that they are wearing blended fabrics...

And sometimes, someone who breaks an oath can actually turn out to be an okay guy:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hmmm.

As someone who has sworn an oath, I can't disagree with the logic. I guess for me the flag is the representation of the nation-state, not just a piece of cloth. I think that the Pledge is an affirmation of loyalty to both the Constitution and the state (not to mention the citizenry) rather than a literal pledge to the flag itself.

<shrug> But yeah, I do see your point.

I have never quite understood the prevelance of oath-making and/or pledging in America (or indeed anywhere else). It is even more baffling when these are made to a flag, rather than to a nation, institution or set of values. It is also quite annoying in many of these things that one has to also get everything signed off by a magical being (though I understand that at least that component is at least being seen as optional in some situations ).

The vocalisation of your supposed intent in no way represents your genuine feelings on the matter. A person who is going to lie in court will do so, no matter what oath they make. A person who pledges to a flag to uphold liberty and justice for all can still be a biggoted donkey cave and attempt to deny people their rights because of the colour of their skin, the direction they face to pray, who they love, or the fact that they are wearing blended fabrics...

All of the oaths and pledges do look odd from over here - any kid who sang the rude version of a hymn in assembly aged 10 will know that its easy to look like you agree with everybody else whilst meaning something very different.


The willingness of Americans to shout their rights to free speech, and the unwillingness to extend this to languages-spoken, also amuses.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Well then you likely never will understand it.

You seemed to be suggesting that making an oath is something that only someone who has sworn an oath will understand. I am quite capable of dedicating myself to an ideal or a cause (and in fact I am currently working in (and spent some time getting to a point where I could work in) a field where I get to dedicate myself to fulfilling a number of my ideals and causes); why would it make any difference to avow myself verbally to these ideals or causes?

Saying "you will never understand it" is a rather lame avoidance of the underlying query. Hopefully you do not deal with your students in the same way

Not saying the pledge isn't refuting 100% of what the country stands for. Especially as long as the 'Under God' addition is in there.

In school, I didn't say it. First off, it was because we had mandatory pledge announcements during the day. That just doesn't go along with Freedom.

Also, it never felt right reciting 'Under God' to me. I felt that didn't go well with the first amendment. You can't have no government endorsement of religion as long as that is in the pledge.

Also, the idea of the flag itself has been hijacked by extremist xenophobes to the point with it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I always see the attitudes expressed that there is one right way to be an American to be distinctly un-American. Pledging allegiance to a flag that (in my mind) represents something that is anti-American is not something I am comfortable with.

I don't really see the flag as representing America any more. I see it representing repression rather than freedom.

Granted, this last part is >my< issue that I allowed, in my mind, people to misappropriate the symbol. Same as when I was younger, I thought all Christians were like the Phelps clan.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

So I'm going to take that as a "no?"

Ok dude. Seriously, I shouldn't have to explain how Spanish is pretty much fething mandatory in certain areas or careers today.

This is elementary level stuff here. Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing?

It may have to do with where you live. I've never seen something like that, but I live in mid-upper NY, so there are very few Mexicans.

 d-usa wrote:
As immigrants assimilate into our culture, our culture will also assimilate the traditions and values that they bring to our country.

I'm told by people who make coffee for a living that the correct term for that is "cultural appropriation."

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude, just look at job listings. You'll see tons of job listings where they say that applicants that speak Spanish are preferred. Particularly in service or customer service positions.

So I'm going to take that as a "no?"

Ok dude. Seriously, I shouldn't have to explain how Spanish is pretty much fething mandatory in certain areas or careers today.

This is elementary level stuff here. Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing?

No, you're make a fairly extraordinary claim and I'm asking you to prove it. What areas and what careers is it "mandatory?" Just repeating the claim again doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it.

I've lived and worked in the Southwest and I currently live and work in the Mid-Atlantic region and I've been to almost every state in the Union. At not time was not knowing Spanish a detriment to me.

Well, customer service and retail just to name a few.

Anything involving labor management in agriculture as well. This is really basic stuff here.

I did not make an extraordinary claim. I might as well have claimed chickens have feathers.

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As immigrants assimilate into our culture, our culture will also assimilate the traditions and values that they bring to our country.

I'm told by people who make coffee for a living that the correct term for that is "cultural appropriation."

I never liked that term. The cultures supposedly being appropriated probably got a lot of their traditions from other cultures. Few human cultures develop in a vacuum.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, customer service and retail just to name a few.

Anything involving labor management in agriculture as well. This is really basic stuff here.

Oh it is, is it? Is it mandatory just because you say it is or are you actually going to back that up with anything other than "you just know?" I work in a Hispanic-dominated field and not knowing Spanish hasn't hurt my career. I'd also like to point out that this was your claim:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yet things have become so muddled that not knowing Spanish in certain areas of the country is a serious handicap.

It wasn't about jobs where Spanish speaking is handy, it was just living in "certain areas." I understand that jobs can want people to be bilingual, but where in this country do you need to know Spanish just to get by, as per your original claim?

I did not make an extraordinary claim. I might as well have claimed chickens have feathers.

Do even read some of the gak that spills out of your keyboard?


EDIT: Apparently I can't format tonight...

Nearly 43% of people in California do not speak English as their primary language. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/43-in-state-speak-other-than-English-at-home-3193867.php

I'd say being unable to communicate, or at least have your communication impaired, with 43% of people would be a serious disadvantage.

Really, if you work in a hispanic dominated field this is something you would know. I have doubts that your claim to work in said field is true.

This link explains the importance of learning spanish. http://www.businessinsider.com/reasons-for-learning-spanish-2014-2

Because of the fast growing hispanic population, and the fact that many 2nd generation children are not learning English as their first language, not knowing Spanish, particularly in the South-west and CA in particular is a problem. And its only going to become a worse one as the hispanic population grows. If you don't know Spanish, you're going to be disadvantaged over anyone who does.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have doubts that your claim to work in said field is true.

I'm going into my 15th year of construction.

I'm a steamfitter out of Steamfitters UA Local 602 in Washington, DC and previously out of Plumbers & Pipefitters UA Local 525 in Las Vegas, NV.

Also, the second paragraph of your link says this:

Speaking another language at home doesn't mean they don't also speak English in the home.

That article didn't say that 43% of people don't speak English, it says they speak languages other than Englsih. It also says that fewer than 9% don't feel they speak English very well. Hardly numbers to justify the claim that there are "certain areas" where speaking Spanish is "serious handicap."

So you work in a place on the completely opposite side of the country from where there are lots of hispanic people? Only 10% of DC is Hispanic, as opposed to California where its around 40%.

That article didn't say that 43% of people don't speak English, it says they speak languages other than Englsih. It also says that few than 9% don't feel they speak English very well.

Hence why I said "or have communication impaired".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That article didn't say that 43% of people don't speak English,

I did not claim it did. It says they do not speak it in their home, which is another way of saying its not their first language. Thats going to cause some communication issues, unless they're also perfectly fluent in English. Which is possible, but the opposite is also true.


Maybe you'll like these,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001-05-09-spanish-usat.htm

http://www.studyspanish.com/topten_reasons.htm

http://www.babbel.com/magazine/johnson-01-american-spanish

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you work in a place on the completely opposite side of the country from where there are lots of hispanic people? Only 10% of DC is Hispanic, as opposed to California where its around 40%.

I guess you missed the part about living and working in Nevada. Anyways, I don't work in DC, that is just where my local is based and in reality, our union hall is Maryland. Also, where I live in Virginia has an Hispanic/Latino population of over 35%. All of the counties around me also hover around the 20% total population mark.

Hence why I said "or have communication impaired".

Keep on moving those goalposts!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That article didn't say that 43% of people don't speak English,

I did not claim it did. It says they do not speak it in their home, which is another way of saying its not their first language. Thats going to cause some communication issues, unless they're also perfectly fluent in English. Which is possible, but the opposite is also true.

Here is what you said:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'd say being unable to communicate, or at least have your communication impaired, with 43% of people would be a serious disadvantage.

Nowhere in that article did it claim that 43% of people couldn't communicate in English. In fact, it said less than 9% don't speak English very well.

Again, I'm still waiting for you to back up the claim that "things have become so muddled that not knowing Spanish in certain areas of the country is a serious handicap."

Why don't you learn Spanish if communicating with them is so important to you? Sounds to me like your feelings are hurt because they don't seem to want to talk to you!

 feeder wrote:
Why don't you learn Spanish if communicating with them is so important to you? Sounds to me like your feelings are hurt because they don't seem to want to talk to you!

I am learning Spanish. Because its vitally important. I'd be pretty boned if I couldn't speak any.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Why don't you learn Spanish if communicating with them is so important to you? Sounds to me like your feelings are hurt because they don't seem to want to talk to you!

I am learning Spanish. Because its vitally important. I'd be pretty boned if I couldn't speak any.

Awesome, good for you! Immigration is enriching your life and making you a smarter and more valuable person.

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Why don't you learn Spanish if communicating with them is so important to you? Sounds to me like your feelings are hurt because they don't seem to want to talk to you!

I am learning Spanish. Because its vitally important. I'd be pretty boned if I couldn't speak any.

Awesome, good for you! Immigration is enriching your life and making you a smarter and more valuable person.

I think you missed my point. I was correcting Scooty who seems to be under the impression that not knowing Spanish isn't a detrimental thing. I was not saying it wasn't any of those things, which were not part of the discussion.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Why don't you learn Spanish if communicating with them is so important to you? Sounds to me like your feelings are hurt because they don't seem to want to talk to you!

I am learning Spanish. Because its vitally important. I'd be pretty boned if I couldn't speak any.

Awesome, good for you! Immigration is enriching your life and making you a smarter and more valuable person.

I think you missed my point. I was correcting Scooty who seems to be under the impression that not knowing Spanish isn't a detrimental thing. I was not saying it wasn't any of those things, which were not part of the discussion.

Being monolingual is a detrimental thing, period. So if you only speak English, of course not knowing Spanish is going to be detrimental. That doesn't mean you can't get by without it, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Well then you likely never will understand it.

You seemed to be suggesting that making an oath is something that only someone who has sworn an oath will understand. I am quite capable of dedicating myself to an ideal or a cause (and in fact I am currently working in (and spent some time getting to a point where I could work in) a field where I get to dedicate myself to fulfilling a number of my ideals and causes); why would it make any difference to avow myself verbally to these ideals or causes?

If you take an oath and then break it, it's usually considered a bigger deal than if you just privately dedicated yourself to something and then changed your mind later.

Don't your government and military officials swear oaths as well? It's not like it's a specifically American thing. And in case it was unclear, when we are referring to oaths, we're not referring to the pledge of allegiance. That's something else.

People are getting rather hung up on oaths and languages.

The USA has a different culture to New Zealand and the UK. Obviously the shared language contributes to sharing cultural artifacts but it is not a determinant.

I would suggest that everyone understands the meaning of swearing oaths, because being truthful and keeping promises is drummed into children in practically all cultures as an important virtue. At the same, people generally understand that a forced promise is morally worthless and not binding.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you work in a place on the completely opposite side of the country from where there are lots of hispanic people? Only 10% of DC is Hispanic, as opposed to California where its around 40%.

That article didn't say that 43% of people don't speak English, it says they speak languages other than Englsih. It also says that few than 9% don't feel they speak English very well.

Hence why I said "or have communication impaired".

The irony of somebody complaining about people not speaking English well using the phrase 'hence why' is delicious.


A hell of a lot of places in the world ask for their employees to speak English as well as their native language. Because it benefits them massively whilst doing buisiness. Its only your position as an American which has allowed you to get by speaking only one language for so long.

 insaniak wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Careful what you wish for. Some years ago, the Australian government instituted a test covering values, history and general legal structure that forms part of the requirements for becoming a citizen. Surverys showed that around two-thirds of Australians were unable to pass that test.

The US has a similar test too for becoming a citizen. Hopefully it won't be too long before I take it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People are getting rather hung up on oaths and languages.

The USA has a different culture to New Zealand and the UK. Obviously the shared language contributes to sharing cultural artifacts but it is not a determinant.

I would suggest that everyone understands the meaning of swearing oaths, because being truthful and keeping promises is drummed into children in practically all cultures as an important virtue. At the same, people generally understand that a forced promise is morally worthless and not binding.

That's a good point. And also another indication of why breaking an oath is usually seen as a bigger deal. Oaths are normally taken willingly (some actually require that it be taken willingly, such as the Oath of Office) while plenty of kids say the pledge in school simply because it's what they do in the morning, and don't really consider the meaning of it.

I think another point that has been raised by the last four pages, but scarcely addressed cogently is the fact that culture is not a static entity. You can't ever pin it down because it is something that is constantly in flux. Denying it only removes you further from it in it's current iteration. You can pine away all you want for "how things were" but a clock rarely runs backwards of it's own accord.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I think another point that has been raised by the last four pages, but scarcely addressed cogently is the fact that culture is not a static entity. You can't ever pin it down because it is something that is constantly in flux. Denying it only removes you further from it in it's current iteration. You can pine away all you want for "how things were" but a clock rarely runs backwards of it's own accord.

That's true. Culture certainly is constantly evolving. Another thing that I think a lot of people have trouble with is that culture is by nature participatory. You can participate in it, or not, or even some degree in between. This becomes problematic when certain people approach culture as something palpable that can be possessed or pinned down and therefore owned. But that isn't really the case. Culture only exists in the present by participation, and participation is also what causes culture to change and evolve. When there are no longer any participants, it ceases to exist, at least in the present, outside of memory and cultural history.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Full quote.

"We're a pluralistic society. We're diverse, we have people that come from everywhere. We're not multicultural. We have a set of shared values that defines our national identity, and we should never veer away from that because that creates the extraordinary nature of our country."

Thoughts? Comments? Rage? Applause?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/jeb-bush-free-stuff-black-voters/index.html

We did. Now not so much.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to offer a definition... a general description, even... of "our culture" that immigrants should be adhering to.

Have you ever read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or recited the Pledge of Allegiance? Those three items define what it means to be American.

But do not define "American Culture" in any way, shape or form. I, also, don't say the pledge, because it's changed at the whim of Congress, depending on which Big Bad we want to fight. It also suggests a violation of the Constitution in its utterance.

The fact that many of the Americans on this forum think the pledge is not a core part of American culture perhaps indicates that it is really not a core part of American culture.

Guns probably are, since everyone seems to have a strong view for or against. In other words, American culture partly is defined by an obsession with guns, in a way that the rest of western culture is not.

That would be a good description of a trait of "American Culture".

Guns.
Cars.
Fast food.
The Wild West.
Jeans.
Hollywood.

These things are examples of what American Culture is centered on.

 Psienesis wrote:
That would be a good description of a trait of "American Culture".

Guns.
Cars.
Fast food.
The Wild West.
Jeans.
Hollywood.

These things are examples of what American Culture is centered on.

You forgot Texas Women.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
That would be a good description of a trait of "American Culture".

Guns.
Cars.
Fast food.
The Wild West.
Jeans.
Hollywood.

These things are examples of what American Culture is centered on.

You forgot Texas Women.

As my dad was recovering from double-lung transplant... we had a very 'Murrican moto to inspire him during his recover...

"In no particular order... Beach, Babes, Boobs, Boats, and Beer!"

There you go

You forgot "Big Dogs" Whembly

I can't help but think that a lot of these, perhaps all of them, are indicative of "White America". Which brings me back to my original question: What is American culture?

 Psienesis wrote:
I can't help but think that a lot of these, perhaps all of them, are indicative of "White America". Which brings me back to my original question: What is American culture?

Well, in my experience, when people talk about American culture, they tend to conflate it with white america.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Well, in my experience, when people talk about American culture, they tend to conflate it with white america.

Do you have any examples or evidence of this?

Psienesis wrote:I can't help but think that a lot of these, perhaps all of them, are indicative of "White America". Which brings me back to my original question: What is American culture?

How are those things indicative of "White America" and not America in general? Do non-white Americans generally not participate in those things?

In general, No.
Races tend to have different cultural ties and different customs.
Just go compare say, a country(A Very White Genre) song about partying, like "Kick The Dust Up" to a Hip Hop/Rap(Arguably still a Black Genre) party song.
One is about a rowdy, but simple party in the cornfield, even with a line about how expensive bars are. To many Rap party songs, which showcase wealth and money
Each one is demonstrably different.
Racial Culture is very much a thing

Have you listened to country music in the last decade?

It's just like rap: get drunk, feth girls, flash your favorite brands (trucks instead of SUVs), hang with your crew.

I guess the station I listen to didnt play those Songs.
But my point still stands, Race Does have cultural lines. And While it can come over(Twerking used to be in Black Culture exclusively) each race has a demonstrably different culture.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
In general, No.
Races tend to have different cultural ties and different customs.
Just go compare say, a country(A Very White Genre) song about partying, like "Kick The Dust Up" to a Hip Hop/Rap(Arguably still a Black Genre) party song.
One is about a rowdy, but simple party in the cornfield, even with a line about how expensive bars are. To many Rap party songs, which showcase wealth and money
Each one is demonstrably different.
Racial Culture is very much a thing

Okay. So both genres have songs about partying. I'm not saying that there aren't differences in cultural among certain demographics in the US, but that doesn't mean there aren't major cultural trends that are shared.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I guess the station I listen to didnt play those Songs.
But my point still stands, Race Does have cultural lines. And While it can come over(Twerking used to be in Black Culture exclusively) each race has a demonstrably different culture.

Kind of. Cultural differences aren't necessarily an indication that there is no shared cultural. If anything, the overlap would indicate that culture is shared. That doesn't mean that every person in every demographic does the same things all the time though either.

Yes, they both have songs about partying, but with different ideas, one Tends to be low budget(Atleast my experiance with country) and more about relaxing. While the other one is about Affluence and what could be argued as wish fufillment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I guess the station I listen to didnt play those Songs.
But my point still stands, Race Does have cultural lines. And While it can come over(Twerking used to be in Black Culture exclusively) each race has a demonstrably different culture.

Kind of. Cultural differences aren't necessarily an indication that there is no shared cultural. If anything, the overlap would indicate that culture is shared. That doesn't mean that every person in every demographic does the same things all the time though either.

Ok, but even if cultures have shared ideas(Every culture has partying) then if we have different ideas of partying among different people, then that is multiculturalism. Not having Multiculturalism would mean only one form of partying is considered "OK" to give a simplified answer

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes, they both have songs about partying, but with different ideas, one Tends to be low budget(Atleast my experiance with country) and more about relaxing. While the other one is about Affluence and what could be argued as wish fufillment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I guess the station I listen to didnt play those Songs.
But my point still stands, Race Does have cultural lines. And While it can come over(Twerking used to be in Black Culture exclusively) each race has a demonstrably different culture.

Kind of. Cultural differences aren't necessarily an indication that there is no shared cultural. If anything, the overlap would indicate that culture is shared. That doesn't mean that every person in every demographic does the same things all the time though either.

Ok, but even if cultures have shared ideas(Every culture has partying) then if we have different ideas of partying among different people, then that is multiculturalism. Not having Multiculturalism would mean only one form of partying is considered "OK" to give a simplified answer

That's not necessarily what multiculturalism means, and that's not how Jeb Bush meant it either.

Ok, what does "Multi-culturalism" mean and why is it a bad thing?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, what does "Multi-culturalism" mean and why is it a bad thing?

I never said it was a bad thing.

So, when Jeb Bush was talking about multiculturalism, this is what he said:

"We're a pluralistic society. We're diverse, we have people that come from everywhere," he told reporters before a campaign event here. "We're not multicultural. We have a set of shared values that defines our national identity, and we should never veer away from that because that creates the extraordinary nature of our country."

Now, you can agree with him, or not, but he wasn't defining multiculturalism as simply tolerance for other cultures. My impression was more that he was making a "melting pot" vs "salad bowl" type comparison. You could argue that both are versions of multiculturalism, but I think his point was that in a melting pot model the cultures blend together into one mass, while in a salad bowl model they are surrounded by each other but remain distinct and do not mix, which based on his quote, seems to be what he was describing when he said that we're not multicultural.

I certainly think Jeb Bush could have articulated his point better, but I'm not ready to say that he's completely wrong either (although I can see valid arguments either way). My point is that, whether we are multicultural or not, and whether we are a melting pot or a salad bowl or some combination of the two, it doesn't necessarily follow that only one form of partying (or any other cultural practice) is okay and others are not. For example, if we are a melting pot, and pluralism and diversity are cultural norms, then it would certainly be possible to have multiple forms of partying or multiple forms of cultural expression that are considered okay, particularly if appreciation of a variety of cultural practices is in and of itself a shared cultural norm.

Many Sociologists have veered away from the melting pot theory because of several things
1: Respect for cultures and where people come from. It assumes that eventually your culture will melt away into a void, be assimilated or repressed(The melting pot was a common analogy when the Irish moved here, and look at what happened when they tried to fit in
2: Its dilutes distinct cultural traits, and meshes them(Or sometimes forces) together. Sometimes bad, sometimes not, like Tex mex)
In nerd terms, The Melting Pot is the Borg, while the Salad Bowl is the Federation. A Myriad of things working together for a better outcome, but still distinct.

 Psienesis wrote:
I can't help but think that a lot of these, perhaps all of them, are indicative of "White America". Which brings me back to my original question: What is American culture?

As "White America" remains the majority, would that not suffice?

Ok then, why should white america be American Culture?

Well, there are several reasons, none of which have anything to do with race. Its the majority and its the most established. So it would make sense for that to be the foundations everything would get based on.

So, White America, Being the Majority, therefor has the right of deciding culture.
By that same logic, sense Hispanics are a growing majority in california and Texas, they should decide culture there right?

They already are.

And they are a Majority there, so therefor by that logic, they must have the right to decide the prevailing culture right?

They're not a majority yet.

Seems like it in Cali
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Granted, kinda small
But does that mean that they now have the right to make the cultural decisions in cali?

All of them, no. A good chunk of them, yes.

So then, it is perfectly fine for jobs to require you to speak spanish in california?

Depends on the job. It could definitely be a requirement.

So then, there is no problem then for people coming in and only keeping spanish? OR just a little english?

No, they still need to learn English. Language =/= Culture.

That is VERY Arguable. Language is very much a part of culture. Heck, even vernacular.

It is part of culture, but its also its own thing. Language is not a inseparable part of the culture, and culture is not dependent on language.

So then, thought experiment, if suddenly, spanish was our main language, or french, do you think our culture would stay intact the way it is.

If you magically changed the language and nobody knew the switch occured, there would indeed be no difference.

True, that was a failed thought experiment.
Actually, Spanish was brought over by spain to south america, and it could be argued that they kept much of their culture intact.
I retract my statement.

Race does not define or determine culture.

But, Races do tend to have a culture all of their own.

I definitely agree with hotsauce about races having there own culture. But I have a observation that may make me look like a racist.

I've noticed blacks when not in large numbers tend to not sag pants, talk like they are in the ghetto and various other things. But when you get larger amounts together they start doing these things. Basically becoming a certain stereo type.

Now do you think that's a cultural thing. For example when in small numbers they just become the local culture. But when in larger numbers they start going to there own perceived culture.

Races do not have cultures of their own.

Brazil has the largest population of racial Japanese outside Japan.

In the 1980s the Japanese government started a policy of encouraging Japanese Brazilians to emiigrate back to Japan. However it was quickly found that the Brazilian Japanese did not have Japanese acculturation and behaved in a Brazilian fashion (late night samba parties, etc) which annoyed their native Japanese neighbours.

The problem was actually made worse by the fact that racially the Brazilians were pure blooded Japanese, as native Japanese people are used to silly foreigners making social cultural blunders but could not recognise the Brazilians as foreigners on sight.

If races didnt have a culture of their own, then music would not be divided so much by race lines.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If races didnt have a culture of their own, then music would not be divided so much by race lines.

Music is divided by racial lines because culturally different races have by and large tended to stay with their own.

It's not specifically a racial thing so much as a culture that has kept different races from better integrating with each other.

Remove those cultural boundaries, and I suspect that you would see far less division by race.

Race itself is a culturally determined phenomenon.

Going back a bit, I think we have hit the nail on the head with some of the issues in American culture today. For almost 2 centuries, "American Culture" was synonymous with "White Culture"... specifically, "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture".

Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If races didnt have a culture of their own, then music would not be divided so much by race lines.

How is music divided by race lines? Do you mean like Hip hop? That crossed the racial divide at least as far back as the Beastie Boys.

Or are we talkng about trad music like mariachi? I don't care much for hip hop, but I like most forms of "ethnic music" or "world music" I've been exposed to.

IME, music (at least generally speaking) is one of those things that help to cross cultures, rather than divide people.

 Psienesis wrote:
Going back a bit, I think we have hit the nail on the head with some of the issues in American culture today. For almost 2 centuries, "American Culture" was synonymous with "White Culture"... specifically, "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture".

Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

It bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture. And its not hypocritical to do so when your culture has borrowed ideas from others.

On the original Jeb Bush quote, well basically it's just a bunch of nonsense. I'm not sure if he doesn't understand multiculturalism, or is just playing up to people who don't understand multiculturalism. Multiculturalism doesn't say we are different, it says we are different in parts but also the same. Jeb Bush doesn't like that, he'd rather say we are the same, but with differences.

Bunch of nonsense.

 Psienesis wrote:
Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

Not only that, but a point that escapes almost everyone is that as another ethnicity comes in to power, their culture will adapt. The future hispanic majority, especially those in positions of power, will be far more alien to much of the current hispanic population than it will be to the future white minority population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture. And its not hypocritical to do so when your culture has borrowed ideas from others.

There's nothing wrong with it in a moral sense, but in terms of basic practicality it's very foolish idea.

Culture changes, and it changes because the people in that culture decide they want different things than what are offered right now. Trying to preserve culture is like trying to preserve the high tide.

 sebster wrote:
On the original Jeb Bush quote, well basically it's just a bunch of nonsense. I'm not sure if he doesn't understand multiculturalism, or is just playing up to people who don't understand multiculturalism. Multiculturalism doesn't say we are different, it says we are different in parts but also the same. Jeb Bush doesn't like that, he'd rather say we are the same, but with differences.

Bunch of nonsense.

 Psienesis wrote:
Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

Not only that, but a point that escapes almost everyone is that as another ethnicity comes in to power, their culture will adapt. The future hispanic majority, especially those in positions of power, will be far more alien to much of the current hispanic population than it will be to the future white minority population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture. And its not hypocritical to do so when your culture has borrowed ideas from others.

There's nothing wrong with it in a moral sense, but in terms of basic practicality it's very foolish idea.

Culture changes, and it changes because the people in that culture decide they want different things than what are offered right now. Trying to preserve culture is like trying to preserve the high tide.

Preserving culture essentially involves picking a particular arbitrary point in a country's history and saying 'this one was the best, lets not change it', and then watching with a growing anger as everything around you changes anyway.

Is American culture playing a bunch of sports people (other than Canada) in other countries don't actually care about, and then having things like a "world series" when it's actually just the same teams as the regular season and still in the US?

Please don't hurt me.

TBH, that sounds about right.

Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

edit: nah, nothing important

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Is American culture playing a bunch of sports people (other than Canada) in other countries don't actually care about, and then having things like a "world series" when it's actually just the same teams as the regular season and still in the US?

Please don't hurt me.

I think it's fair to call it a World Series if the best players in the world are playing in the league hosting the World Series. If the best baseball players in the world, ones from North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Japan, South Korea, etc. are playing in Major League Baseball then the best team in MLB is probably the best team in the world.

Ultimately every championship can be called in to questions because there are always qualifiers that limit participation. The World Cup is globally inclusive but still has qualifying criteria. The best 32 futbol/football/soccer teams aren't necessarily the ones that qualify for the world cup because the talent pool is distributed evenly, you could make a case that a team that didn't qualify from one region is better than a team that did qualify in another region. Unless you just have one giant tournament with everyone participating then the World Cup champion isn't really the best national team in the world, it's just the best team from those in the tournament (which can still be argued against because of the different strengths of the groups).

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

Indeed. I find soccer extremely boring to watch. Its like watching televised tag, made worse by the announcers always being way too excited.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

Indeed. I find soccer extremely boring to watch. Its like watching televised tag, made worse by the announcers always being way too excited.

Then I would suggest you don't watch it. It's not US culture anyway.

The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

Indeed. I find soccer extremely boring to watch. Its like watching televised tag, made worse by the announcers always being way too excited.

Then I would suggest you don't watch it. It's not US culture anyway.

Soccer is actually a HUGE part of US culture. Just not the watching of it. Organized soccer is probably one of the most common sports played in the US by children.

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

Cricket is another game where there is always something happening, perhaps the no.17 bus passing outside the stadium, or a new cake being brought in to the commentary box.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

So based on that answer it seems evident that you don't know a lot about the actual rules and tactics of soccer, which would explain why you find it boring to watch.

If you don't know the rules and tactics and don't understand why players are doing the things that they are doing, then soccer will be boring to watch, just like baseball and golf. If you understand the rules and tactics and know why players are doing the things that they are doing, then soccer will be interesting to watch, just like baseball and golf.

If you don't understand soccer, then it's just a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth. If you understand soccer then you understand the lead-up to plays, the tactics in use, the importance of tactical fouls, why a team is happy to sit on a one goal lead or if they need to score an extra goal because of their situation on the league table, the decision about substituting your star player because he is sitting on a yellow card, the decisions being made when an additional card results in a suspension, player selections based on the opposing teams strength and weaknesses.

If you don't understand baseball it's just a bunch of people standing around in the grass while one guy is trying to hit a ball as hard as they can and every now and then one of them will hit it, but other than that it's just a bunch of guys wasting time. If you understand baseball it goes back to tactics, walking players that could hit a home run, matching pitchers against certain hitters, batters trying to hit or punt. I don't follow baseball and really don't know all the rules, but I know that there is tactics involved that make it interesting.

Same with golf again. If you don't understand golf it's just a bunch of people trying to hit a ball with a funny stick. If you understand golf then it is a very tactical game where players are having to take the current standings of everybody else in consideration to determine how much risk they need to take, weighing the different possible approaches, trying to decide if they should take the safe layup or try to go for the green, etc.

In the end it's not that people don't care about certain sports because it is boring. Sports are boring because people don't care about them.

Heck, I am in a curling league. Talk about a game that is slow enough that we can drink beer on the ice, but it's also a very tactical and exciting game.

 jasper76 wrote:

Soccer is actually a HUGE part of US culture. Just not the watching of it. Organized soccer is probably one of the most common sports played in the US by children.

It might be second, certainly behind basketball but possibly ahead of baseball; definitely ahead of American football. This is because soccer, like basketball, is pretty much unisex until puberty sets in. Baseball could also be unisex until that time, but Little League and Legion have decided that girls can only hit softballs.

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

I'm willing to compromise and say Soccer (football) and Baseball are equally boring.

Can I say all sports that are not boxing are boring.

I agree with hotsauce but also want to add mix martial arts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Cricket is another game where there is always something happening, perhaps the no.17 bus passing outside the stadium, or a new cake being brought in to the commentary box.

10/10, would exalt again.

Seriously, that post cracked me up. Cricket sounds exactly like baseball to me!


It is interesting how common soccer is at young ages in the US and how unpopular it is as a professional sport. I wonder if our foreign brethren would be surprised at how much soccer is actually played in the US? Most of the people I know in my generation played soccer as a kid, even kids who didn't grow up to play any other sport.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Is American culture playing a bunch of sports people (other than Canada) in other countries don't actually care about, and then having things like a "world series" when it's actually just the same teams as the regular season and still in the US?

Please don't hurt me.

Dude. That's unfair. We also suck down enormous amounts of unhealthy food from non-biodegradable containers while doing it! Not to mention the mandatory discharge of weapons into the air if we win (which we do, because they're all US teams)!

-Gets on Dakkadakka
-Finds political thread

Lol what?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

Oh for God’s sake. It’s okay to sometimes admit that another person has a point. Don’t go inventing weird reasons for why some slow sports are okay and others are bad, especially when the best you can come up with is that baseball is okay because the audio is enough to understand the play, and that golf is okay because players can try to figure out what they’d do in that situation (as if that weren’t true of every single sport on earth).

People who grow up with a sport, any sport, will learn to appreciate and enjoy the complexities of the game, even when people aren’t scoring. That doesn’t mean you have to like that game, but it does mean you’re being very silly when you claim a sport loved by a couple of billion people is a bad game.

And I don’t even like soccer. But I just really don’t like bad reasoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Cricket is another game where there is always something happening, perhaps the no.17 bus passing outside the stadium, or a new cake being brought in to the commentary box.

I was about to argue with this, but the commentators do spend a lot of time talking about what they're eating.

I'd rather watch soccer. I'd really rather be playing almost anything than watching a screen with colors moving on it, but that's pretty unpopular nowadays.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

Oh for God’s sake. It’s okay to sometimes admit that another person has a point. Don’t go inventing weird reasons for why some slow sports are okay and others are bad, especially when the best you can come up with is that baseball is okay because the audio is enough to understand the play, and that golf is okay because players can try to figure out what they’d do in that situation (as if that weren’t true of every single sport on earth).

Dude. This is all semantics. My reasons cannot be bad. You may not agree with them, but thats just your opinion. Thats why I find Soccer boring and those other sports not, or I at least can fathom why people like them. Soccer is an anathema to me.

I think you just enjoy putting me down and its getting annoying.

I think nearly all sports are pretty weak, but have to say that I find baseball especially boring. Maybe it's because my mom made me go to little league when I was a kid, but man - it's just so slow and uninteresting to me. At least football can be sort of interesting.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude. This is all semantics. My reasons cannot be bad. You may not agree with them, but thats just your opinion. Thats why I find Soccer boring and those other sports not, or I at least can fathom why people like them. Soccer is an anathema to me.

"I don't like soccer" is fine. That's an opinion. I don't like particularly like soccer either.

But that wasn't all you tried to do. You attempted to give reasons for why one slow sport was good, while another was bad. And the reasons you gave didn't make much sense.

I think you just enjoy putting me down and its getting annoying.

No, I don't enjoy putting you down. I just read through the forums, and press quote when I think I have something to say about someone's point, whether it was a good point or a bad point. I've noticed that I've quoted you a lot for bad posts as well, but I'm not sure that's because of anything on my end.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Dude. This is all semantics. My reasons cannot be bad. You may not agree with them, but thats just your opinion. Thats why I find Soccer boring and those other sports not, or I at least can fathom why people like them. Soccer is an anathema to me.

"I don't like soccer" is fine. That's an opinion. I don't like particularly like soccer either.

But that wasn't all you tried to do. You attempted to give reasons for why one slow sport was good, while another was bad. And the reasons you gave didn't make much sense.

No, I said why its boring. And why some other sport isn't. Its all subjective of course. Stop trying to just contradict for the sake of contradicting.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, I said why its boring. And why some other sport isn't. Its all subjective of course. Stop trying to just contradict for the sake of contradicting.

Do you actually not understand how this works?

"I think the game is boring" is a personal opinion.

"The game is boring, and these games aren't boring, because of reason x" is trying to claim some kind of objective truth.

You did the latter. If you're backing off from that, fine, but don't try to pretend you said something different.

It always entertains me when people say that football (proper football) is boring, while American football is super exciting and things are always happening.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406

Personally I don't enjoy watching pretty much any sports on TV but I have to say that I find most "American" sports particularly dull and the commentating/coverage quite contrived.

The specifics of why football is or isn't fun is not at all the topic. The playing of football opposed to baseball (as it is currently being discussed) is honestly barely relevant. Stop.