- This topic has 6 voices and 46 replies.
-
Posts
-
The advocates of lawful, legal immigration have not dona an adequate job of stating their case.
I disagree. Anytime they make a statement about illegals they are immediately raked over teh coals by human rights groups. (google RI Gov. Carcieri, you'll see what I mean). The main problem is we have laws that no one is enforcing.
The advocates of lawful, legal immigration have not dona an adequate job of stating their case.
I disagree. Anytime they make a statement about illegals they are immediately raked over teh coals by human rights groups. (google RI Gov. Carcieri, you'll see what I mean). The main problem is we have laws that no one is enforcing.
If advocates had done a good job of making their case their would be a huge groundswell of support for enforcing existing laws. The lack of such support is telling. Despite my misgivings about American democracy there is still the vote. Obviously enough people dont feel that the laws should be enforced on a national level or more pro-enforcement people would be elected. I agree with you about the race card being used. That is exactly my point. Law and order folks are losing the public relations battle, Something about their message does not stick. The diversity folks are winning. They have convinced enough people that open borders are good, and facts and figures showing they are wrong are ignored. The left is better at using negative emotions or even emotions period, than the right. that is why the left is ascendant in American politics. They get people to vote on emotion and not reason.
Saw this piece today on a page that translates German articles into English for expats. It seems that immigrants in Europe are starting to pick up the post-modern diversity mantra that has been popular in the US immigrant community for the last ten years. Namely, that it is the responsibility of the host country to accommodate immigrants and not the immigrants responsibility to integrate into the society in which they live.Turks: Germany must do more for integration Post-modernism and the fuzzy thinking it promotes will greatly contribute to the decline of the Western world. We are becoming our own worst enemies.
Yes, so long as policy decisions are made in the interest of politically correct ideals, rather than what is good and right, we'll continue to live in a world that will regress. I saw the following article, not surprisingly by the increasingly loony Time Magazine: Will Minorities Get Enough Out of the Economic Stimulus?Now, I really don't care what color the people are who get the benefit of stimulus money, so long as the money goes towards things that will actually boost broad economic processes (and IMO it's seriously questionable that the stimulus can accomplish even this goal over the long term). But if you read the article, it's like the stimulus package should have been awarded to people based on minority status, kind of like a big and expensive project in social engineering. I must say that as long as certain people insert race into matters where they really should not, our country is going to stagnate.
I must say that as long as certain people insert race into matters where they really should not, our country is going to stagnate.
Truer words have never been spoken. 🙂 As long as race can be used as a stick to beat people with it will be used. That is the root of Black-white tensions in America now. As long as whites can have slavery used against them it will be, regardless of the actions of the vast majority of whites in America. One person will cause all whites to get tarred with the same brush. We see the same phenomenon in Germany with regards to the holocaust. As long as Germans can get beat up about Nazism and other can get concession people will continue to do so. Whether those doing the beating are right or wrong is irrelevant, they can score points using the method and they will do so as long as they can get results; the truth of their charges is irrelevant.I would submit that the race problem in America has less to do with white treatment of blacks than it does with blacks feeling they are entitled to something because bad things happened to their ancestors. The saddest part is that MLK and others fought for equality and now their ideological descendants don?t want equality, they want favoritism. They actually want people to be judged by the color of their skin, they just want to set the scale of judgment differently. Is not the same injustice down when an unqualified minority is hired based on their skin color and the qualified majority rejected vice denying employment to a fully qualified minority person based on their skin color? Is that not the same thing except for the person being discriminated against? The aristocracy of merit will be an ideal for a long time to come I fear.As far as stimulus funding to minorities goes. Is not federal dollars to minorities the definition of stimulus? Those dirty white folks just ruined the economy to hurt minorities anyway (I bet you there are people that actually think this). According to the entitlement mentality all government money should be spent to better favored groups, it should benefit the entire nation because then the underprivileged are just penalized more. The minority and diversity advocates have turned the idea of a rising tide raises all boats on its head, some boats should have lead weights because they are better boats anyway. Everybody should have the same boat. It is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of result regardless of the amount of effort one puts into things. The diversity crowd has invented rights out of whole cloth, health care, income, schooling, and housing are just some of them.
The minority and diversity advocates have turned the idea of a rising tide raises all boats on its head, some boats should have lead weights because they are better boats anyway. Everybody should have the same boat. It is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of result regardless of the amount of effort one puts into things. The diversity crowd has invented rights out of whole cloth, health care, income, schooling, and housing are just some of them.
Agreed; we are promised equality of opportunity... the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself... just the chance. Not good enough, go somewhere else.I'm all for Deglers salad bowl theory; keep some of your traditions to be comfortable here (they usually get assimilated along with you... like tacos, pizza, and liverwurst) and allow yourself to become an unhiphenated American. Living under our dressing... your Constitutionally protected and recognized civil rights and liberties.
How would you call “snail and frog legs in garlic sauce” lovers ? Barbarians? Aliens? Reckless non-integrated people? How were the Indo-European migrants welcomed? A minority first, the dominant group later... Adapt or disappear: not only for incomers but for hosts as well. (ask Darwin)I mean here that you have to be opportunist otherwise you are condemned to vanish. Historical rule.
Nobody is saying diversity in and of itself is bad. Just that diversity as it is currently preached is designed to be divisive not inclusive. For the record, I don't buy Social Darwinism. The Nazi's did though and look what happened to them. Diversity without integration is a recipe for disaster, ask the people that live in the Balkans how that has worked out for them or the residents of the former Hapsburg Empire for that matter.
I mean here that you have to be opportunist otherwise you are condemned to vanish. Historical rule.
If you look at the Western Civilisation History, Westerners were opportunists: taking the best from other civilisations, improve it and use it for themselves or against their authors.When a civilisation starts to erect walls, rules, laws in order to keep a current status, (TMO) it shows fear of change, weakness, deny of adaptation. When you are confident in your values, nothing can afraid you.
I mean here that you have to be opportunist otherwise you are condemned to vanish. Historical rule.
If you look at the Western Civilisation History, Westerners were opportunists: taking the best from other civilisations, improve it and use it for themselves or against their authors.When a civilisation starts to erect walls, rules, laws in order to keep a current status, (TMO) it shows fear of change, weakness, deny of adaptation. When you are confident in your values, nothing can afraid you.
For the most part I agree with you. (with reservations) Change is good but there is change and then there is CHANGE. It is the pace and extent of change that interests me, not change in and of itself. The English language I use is one of the most opportunistic languages in the world, which partly explains its success. So I agree with you up to a point.PS. Did you just quote yourself? ;D
Becoming part of a culture is one thing, and that IMHO is the real definition of diversity. The new, post-modern definition is eliminating the culture. (Just like the Normans tried to do to Ireland)
Indeed, I think that diversity in itself is different from the ideology of diversity, or multiculturalism. This is an issue where the wording can make discussion of the issue murky from the beginning.Diversity, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. Depending on the circumstances, it can be either one. The ideology of diversity is pretty much always bad (as far as I can tell) since it replaces certain fundamental ideals needed to achieve the common good with a set of values that is based on false premises.
Indeed, I think that diversity in itself is different from the ideology of diversity, or multiculturalism. This is an issue where the wording can make discussion of the issue murky from the beginning.Diversity, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. Depending on the circumstances, it can be either one. The ideology of diversity is pretty much always bad (as far as I can tell) since it replaces certain fundamental ideals needed to achieve the common good with a set of values that is based on false premises.
That is what I have been trying to say as well. There is a difference between amalgamating people of different cultures into a nation and creating pockets of different cultures that do not interact within a nation. One is healthy and the other is not. If we are to use a historical analogy, what the Diversity crowd is advocatig is no different than when the Romans allowed barbarian tribes to settle in the Roman borderlands without Romanizing them. That worked out so well for the Romans too, didn't it? The barabrians eventually destroyed the Empire from within; at least partially because they did not identify and agree with Roman values. The same thing is happening in America today.
If we are to use a historical analogy, what the Diversity crowd is advocatig is no different than when the Romans allowed barbarian tribes to settle in the Roman borderlands without Romanizing them. That worked out so well for the Romans too, didn't it? The barabrians eventually destroyed the Empire from within; at least partially because they did not identify and agree with Roman values. The same thing is happening in America today.
These barbarians didn't want to destroy the Roman Empire, the Empire provoked it.Take the Visigoths: they were allied to the Romans. Under the threat of the Huns, they asked to be allowed to settle inside the Empire. That was agreed by Rome because this could be useful with recruiting and using auxiliaries that Rome deeply needed to protect its borders.However when a famine broke out, Rome was unwilling to supply the Visigoths with the food they were promised nor the land; revolts ensued leading to 6 years of plundering and destruction throughout the Balkans, the death of a Roman Emperor and the destruction of an entire Roman army at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 which was the decisive moment of the war. The Roman forces were slaughtered and the Emperor Valens was killed during the fighting. Adrianople eventually forced the Romans to negotiate with the Visigoths and let the barbarians settle within the empire's boundaries, leading the final fall of Rome.The word "barbarian" itself shows the level of contempt, the Greeks first , the Romans after, showed towards "uncivilised" people, in this case just because of the difference of language first...Replace Rome by Western world , America or Europe, and tell me how this story about intolerance, contempt for "others" might repeat itself !! .Some attitudes seem to show the same reactions these ancient civilisation had: Feeling of superiority, rejection of difference, scare of diversity, etc.Diversity is not the danger but a difference scare is. TMO the point is: you must assimilate into the host culture and values if they are strong, enhancing status, promising a better future and ... open minded . (as Scout reminded me about the French civil unrest in 2005, just like in London in 1958 and 1981, or even in L.A. in 1992)So why, and how, these pockets of non-rule, non-integration emerged ? It didn't occur yesterday. Once you lock yourself inside the keep, no need to grumble, worse is to come... 😛
