Printable View
You've lost me...easy done.
That was double dutch.
As i have said, no one is above a nations laws...for whatever reasons, wether it is religious or just coz they are so damn rich and influential.
And there were "nations" around when both the French and the British were living in caves.....so i'll not agree with that one.
In regard to cultural identity:
Our culture, as described in my post above, is unified under a philosophy which treasures the rights of the individual above all else. Kind of a novel idea, to bind a country together based on a philosophy, rather than on a common ancestry or religion.
Take any American off the street and ask him what we are about. He will tell you that we are about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We allow all kinds of extremist groups in this country (Nazi's, KKK) to assemble and speak out, as long as the do so peaceably, within the constraints of our legal system (sorry, no veil). So although many would love to see these fringe elements disassembled, we must embrace their right to exist, and defend it as necessary.
Doesn't that seem insane! A black man defending the right of the KKK to exist, simply because he believes in individual freedom?
So our cultural identity is not defined by race, religion, or ancestry, but rather philosophy.
In regard to ethnic communities or sub-cultures, we are not asking you to abandon your past any more than we ask you to give up your religion. What we ask is that you step up to your new society. Speak English, send your kids to school (vs homeschool), show up at the PTA meetings and football games. Do not isolate yourselves into little communities, do not prevent your children from mixing with others.
We do have strong German and Irish areas in St. Louis and these little communities celebrate several cultural holidays, which are open to all, giving the people a chance to "show off" their past to others, while maintaining cultural identity. These people are English speaking Americans first, as they form an integral part of the community, but retain a cultural identity, which adds to our society rather than leeching off it.
USA
Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading.
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is rediculed.
Second, it is violently opposed
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
most of the immigrants dont have phones to take the survey, even if they had a phone some probably cant speak english to take the survey :ph34r:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@4 July 2003 - 16:48
Yes, she should be allowed: 133
No, she should not be allowed: 5338
Not sure: 19
That's 97% against, which is somewhat surprising, given Florida's large immigrant population.
who is we? i and several other forum members have been disagreeing with the article as posted at the beginning of the thread. and that article IS demanding assimilation from people the moment they step off the boat, on one hand claiming to not be anti-immigrant while on the other hand cursing cultural diversity.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@5 July 2003 - 09:19
In regard to ethnic communities or sub-cultures, we are not asking you to abandon your past any more than we ask you to give up your religion. What we ask is that you step up to your new society. Speak English, send your kids to school (vs homeschool), show up at the PTA meetings and football games. Do not isolate yourselves into little communities, do not prevent your children from mixing with others.
i understand your points, but you're diverting the argument toward a moderate assimilationist idea rather than the hardline conservative one (expressed in the first post) that we were originally debating. your opinion is valid, but it seems like your use of "we" is trying to apologize for the people whose views are actually a bit more uncompromising than your own.
edit: well, actually i don't even know WHAT view you're presenting-- in one post you say you dislike ethnic minorities centralizing in distinct communities, and then in another post you congratulate germans and irish for maintaining their sense of ethnicity while participating in mainstream society. which is it? if you're implying that newer immigrants are somehow worse than them... i'd say you're ignoring the fact that it takes time to assimilate, and people like the irish have a head start of several generations over the latest wave of immigrants.
either way, i still think the whole "speak the majority language or get out" idea is baloney. at least in america, where diversity of language was the norm for a much longer time than the united states has existed-- how many native american languages were spoken on the continent before the europeans showed up? i can't think of a single moral or ethical obligation to impose an official language on a country. just because it's more convenient, that doesn't make it more correct. and i hold the u.s. constitution in extremely high regard, as an ingenious document which tried to establish a fair and balanced legal guideline for the country, leaving much open to interpretation so that it would continue to be relevant after more than 2 centuries-- so i think it's worth pointing out that the constitution neglected to designate an official language for the united states, and i like to think it was with good reason.
I'm sorry but I do mind when people throw accusations at me but refuse to support them.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+4 July 2003 - 20:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 4 July 2003 - 20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Never mind.
If "never mind" = an apology or a retraction of said accusation... dont worry about it. [/b][/quote]
It is neither another apology nor a retraction.
I am currently mulling methods for confronting you with proof of your trespasses while keeping within reasonable bounds of good taste.
I am loathe to create a new thread merely for purposes of pointing out what I feel constitutes proof of your, shall we say, lack of decorum?
You will know when or what I conclude, EBP.
I see.. so you made the accusation and are now scrambling around looking for evidence to support it. Shouldnt the conclusion come first then the accusation?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4
It is neither another apology nor a retraction.
I am currently mulling methods for confronting you with proof of your trespasses while keeping within reasonable bounds of good taste.
I am loathe to create a new thread merely for purposes of pointing out what I feel constitutes proof of your, shall we say, lack of decorum?
You will know when or what I conclude, EBP.
Oh dear we're now in "OT EBP vs j2k4 land".. again. Congratulations.
It would be interesting to see you attempt to answer my critique of the article. Highly unlikely, going by past experience, but definitely interesting.
I guess your version of decorum involves avoiding the topic and inititating a personal attack, its obviously become a favourite diversionary tactic of yours.
FYI the only person I 'denigrated', for want of a better word, in this thread was the author of the article. I hope that helps you with this childish vendetta you seemed to be obsessed with at the moment.
I think if you carry on like this you will end what has been for the rest an interesting topic.You can always agree to disagree!
What did you(both) think of MagicNakors comments?
who is we? i and several other forum members have been disagreeing with the article as posted at the beginning of the thread. and that article IS demanding assimilation from people the moment they step off the boat, on one hand claiming to not be anti-immigrant while on the other hand cursing cultural diversity.Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+5 July 2003 - 20:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 5 July 2003 - 20:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@5 July 2003 - 09:19
In regard to ethnic communities or sub-cultures, we are not asking you to abandon your past any more than we ask you to give up your religion. What we ask is that you step up to your new society. Speak English, send your kids to school (vs homeschool), show up at the PTA meetings and football games. Do not isolate yourselves into little communities, do not prevent your children from mixing with others.
i understand your points, but you're diverting the argument toward a moderate assimilationist idea rather than the hardline conservative one (expressed in the first post) that we were originally debating. your opinion is valid, but it seems like your use of "we" is trying to apologize for the people whose views are actually a bit more uncompromising than your own.
edit: well, actually i don't even know WHAT view you're presenting-- in one post you say you dislike ethnic minorities centralizing in distinct communities, and then in another post you congratulate germans and irish for maintaining their sense of ethnicity while participating in mainstream society. which is it? if you're implying that newer immigrants are somehow worse than them... i'd say you're ignoring the fact that it takes time to assimilate, and people like the irish have a head start of several generations over the latest wave of immigrants.
either way, i still think the whole "speak the majority language or get out" idea is baloney. at least in america, where diversity of language was the norm for a much longer time than the united states has existed-- how many native american languages were spoken on the continent before the europeans showed up? i can't think of a single moral or ethical obligation to impose an official language on a country. just because it's more convenient, that doesn't make it more correct. and i hold the u.s. constitution in extremely high regard, as an ingenious document which tried to establish a fair and balanced legal guideline for the country, leaving much open to interpretation so that it would continue to be relevant after more than 2 centuries-- so i think it's worth pointing out that the constitution neglected to designate an official language for the united states, and i like to think it was with good reason.[/b][/quote]
Brainiac,
Unlike many here, I have read every post in this thread, including yours. My post was not to defend anyone, as my multiple previos posts indicate. I was just giving my "take" on what the author meant.
You aver that the original poster wants assimilation off the boat. That is nowhere to be found in the original text, I suggest this comes from your personal spin.
The author is in no way stating that you cannot speak your native tongue, but stresses that English is a language you need to learn to communicate with those in your community. A very similar thing goes on in India. Many different languages are spoken there, and if not for English, an Indian traveling in his own country would not be able to communicate. The language chosen is not the issue, the issue is that there needs to be a central language. The Chinese have done something similar.
In the US, our Declaration of Independence was written in English AND English is the official language of all 50 states, except New Mexico (English and Spanish are official). This means that all official documents are kept in English.
As for native Americans, they were independent nomadic tribes who lived on the land we now call the United States. It is nonsensical to think they would have a unified language.
Language is neither a moral nor an ethic issue, in fact, that doesn't even make sense. People can live here and not speak English, there is no law mandating it, and no one is one requesting such a law. We are merely stating that, like the dollar, English is the "currency" we are using.
Wouldn't it be great if we all used different currencies for trade, the chaos would be endless. Not a bad analogy, eh, JPaul?
I never stated that I did not like ethnic minorities centralizing in district communities. You are gestalting my post, not reading it. Each word was carefully chosen. I stated that I don't like them ISOLATING themselves from the general community. The idea of maintaining cultural identity while becoming part of the community was the salient point to garner. Human nature dictates that people in a strange land will gravitate toward something familiar and this is how these communities begin.
You chose to use the word "assimilate" which again demonstrates your spin. Reading the same post, I saw the word "participate". When you come to America to enjoy its opportunities and individual freedoms, your role is to learn the language and participate in your community and abide by the laws which have been set. That philosophy is hardly intolerant. It basically says, "Welcome to America, go get your stuff put away, and come join the community, don't alienate yourself and be a stranger.
My final word is this: A common language is essential for communication. It should be just as useful in California as it is in Maine. We have chosen English, and it is every citizens obligation to learn this language. Any others you know will count for extra credit ( I'm pretty good with Spanish). It would be absurd for everyone to need to learn every spoken language. A common language is an essential bonding element in a society.
"spin" is a loaded term. it sounds a bit spin-ish of you to refer to my interpretation as "spin" and your interpretation as "my take on what the author meant." it strikes me as hypocritical.
blaming foreign cultures for the weakening of america's identity and advising people to love it or leave isn't intolerant in the least. alright. fair enough. i'm just spinning.
the more i read that article, however, the more i take issue with it. rambling from one non sequitir to another, it manages to get so many things wrong. we didn't adopt "in god we trust" as the national motto because the nation was founded by christians, rather in a popular swell of religious fervor a century after the country was founded. the "christians" who founded the nation chose "e pluribus unum" as the national motto, which wasn't good enough for patriots of the late 1800s who surely knew better than thomas jefferson and benjamin franklin. sure, replace a motto underscoring a basic democratic ideal with one that erodes the division of church and state. excellent idea. defacing government institutions and the currency with religious slogans should provide christians with something to gloat about. call that spin, if you will.
"In the US, our Declaration of Independence was written in English AND English is the official language of all 50 states, except New Mexico (English and Spanish are official). This means that all official documents are kept in English."
state laws tend to be more wrongheaded than federal laws. there are plenty of examples i can think of, but none of which i'll bother to name. instead, i'd like to read a rational explanation of why non-english speakers are such a problem in this country. exactly what about their lack of english comprehension is damaging to america, and toward what end? is it a legitimate threat, or a mere annoyance? if there is a problem, is the problem actually growing... or is the author of that rant simply attacking a straw man?
"Wouldn't it be great if we all used different currencies for trade, the chaos would be endless."
i disagree. that's hyperbolic.
also, if "gestalt" has indeed become a verb, thanks for teaching me something new. i'd only previously encountered it as a noun.