PDA

View Full Version : Students Wearing American Flag Shirts Sent Home



Namelessone
06 May 10,, 16:46
Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees | NBC Bay Area (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html)


Five Students Asked to Leave Campus for Wearing American Colors on Cinco de Mayo

By GEORGE KIRIYAMA

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing t-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the Vice Principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag t-shirts inside-out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.
"They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today," Daniel Galli said.
The boys said the administrators called their t-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.

The boys with really no choice went home to avoid suspension. They say they're angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset calling what happened to their children: total nonsense.

"I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."
But to many Mexican American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

As for an apology, the boys and their families say, "fat chance."
"I'm not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong," Galli said. "I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I'm an American and I'm proud to be an American."
The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night. The district released a statement saying it does not agree with how Live Oak High School administrators handled this incident.

As for the boys, they will not be suspended and they will be going back to school later today. They may even wear their red, white, and blue colors again, but this time, the day after Cinco de Mayo, there will be no controversy.
.................................................. .................................................. .....................
Imo,there is nothing disrespectful towards Mexican Americans by being proud of being American while Mexican Americans are being proud of being Mexican Americans. Political correctness running on rather insane level.

bonehead
06 May 10,, 16:57
This is absolutely sick. I guess next year all military installations in Cal have to strike the American flag and hoist The Mexican flag.

astralis
06 May 10,, 17:22
the students might not know better but the administrators ought. one of the very basic things the school should be teaching is -US- civics, ie patriotism to this country first and foremost-- pride in your heritage -second-.

YellowFever
06 May 10,, 17:24
Bonehead, you heartless bas*ard, you are offending their Mexian Heritage day.

They do not deserve to be get disrespected like that. :))

troung
06 May 10,, 17:54
Someone needs to be fired. That simple.

This is America, if anything other flags don't belong in publicly funded schools. If people are offended by our flag then GTFO.

drhuy
06 May 10,, 17:56
why didnt those boys add "Remember Alamo?" to their T-shirt? :D It would be more fun.

bigross86
06 May 10,, 18:13
It's a shame, too many people have no respect for the flag of their country. A few weeks ago on Independence Day I saw a girl wearing nothing but an Israeli flag as a very short dress. It pissed me off, sheer and total disrespect for the flag, a couple other people I was with saw it as artistic, patriotic, or (and this one pissed me off the most) sexy, since she'll be dancing and sweating in a mostly white flag.

Rant mode off, I still think there are too many people without respect for the flag.

leib10
06 May 10,, 18:16
Disgusting. I swear, the liberal attitudes in this country sometimes make me sick. I didn't realize it was more important to safeguard the traditions of other countries in lieu of our own.

bigross86
06 May 10,, 18:20
Welcome to the PRC, the People's Republic of California...

Julie
06 May 10,, 18:33
The "United" States of America before long will have to be called The "Divided" States of America. :mad:

bfng3569
06 May 10,, 18:48
disgusting.

just disgusting.

YellowFever
06 May 10,, 19:23
It's a shame, too many people have no respect for the flag of their country. A few weeks ago on Independence Day I saw a girl wearing nothing but an Israeli flag as a very short dress. It pissed me off, sheer and total disrespect for the flag, a couple other people I was with saw it as artistic, patriotic, or (and this one pissed me off the most) sexy, since she'll be dancing and sweating in a mostly white flag.

Rant mode off, I still think there are too many people without respect for the flag.

This is an interesting post.

I used to feel this way but shortly after 9-11 Kid Rock appeared on stage with a shirt with a huge American flag and a bandana of an American flag and some right wing politician blasted him for disrespecting the flag.

It's not a big deal, bud, since different people have different ways to express their love for the colors. He wore the colors to express his love for the country and not disrespect it.

I'm sure the chick in the Israeli flag didn't mean any disrespect.

Julie
06 May 10,, 19:30
I remember back in the early 70's, my older sister was in highschool. And the fad was bell-bottom jeans, with patches on them.

My sister sewed a small American flag on the front upper thigh of her jeans, and wore them to school, and she was sent home, AND suspended for 3 days.

gunnut
06 May 10,, 19:40
the students might not know better but the administrators ought. one of the very basic things the school should be teaching is -US- civics, ie patriotism to this country first and foremost-- pride in your heritage -second-.

Wow that is so racist I can't even begin to express my dismay.

:biggrin:

Do I need the notation or does the extreme sarcasm oozes through the very words of my post?

Roosveltrepub
06 May 10,, 19:45
Wearing the American flag is NOT respectful. Where are you all getting that idea it's patriotic? The intent may be but the action isn't. They should be told not to any day.

gunnut
06 May 10,, 19:57
Wearing the American flag is NOT respectful. Where are you all getting that idea it's patriotic? The intent may be but the action isn't. They should be told not to any day.

That's an interesting point. Is wearing the flag disrespectful to the flag? Is it a flag? Or is it a "representation" of the flag? What is the difference between a flag that is printed on a t-shirt, a flag that's sewed onto the t-shirt, and a flag pin worn on the t-shirt?

Namelessone
06 May 10,, 19:57
Ridiculous notions held by the Mexican students and school administrators. It is they who are the guests in a foreign nation and it is them who are disrespectful of a citizens right to wear the national colours. Were it the 4th of July in Mexico and Mexican kids wee forbidden to wear Mexican colours due to the American students celebrating a national day, it would sound preposterous to them. An insult even.

citanon
06 May 10,, 19:59
These people complaining about the flag wearing have forgotten that they are Mexican Americans.

Both the principal and the vice principal should be fired.

Roosveltrepub
06 May 10,, 20:29
That's an interesting point. Is wearing the flag disrespectful to the flag? Is it a flag? Or is it a "representation" of the flag? What is the difference between a flag that is printed on a t-shirt, a flag that's sewed onto the t-shirt, and a flag pin worn on the t-shirt?
It's not supposed to be worn as a costume. That historically has meant an article of clothing. Patches on uniforms etc have always been the exception. IMO it's a further aknowledgement of service to Country by those in the military. That was high school civics in the 70s. The hippie flag clothing was a bird to the establishment not some sign of respect.

roffelskates
06 May 10,, 22:10
Isn't America a melting pot?

BenRoethig
06 May 10,, 22:15
why didnt those boys add "Remember Alamo?" to their T-shirt? :D It would be more fun.

Because the 5 boys showing their patriotism are hispanic americans themselves.

Julie
06 May 10,, 22:18
Wearing the American flag is NOT respectful. Where are you all getting that idea it's patriotic? The intent may be but the action isn't. They should be told not to any day.
I have a T-shirt I bought from the Bass Pro Shop with the American flag on the front with the letters USA on it. I wear it as a proud American, and I personally do not see anything wrong with it.

{although I haven't wore it lately}

troung
06 May 10,, 22:28
Wearing the American flag is NOT respectful. Where are you all getting that idea it's patriotic? The intent may be but the action isn't. They should be told not to any day.

**** that, that is not why the school did what they did nor why the **** sucking mexicans got mad. That's bullshit and you know it.

Roosveltrepub
06 May 10,, 22:47
**** that, that is not why the school did what they did nor why the **** sucking mexicans got mad. That's bullshit and you know it.

I agree. I was pointing out to the people here that it is in fact not patriotic it's desresectful to wear the American flag as a pc of clothing. Don't believe me? Look in too it I'm not wasting my time explaining something a lot of silent members of this board no doubt know.

Roosveltrepub
06 May 10,, 22:49
I have a T-shirt I bought from the Bass Pro Shop with the American flag on the front with the letters USA on it. I wear it as a proud American, and I personally do not see anything wrong with it.

{although I haven't wore it lately}

I wouldn't argue it isn't common place now nor dispute your intent but before the "hippie anti US crowd " did it no one did.

bonehead
06 May 10,, 23:01
These people complaining about the flag wearing have forgotten that they are Mexican Americans.

Both the principal and the vice principal should be fired.

Thats the rub. Too many do not see themselves as Americans, nor do they ever want to, but if you try to send them home they scream racism. What is worse is the element that believes the border does not exist and they have every right to be here. It is going to take some bloodshed before they see the error of their ways.

gunnut
06 May 10,, 23:02
I agree. I was pointing out to the people here that it is in fact not patriotic it's desresectful to wear the American flag as a pc of clothing. Don't believe me? Look in too it I'm not wasting my time explaining something a lot of silent members of this board no doubt know.

I agree that wearing the flag itself is disrespectful, but how about a depiction of the flag on a t-shirt and not the actual flag itself?

bonehead
06 May 10,, 23:07
Bonehead, you heartless bas*ard, you are offending their Mexian Heritage day.

They do not deserve to be get disrespected like that. :))

I have been called worse. But seriously, this concept of people coming in and being all upset because the locals are proud of their own country and telling the locals what to do is not funny. In this case it is an insult to every person that calls them self an American. They can celebrate their heritage if they desire but they are not about to come into my country tell me how and when I can celebrate being an American.

YellowFever
06 May 10,, 23:08
I have a T-shirt I bought from the Bass Pro Shop with the American flag on the front with the letters USA on it. I wear it as a proud American, and I personally do not see anything wrong with it.

{although I haven't wore it lately}

Cool!

Can you send me a picture of yourself in that t-shirt?

Preferably wet? :))

dave lukins
06 May 10,, 23:11
I have a T-shirt I bought from the Bass Pro Shop with the American flag on the front with the letters USA on it. I wear it as a proud American, and I personally do not see anything wrong with it.

{although I haven't wore it lately}

We need pictures of you wearing it so WABbers can pass comment:rolleyes:
Close ups optional...damn these out of control fingers.:))

YellowFever
06 May 10,, 23:19
I have been called worse. But seriously, this concept of people coming in and being all upset because the locals are proud of their own country and telling the locals what to do is not funny. In this case it is an insult to every person that calls them self an American. They can celebrate their heritage if they desire but they are not about to come into my country tell me how and when I can celebrate being an American.

I hear ya.

And I don't even blame the idiot students that found this offensive.

I blame it on the politically correct teachers who probably taugt them to think this way.

Julie
06 May 10,, 23:41
Cool!

Can you send me a picture of yourself in that t-shirt?

Preferably wet? :))I'll think about it. ;)

bigross86
06 May 10,, 23:42
That's an interesting point. Is wearing the flag disrespectful to the flag? Is it a flag? Or is it a "representation" of the flag? What is the difference between a flag that is printed on a t-shirt, a flag that's sewed onto the t-shirt, and a flag pin worn on the t-shirt?


**** that, that is not why the school did what they did nor why the **** sucking mexicans got mad. That's bullshit and you know it.

US Flag Code articles concerning standards of respect towards the US Flag:

"# The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
# The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations. "

True, many people disregard these two, but it is the law concerning the flag. IMO, the flag is sacred. I fly an Israeli flag outside our living room window, facing the street, 24/7. It could be just my outlook as a combat soldier, but I fought under the flag and for the flag, and I'll be damned if I ever see someone disrespect that flag in front of me. I'm sure there are many other servicemen and civilians who agree with me on this point.

That being said, I still think that what the school did was stupid, and as long as those 5 kids were gonna wear those shirts, nobody had any right to tell them to take it off because it offends somebody. If somebody told me to take down my Israeli flag, I'd tell them to fcuk off and have a nice day

YellowFever
07 May 10,, 00:07
I'll think about it. ;)

Whoa....I didn't expect that response. :eek:

I expected the usual laughing in my face and a "crawl away and eviscerate a dead dog before you die!" kind of comment. :eek:

OK we're making progress here. :))

Julie
07 May 10,, 00:33
Whoa....I didn't expect that response. :eek:

I expected the usual laughing in my face and a "crawl away and eviscerate a dead dog before you die!" kind of comment. :eek:

OK we're making progress here. :))I wet the shirt, put it on and took the pic, but I'm not posting it cuz my black bra is showing through, and it looks too permiscuous. Sorry. :)

bigross86
07 May 10,, 00:48
It's ok, you don't really need to post it, Yellowbelly was just kidding. You can PM it or email it to us.

YellowFever
07 May 10,, 00:56
I wet the shirt, put it on and took the pic, but I'm not posting it cuz my black bra is showing through, and it looks too permiscuous. Sorry. :)

My good woman...who said anything about taking the pic with your bra on??? :mad:

Julie
07 May 10,, 01:02
My good woman...who said anything about taking the pic with your bra on??? :mad:Too late, I've already changed, and put the wet, cold T-shirt in the dirty hamper.

You should have been more specific. :mad:

gunnut
07 May 10,, 01:14
US Flag Code articles concerning standards of respect towards the US Flag:

"# The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
# The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations. "


I guess all those merchandise with "Made in the USA" and a flag printed on the boxes are technically violating the protocol. :biggrin:



True, many people disregard these two, but it is the law concerning the flag. IMO, the flag is sacred. I fly an Israeli flag outside our living room window, facing the street, 24/7. It could be just my outlook as a combat soldier, but I fought under the flag and for the flag, and I'll be damned if I ever see someone disrespect that flag in front of me. I'm sure there are many other servicemen and civilians who agree with me on this point.

That being said, I still think that what the school did was stupid, and as long as those 5 kids were gonna wear those shirts, nobody had any right to tell them to take it off because it offends somebody. If somebody told me to take down my Israeli flag, I'd tell them to fcuk off and have a nice day

Just tell them their request offends you and please kindly remove themselves from the immediate vicinity to avoid being an anti-semite. :))

YellowFever
07 May 10,, 01:22
Too late, I've already changed, and put the wet, cold T-shirt in the dirty hamper.

You should have been more specific. :mad:

OK, can you then post a pic of your hamper????

bigross86
07 May 10,, 01:24
It has nothing to do with being an anti-Semite. Frankly, that horse has been beaten so many times that claims of anti-Semitism are practically worthless. Claims of anti-Semitism need to be curbed back, and people (in Israel as well) need to learn the difference between being an anti-Semite and being anti-Israel. Thankfully, despite the plethora of anti-Israel attacks and the vast collection of anti-Israel propaganda, thankfully there is not much anti-Semitism. There still is some, and there probably always will be, but it's nowhere near as rampant as it used to be.

If someone asks me to take down my flag then that is anti-Israel, and that is something that I don't abide by. I am very patriotic, and have no problem showing it, as you may have noticed once or twice...

YellowFever
07 May 10,, 01:26
Ok, it's past 12 and my brain is not functioning properly but:

US Flag Code articles concerning standards of respect towards the US Flag:

"# The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
# The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations. "

Is clothing a temporary thing?

I don't think it could be categorized as a costume or an athletic uniform.

I don't see anything forbidding it's use as part of a clothing.
(my dad told me it shouldn't be when I was like 6 years old so i'll take your word this is accurate....but I don't see it) :confused:

bigross86
07 May 10,, 01:30
The code was written in 1923. From what I've gathered, a costume refers to an article of clothing. Besides, clothing is fairly temporary. Honestly, how many clothes do you have in your closet that you've had for more than 5 years? It may take a while, but clothes wear out, are lost, are given to charity, etc...

Julie
07 May 10,, 01:50
OK, can you then post a pic of your hamper????No.

calass
07 May 10,, 02:40
Pathetic incident and the student you said that it is disrespectful to wear the American flag on Cinco de Mayo should introspect whether she is an American or a Mexican and if she is a Mexican she should go live in Mexico....if you hold American citizenship be loyal to America not to Mexico or whichever country you came from.

Blue
07 May 10,, 04:00
The "United" States of America before long will have to be called The "Divided" States of America. :mad:

We tried that once and we where dragged back in kicking and screaming. Remember;)

Blue
07 May 10,, 04:22
Ok, it's past 12 and my brain is not functioning properly but:

US Flag Code articles concerning standards of respect towards the US Flag:

"# The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
# The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations. "

Is clothing a temporary thing?

I don't think it could be categorized as a costume or an athletic uniform.

I don't see anything forbidding it's use as part of a clothing.
(my dad told me it shouldn't be when I was like 6 years old so i'll take your word this is accurate....but I don't see it) :confused:

Allow me to shed some light on these regs as I used to enforce them regularly.

A flag is officially what you see flying on a flag pole. This is intended to be displayed only as a flag and only in a few particular ways. It is NOT to be used as a cape, or made into some other garment.

Uniform patches can be worm and also have regs on where they should be displayed on a uniform.

Clothing that resembles a flag or screen prints that resemble a flag are not technically flags. They are originally intended as clothing, not to be flown from a pole, therefore, they are ALL legal and proper as "representations" of our flag, not "actual" flags.

Gun Grape
07 May 10,, 05:19
It's a shame, too many people have no respect for the flag of their country. A few weeks ago on Independence Day I saw a girl wearing nothing but an Israeli flag as a very short dress. It pissed me off, sheer and total disrespect for the flag, a couple other people I was with saw it as artistic, patriotic, or (and this one pissed me off the most) sexy, since she'll be dancing and sweating in a mostly white flag.

Rant mode off, I still think there are too many people without respect for the flag.

I agree. And so do the laws regarding the displaying of the US Flag. We just seem to ignore them, call it a sign of "Patriotism" to disrespect the flag and get offended when people keep us from doing it.

That's an interesting point. Is wearing the flag disrespectful to the flag? Is it a flag? Or is it a "representation" of the flag? What is the difference between a flag that is printed on a t-shirt, a flag that's sewed onto the t-shirt, and a flag pin worn on the t-shirt?
None by US Code it is still considered a flag.

If the students wanted to show respect for their country and their flag, the proper was is to wear a lapel pin.


United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag
3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

The words "flag, standard, colors, or ensign", as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.



UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 36 CHAPTER 10

176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.


* (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

YellowFever
07 May 10,, 05:26
Thankyou, you fine military professionals, you! :))

One question though:

Clothing that resembles a flag or screen prints that resemble a flag are not technically flags. They are originally intended as clothing, not to be flown from a pole, therefore, they are ALL legal and proper as "representations" of our flag, not "actual" flags.


But doesn't that mean you can indeed wear a t-shirt with a picture of a flag since they are no longer a flag and only a "representation" of a flag?

Gun Grape
07 May 10,, 05:27
Clothing that resembles a flag or screen prints that resemble a flag are not technically flags. They are originally intended as clothing, not to be flown from a pole, therefore, they are ALL legal and proper as "representations" of our flag, not "actual" flags.


Yes they are. Representations are considered flags by law. Posted above.

3 yrs as a member of a Joint Forces and MarDet Color guard. This stuff got hammered home.

Julie
07 May 10,, 05:39
Yes they are. Representations are considered flags by law. Posted above.

3 yrs as a member of a Joint Forces and MarDet Color guard. This stuff got hammered home.Then how are they allowed to be printed on clothing and sold if it is illegal to be worn? :confused:

Julie
07 May 10,, 05:40
We tried that once and we where dragged back in kicking and screaming. Remember;)Oh yeah *slaps my head* ... can't believe I forgot about that minute event in history. :redface:

Gun Grape
07 May 10,, 05:47
Then how are they allowed to be printed on clothing and sold if it is illegal to be worn? :confused:

Its one of those unenforced laws. It also only carries a penalty in the District of Columbia.

Blue
07 May 10,, 05:55
Yes they are. Representations are considered flags by law. Posted above.

3 yrs as a member of a Joint Forces and MarDet Color guard. This stuff got hammered home.

Only if they were originally designed as a "flag" by definition. Clothing with a print or patterns like RW&B boxing trunks or whatever, are clothing first. They are not flags, nor what would be considered a proper representation so to speak. I am fairly sure that screenprints do not constitute a representation by that code because it could not serve as a proper flag even with alteration. Besides, it was originally intended as clothing.


And to answer Julies' question. There aren't really any penalties for a citizen doing anything they want to a flag. However, bad things happen to troops when Sgt. Snipe catches two of them walking down Gruber Rd at Bragg, dragging a flag behind them while sharing a fifth of Jack and singing "freebird" at 2 in the morning. I didn't even charge them. Thier commanders took care of it better than I could have.;)

Anyway, there are other rules about displaying the flag that are broken all the time, but there is no penalty for civvies, so, what the hey?:frown:

Blue
07 May 10,, 05:57
Its one of those unenforced laws. It also only carries a penalty in the District of Columbia.

And military installations.;)

Gun Grape
07 May 10,, 06:05
Only if they were originally designed as a "flag" by definition. Clothing with a print or patterns like RW&B boxing trunks or whatever, are clothing first. They are not flags, nor what would be considered a proper representation so to speak. I am fairly sure that screenprints do not constitute a representation by that code because it could not serve as a proper flag even with alteration. Besides, it was originally intended as clothing.

Read United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag
3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag. Doesn't have to be able to serve as a proper flag. You are thinking of "Display of Flag" Title 36 rules.


United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag
3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

The words "flag, standard, colors, or ensign", as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.



Speaking of "Other rules that are broken" People that fly the flag 24/7 that don't have a floodlight to illuminate the flag during darkness and flying faded flags just make me grind my teeth.

Blue
07 May 10,, 06:35
Read United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 The Flag
3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag. Doesn't have to be able to serve as a proper flag. You are thinking of "Display of Flag" Title 36 rules. But here's the thing Gunny. A T-shirt with the stars and stripes screen printed on it is not "a flag". If that person took a t-shirt and sewed parts onto it that were parts of or a whole "actual, originally intended to be" US flag, then that will stand as no-no and I have seen it stand, but only in the military. 1st ammendment always quashes any protest.






Speaking of "Other rules that are broken" People that fly the flag 24/7 that don't have a floodlight to illuminate the flag during darkness and flying faded flags just make me grind my teeth. Me too. I have two hotels that fly the colors 24/7 and I make sure that they are Illuminated and in good cond always. I piss off other businesses in the area when I go in and complain about thiers when they let the maintenance lapse. The GMs at mine aren't too happy either because I replace them often.

kato
07 May 10,, 09:25
Ah, but the above quote doesn't limit it to flags but representations of flags.

bigross86
07 May 10,, 11:15
by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag,

It also applies to things that the average person will perceive as being representations of flags.

Bigfella
07 May 10,, 11:37
The teachers & VP should be disciplined & made to apologize.

As an exercise in consistency, I would be interested to see how people's opinions on the right of these boys to their political statement would compare to their opinions on banning the wearing of burquas.

bigross86
07 May 10,, 11:38
Like I said in the burqa thread, I don't give a crap what you wanna wear, if you think it's for religious reasons. But there are certain things, like the flag of the country that you live in, which you don't disrespect

calass
07 May 10,, 18:17
Keep this up and all chances of ANY immigration reform is dead. I don't see why the 5 students don't sue the school


FOXNews.com - Tensions High at California High School Following Flag Flap (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flap/)



More than 200 Hispanic students reportedly skipped class on Thursday and marched to school district headquarters while chanting "we want respect" and "si se puedes" -- "yes we can" -- the Morgan Hill Times reported.

"We did this to support the Latino/Hispanic community," Francine Roa, a 2005 Live Oak High School graduate, told the newspaper.

At least six Morgan Hill police vehicles traveled alongside the students, many of whom carried Mexican flags. No arrests were made related to the march, the newspaper reported.




How about showing some respect to the country where you are studying...

This is what I don't get..people come to the US to escape the poverty and disaster of their home countries so why cling to what you escaped. If you miss that so much go back.

bfng3569
07 May 10,, 18:31
Keep this up and all chances of ANY immigration reform is dead. I don't see why the 5 students don't sue the school

FOXNews.com - Tensions High at California High School Following Flag Flap (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flap/)

so two hundred mexican students skip school the next day protesting a lack of respect based on someone wearing the American flag , and they did so with a police escort?

respect my mexicanism, but screw your amercanism.

nice.

gunnut
07 May 10,, 19:16
Respect is earned, not freely given away.

Wirbelwind
07 May 10,, 19:23
Thats the rub. Too many do not see themselves as Americans, nor do they ever want to, but if you try to send them home they scream racism. What is worse is the element that believes the border does not exist and they have every right to be here. It is going to take some bloodshed before they see the error of their ways.

I tend to have to agree with this. I dont believe democratic ideals about Liberty and Freedom are enough to keep a country together. I also dont think well see bloodshed on a large scale unless we see dire economic times (which some may argue is inevitable in the States). If things do go sour, and we have to cut back on social spending, I cant say Id be surprised to see violence along ethnic lines.

Although ethnic violence isn't a major problem in our country, I cant help but look at history and see the examples of Serbia, USSR, Greece, Iraq etc. Ethnicity of any type is a potential fault line in societies. As much as we try to bend over backwards and appease all different viewpoints, Im skeptical about this melting pot holding together indefinitely.

highsea
07 May 10,, 19:23
Respect is earned, not freely given away.Nah, we owe them...

antimony
07 May 10,, 22:15
I tend to have to agree with this. I dont believe democratic ideals about Liberty and Freedom are enough to keep a country together
....
Ethnicity of any type is a potential fault line in societies. As much as we try to bend over backwards and appease all different viewpoints, Im skeptical about this melting pot holding together indefinitely.

I think this line of reasoning strange, to say the least. Going by this logic, any sort of division between people may give rise to a fault line be they be religious (different religions as well as different schools within a single religion), class, ethicity, caste, creed, tribe, clan and of course race. There are very few soceities which are relatively homogeneous in all of these parameters. Off the top of my head I really cannot think of one (maybe NK, I don't know). I believe most open societies with strong economic systems would survive with lots of diveristy once it is made clear that no political quarter would be given for ethnic or any other kind o diversity.

Across the world, in many cases if you look below the cause of ethnic unrest, economic causes pop up. Which is why many of the staunchly divisionary movements have economic policies resembling extreme-left principles of community ownership and government control.

bfng3569
08 May 10,, 00:58
Respect is earned, not freely given away.

not in this country, at least if you arent white.

and it pains me to say that.

imagine if a bunch of white students 'took the day off' form school to protest illegal immigration, and illegal immigrants corwding the schools and sucking the resources dry, how much backlash would they get? how many accusations of racism would be hurled at them? how many 'minority' groups would be up in arms protesting it?

and how much of america would be guilted into sympathizing with them?

bfng3569
08 May 10,, 01:07
I think this line of reasoning strange, to say the least. Going by this logic, any sort of division between people may give rise to a fault line be they be religious (different religions as well as different schools within a single religion), class, ethicity, caste, creed, tribe, clan and of course race. There are very few soceities which are relatively homogeneous in all of these parameters. Off the top of my head I really cannot think of one (maybe NK, I don't know). I believe most open societies with strong economic systems would survive with lots of diveristy once it is made clear that no political quarter would be given for ethnic or any other kind o diversity.

Across the world, in many cases if you look below the cause of ethnic unrest, economic causes pop up. Which is why many of the staunchly divisionary movements have economic policies resembling extreme-left principles of community ownership and government control.

maybe thats what you dont get about being an american, as opposed to being in america.

immigrants have tradionaly come to this country to be americans first, and irish or italian (just to name a few second) witch is why St Paddies day and other Italian holidays are never a problem. (as an example)

hell, a mexiacan holiday (cinco de mayo, and yes, i know i spelled that probably horribly wrong) has never been a problem for americans, even white americans, but apparently its a problem for hispanics?

can you expalain that? why is it most every major and minor ethinc group has there own holidays, celebrated by everyone, with no issues.

but a mexican holiday, and god forbid some americans where american colors, and its an issue?

fine, then i kill the holiday then if mexicans have a 'My way or the highway' attitude about it.

if any enthinicity has a problem with the american flag on 'their' holiday, then F* them. they can find someplace that puts their holiday first.

antimony
08 May 10,, 03:10
maybe thats what you dont get about being an american, as opposed to being in america.

immigrants have tradionaly come to this country to be americans first, and irish or italian (just to name a few second) witch is why St Paddies day and other Italian holidays are never a problem. (as an example)


Please go and read my post again and show me exactly where I state otherwise. The second part of your statement is exactly what I am saying.

I fully support the view that any ABC-American, when they come here, are Americans first and ABC later.



hell, a mexiacan holiday (cinco de mayo, and yes, i know i spelled that probably horribly wrong) has never been a problem for americans, even white americans, but apparently its a problem for hispanics?

can you expalain that? why is it most every major and minor ethinc group has there own holidays, celebrated by everyone, with no issues.


Again, exactly what I am saying. Ethnic customs, functions and events do not in any way stand in the way of pride in American nationalism.

This is what the other poster said


Ethnicity of any type is a potential fault line in societies

My beef with the other post was the assertion that ethnic diversity necessarily creates faultlines in society. You do not see a problem when the Irish or French or Chinese or Indians celebrate whatever they celebrate.

YellowFever
08 May 10,, 03:28
My beef with the other post was the assertion that ethnic diversity necessarily creates faultlines in society. You do not see a problem when the Irish or French or Chinese or Indians celebrate whatever they celebrate.


But the Irish, French, Chinese or Indians living in America also do not see themselves as victims.

My opinion, but ethinic diversity usually do not work because some groups are bound to see themselves as victims.

Most ethnic groups, when they come to America , sees themselves starting a new life.

Sad to say, in my opinion, most people coming from south see it as a job opportunity and make no effort to adopt.

Gun Grape
08 May 10,, 04:04
But the Irish, French, Chinese or Indians living in America also do not see themselves as victims.

Not now in the 21st century. Flash back 100 years and you will see the same "Problems" as some now have with Hispanics.



Sad to say, in my opinion, most people coming from south see it as a job opportunity and make no effort to adopt.

The ones that do that are the ones with a plan to leave in a few years. Make enough money to improve their familys life in Mexico then return. We have civilian contractors doing construction work in Iraq doing the same thing.

Gun Grape
08 May 10,, 04:16
The teachers & VP should be disciplined & made to apologize.

As an exercise in consistency, I would be interested to see how people's opinions on the right of these boys to their political statement would compare to their opinions on banning the wearing of burquas.

Here is the problem I see in the situation. And I don't think they have anything to apologize for.

Principal is in a no win situation regardless of what he does.

Knowing that on CDM day wearing an American flag shirt is going to piss off one or more of the local thug kids just looking for a reason to fight. There are 2 options.

#1 let the 2 kids do it, because its an expression of pride in their country.
(Not the reason I think they wore them)

Most likely outcome. They get their ass beat. Then parents sue the school because the Principle "Should have known something like this would happen and didn't protect my kid."

End result, at least 2 hurt minors, Maybe more.Probably property damage to school and local area. Hospital bills and lawsuits.

Option #2 Tell the kids to take the damn shirts off before school starts. Then send them home if they refuse. SO what happened? Right wing media raged about Political Correctness and violating the Kids rights in showing respect for their country.

No one got hurt, No property was damaged.

If I'm in charge thats the decision I would have made also. And I'm not apologizing for it to the kids,their parents or Rush Limbaugh.

The kids can wear their flag shirts, which violate US Code to begin with, on any other day of the week.

Blue
08 May 10,, 04:28
Not now in the 21st century. Flash back 100 years and you will see the same "Problems" as some now have with Hispanics. A hundred years ago there were NO immigration laws as they exist today. Everyone came and there where less people who came here through Ellis island from the 1892 to 1954 than there are illegal immigrants in this country today. That's NOT including those that recieved amnesty in the 1980s!




The ones that do that are the ones with a plan to leave in a few years. Make enough money to improve their familys life in Mexico then return. We have civilian contractors doing construction work in Iraq doing the same thing. Yep. And just like those illegals, the US is footing the bill for them too. Iraq ain't payin' those salaries buddy.

YellowFever
08 May 10,, 04:29
Not now in the 21st century. Flash back 100 years and you will see the same "Problems" as some now have with Hispanics.


I undertsand that, Gunny, but 100 years ago we did not have all the "social programs" we do now that keeps them in that state of mind. Back then, they had no choice but to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and do whatever it took to pull themselves up from poverty.

Now all they do is complain and play the victimhood even more and their "social programs" expand.



The ones that do that are the ones with a plan to leave in a few years. Make enough money to improve their familys life in Mexico then return. We have civilian contractors doing construction work in Iraq doing the same thing.


Maybe that's the main problems in this sad affair. Others mostly came with families and they had to work hard. If they don't make it, their families suffered.

The ones that come illegally usually travels alone and still have their families down south and therefore do not think of America as their home. Just a place to make a quick buck.

Why should they adopt when they know they're going back home?

Who cares what I do to this place when my real home is down south?

Wirbelwind
08 May 10,, 05:54
My beef with the other post was the assertion that ethnic diversity necessarily creates faultlines in society. You do not see a problem when the Irish or French or Chinese or Indians celebrate whatever they celebrate.

That's not what I said. How can you quote me one line and directly misinterpret the next? I said ethnic diversity of any kind has the potential to be a fault line in any society. So let me ask you, what part of this is untrue?

In fact, name a society that is multicultural and doesn't have some sort of conflict. I can name regions in every part of the Earth where ethnic violence has broken out.

Wirbelwind
08 May 10,, 05:59
A hundred years ago there were NO immigration laws as they exist today. Everyone came and there where less people who came here through Ellis island from the 1892 to 1954 than there are illegal immigrants in this country today. That's NOT including those that recieved amnesty in the 1980s!

Well at least until 1924. The immigration law of 1924 severely restricted immigration from everywhere except northern Europe. From 1924 to 1965 we put a severe cap on immigration. I'd imagine it was to let the melting pot work a bit and let the mass of peoples who had landed already get accustomed.

antimony
08 May 10,, 09:40
The ones that come illegally usually travels alone and still have their families down south and therefore do not think of America as their home. Just a place to make a quick buck.

Why should they adopt when they know they're going back home?

Who cares what I do to this place when my real home is down south?

Here is one difference between the illegals and the legals.

Assume the legal immigrant hates America's guts and would leave as soon as he makes a quick buck. Even then, since he is legally employed, his earnings are taxed and he has to pay into Medicare and Social Security, something that he will never take out. He will also try to stay out of trouble as much as possible, because any legal mess would impact negatively the work status. And he will obviously work as hard as possible, else he wouold not be able to make that quick buck in the first place.

So with each legal immigrant, you potentially have a hard working individual who stays out of trouble and contributes positively top society, regardless of his affinity with his adopted country.

antimony
08 May 10,, 09:49
That's not what I said. How can you quote me one line and directly misinterpret the next? I said ethnic diversity of any kind has the potential to be a fault line in any society. So let me ask you, what part of this is untrue?

In fact, name a society that is multicultural and doesn't have some sort of conflict. I can name regions in every part of the Earth where ethnic violence has broken out.

Sure you can, but from what I have seen, many of these conflicts stem from reasons closer to economics than to ethnic and social differences. After the intial discontent about the lack of economic resouces, or the desire to corner economic assets, the conflict gets a more social color (ethnicitiy, tribal, religion and so on).

Bigfella
08 May 10,, 10:57
In fact, name a society that is multicultural and doesn't have some sort of conflict. I can name regions in every part of the Earth where ethnic violence has broken out.

I've got a better idea. First, name a society that doesn't have conflict. Second, name some societies that aren't multicultural. That is, a society without different ethnicities, nationalities or language groups (traditionally the same thing). I'll be curious to see if you can get over double figures without resorting to micro-states.

Humans have a talent for creating conflict & there will always be faultlines based on some difference or another.

I can name regions all over the world where political violence has broken out. I can name regions in every part of the world where religious violence has broken out.

Virtually all societies have conflict. Virtually all societies have divisions. The question that attaches to both our observations is 'so what'.

Mihais
08 May 10,, 12:13
Since is questions time,how about naming societies that had 2 or more ethnic(or whatever else criteria) groups in roughly the same proportion that lasted more than a couple of generations.Because it's irrelevant asking whether societies are multicultural or not.All are.But the numbers matter.
And whether the conflict is economic or else, it's always about economy.Prosperous people don't fight,and that's was all about the melting pot in America for a very long time.Until the whole world will be a land of milk and honey with infinite resources,you'll see conflicts.

Roosveltrepub
08 May 10,, 13:43
Since is questions time,how about naming societies that had 2 or more ethnic(or whatever else criteria) groups in roughly the same proportion that lasted more than a couple of generations.Because it's irrelevant whether societies are multicultural or not.All are.But the numbers matter.
And whether the conflict is economic or else, it's always about economy.Prosperous people don't fight,and that's was all about the melting pot in America for a very long time.Until the whole world will be a land of milk and honey with infinite resources,you'll see conflicts.

The United States which unlike other countries has no shared ethnic background, People are acting like when immigrants arrived from Europe they stopped being German and French and started being Europeans with a shared culture without massive internal conflicts. Conflicts which in fact were part of the driving forces to come here. The USA is a nation founded on shared principles not ethnicity.
Also all the Nativist movements over the last 200 years hve cried we are loosing our identity we won't be America etc etc. The latestest is no different. It's been said here the immigration quotos fromk 1924 to 1965 were meant to allow the melting pot to work. That's bs they were meant to keep America white and northern European. Those southern and Eastern Europeans were a threat to our natinal identity:confused: Too many Italians were comong. They sure didnt add anything to our culture did they? The melting pot is really a stew pot and everything comong in has strengthened it in the long run.
Sure illegal immigration is wrong and needs to be curbed but the idea the millions here don't want to be americans is bs. and just the same nativist bs arguments made for the last 200 years against whichever group was coming in the largest numbers. At the turn of the 19th century there were more immigrants here than native born in the cities. Who'd that turn out?

Mihais
08 May 10,, 14:39
Roosveltrepub,
Wasn't really talking about America in the previous post,but I dare pick the glove.

Principles as well as a myriad of economic opportunities,huge resources of all kinds etc... and a roughly similar culture.I'm not so sure the nativist arguments are BS from start to finish.The Germans,British,Norwegians and French resemble each other more than they resemble Italians,Portuguese and Greeks.And all these Europeans resemble each other more than they resemble S-Americans,Africans or Asians.So in part the limitations make sense.If the said non-European Americans have a problem with that,they're free to compare the oppression and poverty in America with the freedoms and wealth in their native lands.
Personally I have no problem with ''America white and northern European''.For me a European America can be a friend and ally(and for the most part is,although the intricacies are not the topic).I have big doubts if a World America can be that. And since you talked extensively about ''that'' America as a more ''oppresive'' society,how about talking about the drawbacks of the current one.To compare and balance the pluses and minuses of both.

Getting back to the resources(or lack of them)100-150 years ago that was not a problem.But from what many Americans here and elsewhere say,the current wave of immigrants(mainly Mexicans) are a burden.Some Americans support the opposite.The best thing would be to listen to the majority and act accordingly.Democracy at best and just MHO.

p.s BF,you can be proud of yourself.See,I learned to write ''some'',''many'' and other relativistic terms:biggrin:

bfng3569
08 May 10,, 17:37
Please go and read my post again and show me exactly where I state otherwise. The second part of your statement is exactly what I am saying.

I fully support the view that any ABC-American, when they come here, are Americans first and ABC later.



Again, exactly what I am saying. Ethnic customs, functions and events do not in any way stand in the way of pride in American nationalism.

This is what the other poster said



My beef with the other post was the assertion that ethnic diversity necessarily creates faultlines in society. You do not see a problem when the Irish or French or Chinese or Indians celebrate whatever they celebrate.

my apologies if i took your post the wrong way.

bfng3569
08 May 10,, 17:44
Here is the problem I see in the situation. And I don't think they have anything to apologize for.

Principal is in a no win situation regardless of what he does.

Knowing that on CDM day wearing an American flag shirt is going to piss off one or more of the local thug kids just looking for a reason to fight. There are 2 options.

#1 let the 2 kids do it, because its an expression of pride in their country.
(Not the reason I think they wore them)

Most likely outcome. They get their ass beat. Then parents sue the school because the Principle "Should have known something like this would happen and didn't protect my kid."

End result, at least 2 hurt minors, Maybe more.Probably property damage to school and local area. Hospital bills and lawsuits.

Option #2 Tell the kids to take the damn shirts off before school starts. Then send them home if they refuse. SO what happened? Right wing media raged about Political Correctness and violating the Kids rights in showing respect for their country.

No one got hurt, No property was damaged.

If I'm in charge thats the decision I would have made also. And I'm not apologizing for it to the kids,their parents or Rush Limbaugh.

The kids can wear their flag shirts, which violate US Code to begin with, on any other day of the week.

so the principal chose option two and gave in to the 'thug' kids in an attempt to appease them?

he who yells (or swings his fist hardest) wins?

Wirbelwind
08 May 10,, 17:53
The United States which unlike other countries has no shared ethnic background, People are acting like when immigrants arrived from Europe they stopped being German and French and started being Europeans with a shared culture without massive internal conflicts. Conflicts which in fact were part of the driving forces to come here. The USA is a nation founded on shared principles not ethnicity.



Yes, but I'd argue that the national lines in America broke down after a couple generations. All of the Italians, Irish, Greeks etc were greeted with bits of skepticism at one point or another but within a few generations no one really cared if you had a last name like O'reilly or talked with an Eastern European accent. Most people from Europe shared a lot with each other even if they also disagreed a lot.

I know this might be apples and oranges, but can you say the same thing about hispanics or non European immigrants? Think about it, why would a largely Hispanic population care whether American kids wore an American flag on Cinco de mayo? Do Irish get pissed if people wear American flags on St.Patty's day? My fear is that we are fostering an insurgent nation within the U.S because our leaders are paralyzed with fear to demand that people assimilate. How long will the SW remain America when not a lick of English is spoken, there is no celebration of American heroes or holidays, and instead of enforcing our Laws we pander to the invaders in order to win their votes.

Roosevelt said:
"The USA is a nation founded on shared principles not ethnicity."

Yah, says you. The founders of this country had no intention of sharing this country with anyone but white Europeans. I think were really going to see how true this above statement is. Will people willingly place allegiance to the state above ties to the blood? I dont think history supports this supposition very well, and I cant say I'm anything but skeptical.

antimony
08 May 10,, 18:34
I know this might be apples and oranges, but can you say the same thing about hispanics or non European immigrants? Think about it, why would a largely Hispanic population care whether American kids wore an American flag on Cinco de mayo? Do Irish get pissed if people wear American flags on St.Patty's day? My fear is that we are fostering an insurgent nation within the U.S because our leaders are paralyzed with fear to demand that people assimilate. How long will the SW remain America when not a lick of English is spoken, there is no celebration of American heroes or holidays, and instead of enforcing our Laws we pander to the invaders in order to win their votes.

Roosevelt said:
"The USA is a nation founded on shared principles not ethnicity."

Yah, says you. The founders of this country had no intention of sharing this country with anyone but white Europeans.

Yeah right...

If that is what the founding fathers wanted they did not express themselves too well, did they now?

I am assuming the Far East and South East Asians as well as Indians (South Asians) would be part of the "non european immigrants. How much trouble does the American society get from these ethnic groups?

Hell, you want to see assimilated non-europeans in North American society, you can see tonnes on this board. Gunnut(Taiwan) and Yellowfever (Korean, I think) would tear a new one on anyone who question their patriotism. And of course, there is the good Colonel Yu, though that is for Canada rather than for the US.

antimony
08 May 10,, 18:35
my apologies if i took your post the wrong way.

Not a problem, good sir

That is what we are here for, to have a good debate:)

Gun Grape
08 May 10,, 18:39
so the principal chose option two and gave in to the 'thug' kids in an attempt to appease them?

he who yells (or swings his fist hardest) wins?

The Principal chose the option that kept children and property from being damaged. Thats his job.

Mihais
08 May 10,, 18:54
If that is what the founding fathers wanted they did not express themselves too well, did they now?

I am assuming the Far East and South East Asians as well as Indians (South Asians) would be part of the "non european immigrants. How much trouble does the American society get from these ethnic groups?

Hell, you want to see assimilated non-europeans in North American society, you can see tonnes on this board. Gunnut(Taiwan) and Yellowfever (Korean, I think) would tear a new one on anyone who question their patriotism. And of course, there is the good Colonel Yu, though that is for Canada rather than for the US.

Incidentally you named some individuals I respect for the brains behind the keyboard.Now try an exercise of imagination.Move 100 millions Indians and another 100 millions Chinese in America.In order not to be racist bring another 100 millions Africans and Mid Easterners.All of them in an instant.Now tell me please how the resulting society can work.

Stan187
08 May 10,, 19:00
That's not what I said. How can you quote me one line and directly misinterpret the next? I said ethnic diversity of any kind has the potential to be a fault line in any society. So let me ask you, what part of this is untrue?

In fact, name a society that is multicultural and doesn't have some sort of conflict. I can name regions in every part of the Earth where ethnic violence has broken out.

Name a society that doesn't have some sort of conflict, period?

From the empirical studies I've seen, really multicultural societies are not ones most predisposed to conflict, its ones where the minority is 10% or less, because then they are less of a concern to work to accommodate.

antimony
08 May 10,, 19:19
Incidentally you named some individuals I respect for the brains behind the keyboard.Now try an exercise of imagination.Move 100 millions Indians and another 100 millions Chinese in America.In order not to be racist bring another 100 millions Africans and Mid Easterners.All of them in an instant.Now tell me please how the resulting society can work.

Move so many people? With their consent or without? Is that how things work in real life?

Also, in full accordance with existing immigration laws for both skilled and unskilled people as well as other categories such as star athletes and scientists? What makes you think you will get so many people willing to move? Heck, even the current work visa holders are moving back to their home countries with increased job opportunities there.

Wirbelwind
08 May 10,, 19:31
Yeah right...

If that is what the founding fathers wanted they did not express themselves too well, did they now?

I am assuming the Far East and South East Asians as well as Indians (South Asians) would be part of the "non european immigrants. How much trouble does the American society get from these ethnic groups?

Hell, you want to see assimilated non-europeans in North American society, you can see tonnes on this board. Gunnut(Taiwan) and Yellowfever (Korean, I think) would tear a new one on anyone who question their patriotism. And of course, there is the good Colonel Yu, though that is for Canada rather than for the US.

Again, you've taken everything I said and completely distorted it. In lack of a logical response you've presented a bunch of strawmen and beat on your chest.

First, The framers of this country were very clear that America was for white Europeans only. If you really need to make my case let me know. The reason there was no controversial race based immigration laws was probably due to the fact that mass non-white immigration wasn't an issue until after 1965.

As far as my "allegiance to blood over country" comment, I understand that is controversial, but in the face of historical precedent it is a well founded statement. Would Kosovo break away from Serbia if they were ethnically homogeneous? What about India/Pakistan, Tibet/China, Czechoslovakia, Quebec/Canada, Iraq, and and endless others? This is a myriad of examples, but many of these show how "nations" (in the true sense of the word) would rather break off(or have a desire to) into weaker states in order to rule themselves.

I do not doubt that many people of all backgrounds love this country and contribute to it. Im saying that when you import millions of people from a radically different culture, many of whom hold a historical resentment against the "gringo's", and bend over backward to appease them and not demand they assimilate or even obey our Laws you are asking for trouble of the worst kind.

Gun Grape
08 May 10,, 19:33
Here is one difference between the illegals and the legals.

Assume the legal immigrant hates America's guts and would leave as soon as he makes a quick buck. Even then, since he is legally employed, his earnings are taxed and he has to pay into Medicare and Social Security, something that he will never take out. He will also try to stay out of trouble as much as possible, because any legal mess would impact negatively the work status. And he will obviously work as hard as possible, else he wouold not be able to make that quick buck in the first place.

So with each legal immigrant, you potentially have a hard working individual who stays out of trouble and contributes positively top society, regardless of his affinity with his adopted country.
I would say the same with illegals.

Unless you are only looking at day laborers hired by individuals, an illegal will have fake documents and be on the company pay role. Taxes will be deducted by the employer. So an illegal is paying taxes. Like everyone else they also pay sales tax and help pay property tax just like any renter.

And just like anyone, they are going to try to stay out of trouble. Cause they know, regardless of the outcome of the original reason for getting arrested, they face deportation.

antimony
08 May 10,, 19:41
As far as my "allegiance to blood over country" comment, I understand that is controversial, but in the face of historical precedent it is a well founded statement. Would Kosovo break away from Serbia if they were ethnically homogeneous? What about India/Pakistan, Tibet/China, Czechoslovakia, Quebec/Canada, Iraq, and and endless others? This is a myriad of examples, but many of these show how "nations" (in the true sense of the word) would rather break off(or have a desire to) into weaker states in order to rule themselves.

I do not doubt that many people of all backgrounds love this country and contribute to it. Im saying that when you import millions of people from a radically different culture, many of whom hold a historical resentment against the "gringo's", and bend over backward to appease them and not demand they assimilate or even obey our Laws you are asking for trouble of the worst kind.

We are talking of 2 different things here then. Can you put together several groups of people with deep seated resentments (religious, ethnic or whatever) and expect it to work? Most probably not, though I notice that the French, German and British talk to each other now.

On the other hand can you take different groups of people who have had no historical connection with each other, plop them in a totally new place and expect them to work things out? Well, the US is a definite example that says a resounding yes, except for some groups such as blacks and mexicans who may hold a resentment for historical reasons

antimony
08 May 10,, 19:42
I would say the same with illegals.

Unless you are only looking at day laborers hired by individuals, an illegal will have fake documents and be on the company pay role. Taxes will be deducted by the employer. So an illegal is paying taxes. Like everyone else they also pay sales tax and help pay property tax just like any renter.

And just like anyone, they are going to try to stay out of trouble. Cause they know, regardless of the outcome of the original reason for getting arrested, they face deportation.

You are right, I did not consider it from the angle of faked work identity. in that case, I agree that they pay their taxes and all too.

Roosveltrepub
08 May 10,, 19:51
Roosveltrepub,
Wasn't really talking about America in the previous post,but I dare pick the glove.

Principles as well as a myriad of economic opportunities,huge resources of all kinds etc... and a roughly similar culture.I'm not so sure the nativist arguments are BS from start to finish.The Germans,British,Norwegians and French resemble each other more than they resemble Italians,Portuguese and Greeks.And all these Europeans resemble each other more than they resemble S-Americans,Africans or Asians.So in part the limitations make sense.If the said non-European Americans have a problem with that,they're free to compare the oppression and poverty in America with the freedoms and wealth in their native lands.
Personally I have no problem with ''America white and northern European''.For me a European America can be a friend and ally(and for the most part is,although the intricacies are not the topic).I have big doubts if a World America can be that. And since you talked extensively about ''that'' America as a more ''oppresive'' society,how about talking about the drawbacks of the current one.To compare and balance the pluses and minuses of both.

Getting back to the resources(or lack of them)100-150 years ago that was not a problem.But from what many Americans here and elsewhere say,the current wave of immigrants(mainly Mexicans) are a burden.Some Americans support the opposite.The best thing would be to listen to the majority and act accordingly.Democracy at best and just MHO.

p.s BF,you can be proud of yourself.See,I learned to write ''some'',''many'' and other relativistic terms:biggrin:
Well, we got rid of our version of apartheid here about the same time as the quotas ending. A Frenchman in 1900 probably would of hit you for saying he was like a german and if you told an Irishman he was like an Englishman your family would of reported you missing:biggrin: Nativists have always claimed the current wave is a burden and a strain. IMO we need to increase legal immigration drastically, secure the border and either allow those here to apply and give an address of record so, if denied they can be deported or risk deportation for not applying. Immigration is the answer to some of our long term issues. A stagnant population creates problems just look to Europe. Our advantage over most places is immigrants here do assimilate within a generation or two the children and grand children of Mexicans won't be different.

Roosveltrepub
08 May 10,, 19:55
Again, you've taken everything I said and completely distorted it. In lack of a logical response you've presented a bunch of strawmen and beat on your chest.

First, The framers of this country were very clear that America was for white Europeans only. If you really need to make my case let me know. The reason there was no controversial race based immigration laws was probably due to the fact that mass non-white immigration wasn't an issue until after 1965.

As far as my "allegiance to blood over country" comment, I understand that is controversial, but in the face of historical precedent it is a well founded statement. Would Kosovo break away from Serbia if they were ethnically homogeneous? What about India/Pakistan, Tibet/China, Czechoslovakia, Quebec/Canada, Iraq, and and endless others? This is a myriad of examples, but many of these show how "nations" (in the true sense of the word) would rather break off(or have a desire to) into weaker states in order to rule themselves.

I do not doubt that many people of all backgrounds love this country and contribute to it. Im saying that when you import millions of people from a radically different culture, many of whom hold a historical resentment against the "gringo's", and bend over backward to appease them and not demand they assimilate or even obey our Laws you are asking for trouble of the worst kind.

Race based immigration has always been a huge issue. From irish need not apply to CA closing itself from the yellow menace of China to all the sterotypes the Italians faced the first half of the 20th century. Race or culture prejudice has always had plenty of narrow minded adherents. The only people to ever try to break up the nation were white Northern Europeans.

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 03:00
.... Immigration is the answer to some of our long term issues. A stagnant population creates problems just look to Europe. Our advantage over most places is immigrants here do assimilate within a generation or two the children and grand children of Mexicans won't be different.

Were going a bit off topic, but just to clarify, Europe isn't suffering from a stagnant population, its suffering from a dying population and an aging population. When the number of workers is surpassed by the welfare population then you have serious problems. This is the result of a lifestyle that places selfish consumption above your duty to procreate and maintain your population.

I'm assuming when you mention that immigration solves issues, your talking about economic issues. Immigration doesn't necessarily solve any economic problems, in fact it can create a great number of problems. A large population increase must be accompanied by an increase in technology or capital/investment or else you just lower GDP per capita. This problem can compound greatly when you throw largely uneducated labor into the mix.

Going back to my conversation with antimony, he said:
"on the other hand can you take different groups of people who have had no historical connection with each other, plop them in a totally new place and expect them to work things out? Well, the US is a definite example that says a resounding yes,"

Sure, Id agree that people can see other people for human beings regardless of whatever differences they might have. However, I'd also argue that large bodies of diverse people, when mixed together, are closer to oil and water in that they would rather separate and rule themselves. A country does itself no favor by allowing passage of large masses of people who in no way reflect the pedigree of their population. Looking to the past, most Europeans were of a similar enough background that hostilities were often dropped within a generation or two and this allowed convergence of populations. I predict that in America, between blacks and whites, that although we've learned to live side by side and treat each other like human beings, well never be one people.

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 03:06
From the empirical studies I've seen, really multicultural societies are not ones most predisposed to conflict, its ones where the minority is 10% or less, because then they are less of a concern to work to accommodate.

Stan I mean no disrespect sir, but that line of arguing makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you saying that if a society doesn't have a minority "issue" to struggle with that it is more predisposed to conflict because t hasn't learned to tolerate other people? That's about as clear as mud. I'd love to see what parameters they use in these studies. Probably incorporating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into their numbers.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 03:16
We are talking of 2 different things here then. Can you put together several groups of people with deep seated resentments (religious, ethnic or whatever) and expect it to work? Most probably not, though I notice that the French, German and British talk to each other now.

On the other hand can you take different groups of people who have had no historical connection with each other, plop them in a totally new place and expect them to work things out? Well, the US is a definite example that says a resounding yes, except for some groups such as blacks and mexicans who may hold a resentment for historical reasons


To the highlighted bit, it is called Australia.

Roughly half all 'white' Australians have some Irish ancestry. At the time of Federation (1900) it was higher. The historical emnity between England & the Catholic Irish is well known. Further, some of those Irish in Australia were Ulstermen. Again, the attitudes of Ulstermen & Irish Catholics to each other are well known. These divisions have certainly expressed themselves in political & religious divisions, but only tiny amounts of violence. Much like the Americans here who think everyone who passed through Ellis Island came out the other side waving an American flag & talking English, few Australians even know that such issues once existed.

Other ethnic groups in conflict who have found a home in Australia (virtually all in the past 60 years)

* Germans & the rest of Europe (especially Poles, Dutch, Italians, Yugoslavs & Greeks).
* Greeks & Turks
* Serbs & Croats & Bosnians & Albanians (my mother was once teaching an English class where a Bosnian Muslim walked, looked horrified & walked out. Turned out someone sitting in the class had eihter killed or tortured someone in her family).
* Jews & whoever is persecuting them/ fighting with them at the moment (we cover pretty much everybody).
* Lebanese Christians & Muslims.
* Turks & Armenians.
* Tamils & Sinhalese.
* Vietnamese & Chinese.

There are plenty more, but you get the idea. The conflict caused by all this has been minimal. I can think of a half dozen bombings from the 60s to the 80s that killed under 10 people. Apart from that occasional small protests. In fact, one to one members of these conflict groups tend to get along OK. If anything the divisions have been less serious & entrenched than the earlier Irish/English thing.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 03:19
Here is the problem I see in the situation. And I don't think they have anything to apologize for.

Principal is in a no win situation regardless of what he does.

Knowing that on CDM day wearing an American flag shirt is going to piss off one or more of the local thug kids just looking for a reason to fight. There are 2 options.

#1 let the 2 kids do it, because its an expression of pride in their country.
(Not the reason I think they wore them)

Most likely outcome. They get their ass beat. Then parents sue the school because the Principle "Should have known something like this would happen and didn't protect my kid."

End result, at least 2 hurt minors, Maybe more.Probably property damage to school and local area. Hospital bills and lawsuits.

Option #2 Tell the kids to take the damn shirts off before school starts. Then send them home if they refuse. SO what happened? Right wing media raged about Political Correctness and violating the Kids rights in showing respect for their country.

No one got hurt, No property was damaged.

If I'm in charge thats the decision I would have made also. And I'm not apologizing for it to the kids,their parents or Rush Limbaugh.

The kids can wear their flag shirts, which violate US Code to begin with, on any other day of the week.


Point taken, but I'd still apologize. Then I'd do some serious work on getting everyone to grow the FU (and I mean everyone).

antimony
09 May 10,, 04:21
Going back to my conversation with antimony, he said:
"on the other hand can you take different groups of people who have had no historical connection with each other, plop them in a totally new place and expect them to work things out? Well, the US is a definite example that says a resounding yes,"

Sure, Id agree that people can see other people for human beings regardless of whatever differences they might have. However, I'd also argue that large bodies of diverse people, when mixed together, are closer to oil and water in that they would rather separate and rule themselves. A country does itself no favor by allowing passage of large masses of people who in no way reflect the pedigree of their population. Looking to the past, most Europeans were of a similar enough background that hostilities were often dropped within a generation or two and this allowed convergence of populations. I predict that in America, between blacks and whites, that although we've learned to live side by side and treat each other like human beings, well never be one people.

One thing that I have observed in India, US and elsewhere is that as long as any social group is not promised or denied any special benefits by virtue of belonging in that group, they get along pretty well. Some of our best corporations are good examples of multicultural societies, as their primary differentiating factor is merit and achievement. I have seen this most commonly in investment banking and hi-tech companies.

In Microsoft, for e.g., I have seem more ethnic diversity than I have seen anywhere else, and people of one group get along or not with another based not on their ethnic background but based on their knowledge, skills or capabilities. The resounding message is that one you go beyond any social characteristic and judge people by their individual traits, you can have successful multicultural societies.

And that, I believe, is also at the core of current conservative philosophy, where you look at a person and not at his or her social background.

By the way, there is one catchphrase in India, Unity in Diversity. Looking at the various groups of people which calls the US home, seems pretty appropriate to me...

antimony
09 May 10,, 04:26
To the highlighted bit, it is called Australia.

...

There are plenty more, but you get the idea. The conflict caused by all this has been minimal. I can think of a half dozen bombings from the 60s to the 80s that killed under 10 people. Apart from that occasional small protests. In fact, one to one members of these conflict groups tend to get along OK. If anything the divisions have been less serious & entrenched than the earlier Irish/English thing.

Good point, strengthens my point even more, that multicultural societies can and do exist peacefully. I did not know about this, so could not making this point appropriately. Thanks for chipping in.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 04:35
Yes, but I'd argue that the national lines in America broke down after a couple generations. All of the Italians, Irish, Greeks etc were greeted with bits of skepticism at one point or another but within a few generations no one really cared if you had a last name like O'reilly or talked with an Eastern European accent. Most people from Europe shared a lot with each other even if they also disagreed a lot.

Replace 'bits of skepticism' with 'open hostility' and you might be closer to the point. Pretty much all the things you are saying about Hispanics were said about the Irish, Italians & others. Because none of us were there we tend to have a rosier view of past migration than people at the time might have. Because we know it worked out OK we forget the contemporary perspective:


Up until the mid-19th century, most Irish immigrants in America were members of the Protestant middle class. When the Great Potato Famine hit Ireland in 1845, close to a million poor and uneducated Irish Catholics began pouring into America to escape starvation. Despised for their religious beliefs and funny accents by the American Protestant majority, the immigrants had trouble finding even menial jobs. When Irish Americans in the country's cities took to the streets on St. Patrick's Day to celebrate their heritage, newspapers portrayed them in cartoons as drunk, violent monkeys.

St. Patrick's Day — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts (http://www.history.com/topics/st-patricks-day)


I know this might be apples and oranges, but can you say the same thing about hispanics or non European immigrants? Think about it, why would a largely Hispanic population care whether American kids wore an American flag on Cinco de mayo? Do Irish get pissed if people wear American flags on St.Patty's day? My fear is that we are fostering an insurgent nation within the U.S because our leaders are paralyzed with fear to demand that people assimilate. How long will the SW remain America when not a lick of English is spoken, there is no celebration of American heroes or holidays, and instead of enforcing our Laws we pander to the invaders in order to win their votes.

'St Paddy's Day' might seem like a quaint excuse for a walk & a drink now, but it has a very political history. It was often an overt display of Irish nationalism aimed squarely at events in a foreign nation and at times inclded quasi-military formations & even groups we might now see as 'terrorist'. In the wake of the big migrations in the 1840s & 50s they were also a way for Catholic Irish to challenge what they saw as anti-irish & anti-Catholic attitudes.

The wearing of the green: a history ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-5Y5A-emQJgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=st+patrick's+day+parade+%22American+flag%22&source=bl&ots=ilCB1qbgw_&sig=NFcUJGKvXx6jMZ2X6ZCwtZI_m_Q&hl=en&ei=BBbmS5n0NJDg7AP23bHXDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAjhG#v=onepage&q=st%20patrick's%20day%20parade%20%22American%20fl ag%22&f=false)

An American flag might not get you thrown out, but an English or British flag would have, as would symbols of the 'orange'. I'm betting there are still pubs in Boston & perhaps New York where an Orange shirt might get you in strife & a 'Red hand' flag would probably get you beaten up.


Roosevelt said:
"The USA is a nation founded on shared principles not ethnicity."

Yah, says you. The founders of this country had no intention of sharing this country with anyone but white Europeans. I think were really going to see how true this above statement is. Will people willingly place allegiance to the state above ties to the blood? I dont think history supports this supposition very well, and I cant say I'm anything but skeptical.

The founding Fathers had a lot of ideas that proved to be ill considered, not least on democracy, slavery & women. Curious as to what the Founders would have thought of peasants from Ireland, Sth & Eastern Europe, Jews from E. Europe, Armenians, Indians, Chinese & Koreans. They seem to have managed to choose nation over blood. I think your 'history' is highly selective.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 04:38
Good point, strengthens my point even more, that multicultural societies can and do exist peacefully. I did not know about this, so could not making this point appropriately. Thanks for chipping in.

Happy to help. :)

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 06:04
The founding Fathers had a lot of ideas that proved to be ill considered, not least on democracy, slavery & women. Curious as to what the Founders would have thought of peasants from Ireland, Sth & Eastern Europe, Jews from E. Europe, Armenians, Indians, Chinese & Koreans. They seem to have managed to choose nation over blood. I think your 'history' is highly selective.

There are definitely examples that go a long way to express both points. However, I think its flawed to compare immigrants from Europe to that of Hispanics, Africans, and Asians. Most Europeans came from a christian culture and as I have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between the groups melted away within a few generations. Even though the biological realities of "race" have yet to be fully explored, the common "racial" background no doubt helped the convergence.



You point to Australia as an example of how a diverse society has lived together with relative peace. While I won't argue you about Australian history , I can point to ten examples that show otherwise. In a modern state where the standard of living is high and people can make a decent living, you tend to have less civil disturbance. So, while increasing economic growth goes a long way to keep multicultural societies peaceful, do high levels of diversity actually benefit a society? I'm not talking about taking a few of the best and brightest from around the globe, I'm talking about mass infusions of populations from cultures that want to permanently change the shape of a country.


Would Japan be better off if we dumped 20 million mexicans on their shores, all of whom demanded that they recognize their language, represent them equally in their government and demand that Japan tear down its historical and cultural sights b/c they are offensive? No, they wouldn't. Japan would either deport them or in a few generations you wouldn't recognize Japan as Japan anymore. The same goes with any country.


I'd conclude with the argument that a country is more than a set of ideals written down on paper. A country is a collection of history, culture, language, religion, and family. A group of people who want to rule themselves in their fashion as they see fit. When large infusions of other people live within the same political boundries you see a competition among ethnic groups that is analogous to family skirmishes. Now many would say America doesn't fit my definition of a country and that's partly correct. However, as I've pointed out I'd argue that the different groups were alike enough to blend in under the circumstances. I don't think America will be the same country when I retire, as many seniors today will say this about "their" America. 50 years from now when whites have fallen to a majority minority, it will go a long way to show whether my( and many others) ideas about diversity are outdated or a dire prophecy come true.

Officer of Engineers
09 May 10,, 06:28
A country is a collection of history, culture, language, religion, and family.I am going to argue that a country is a collection of ideals, ideals that people from all cultures want. Rome, a single city, became an Empire because of her ideals, not because of history, culture, language, religion, and certainly not family. I will leave out China since you know nothing of Chinese history.


A group of people who want to rule themselves in their fashion as they see fit. When large infusions of other people live within the same political boundries you see a competition among ethnic groups that is analogous to family skirmishes.Are we talking about the same America who went through a civil war and tried to conquer Canada?


I don't think America will be the same country when I retire, as many seniors today will say this about "their" America.That is the most stupid statement that you could make. Give me a 50 year timeline in any point in North American history and I am challenging you to the point back before the white man came on the scene. Show me a single border that lasted 50 years before the White Man. After the White Man, show me how us Canadians were duped into not being Americans.


50 years from now when whites have fallen to a majority minority, it will go a long way to show whether my( and many others) ideas about diversity are outdated or a dire prophecy come true.I challenge that to no end. Not only are the birthrates against it but show me how Mexicans borned in Mexico is going to overwhelm you.

Triple C
09 May 10,, 07:09
The flag-wearing kids were there to provoke a fight. A smarter principle would have dispatched a prudent teacher to watch them closely and do nothing unless there be fightin', in which case the adult could break it up and punish the trouble-makers, Latino or white.

I don't see what's the big fuss about Mexican immigrants. If there is any problem integrating them, than that' the problem you should fix. Except tequila and taco, what else they were bringing that isn't new to the "old" US?

Mihais
09 May 10,, 07:36
I am going to argue that a country is a collection of ideals, ideals that people from all cultures want. Rome, a single city, became an Empire because of her ideals, not because of history, culture, language, religion, and certainly not family. I will leave out China since you know nothing of Chinese history.

Sir,for all its regional variations,troubled past,dialects and the 56 recognized ethnic groups,China is still 92% Han.
Sir,Rome wasn't build over night,it was built over centuries.Not with ideals,but with greed and sword(that is the Pax Romana was meant first and foremost for the Romans;the subjects existed to be fleeced) .And somehow,the relative harmony existed only after many generations after the conquest and only during the Empire's maximum prosperity(1st&2nd century).In the 3d you have regional armies,most of the time supported by the local populations fighting for power or breaking the Empire along pre-Imperial lines;there was a Gallic Empire,Oriental( the former Hellenistic area) Britannia,Africa(former Phoenician territories) and many others.

At first Rome seems to support the idea that multicultural societies work fine.And for a while it did.But that's not what the other side argues.It's about the price you pay to get there,the short lifespan of the ''honeymoon'' and what nasty end they have.

Officer of Engineers
09 May 10,, 08:15
Sir,for all its regional variations,troubled past,dialects and the 56 recognized ethnic groups,China is still 92% Han.You can be forgiven for not knowing Chinese history but being Han does not make you Chinese anymore than being Spartan, Theban, Macedonian or Athenian make you Greek.


Sir,Rome wasn't build over night,it was built over centuries.Not with ideals,but with greed and sword(that is the Pax Romana was meant first and foremost for the Romans;the subjects existed to be fleeced) .From the start, the Romans knew a single city state cannot demand loyalty from people who was not borne there. It was greed and sword, no doubt but the rewards came from with greed and sword. Share in Rome's greed and bleed with Rome's sword and you shall be rewarded with Rome's loot.


At first Rome seems to support the idea that multicultural societies work fine.And for a while it did.But that's not what the other side argues.It's about the price you pay to get there,the short lifespan of the ''honeymoon'' and what nasty end they have.The price of Roman citizen became greater than its rewards.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 08:30
There are definitely examples that go a long way to express both points. However, I think its flawed to compare immigrants from Europe to that of Hispanics, Africans, and Asians. Most Europeans came from a christian culture and as I have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between the groups melted away within a few generations. Even though the biological realities of "race" have yet to be fully explored, the common "racial" background no doubt helped the convergence.

'No doubt'. Really? These are the same common 'races' that have beat beating the sh1t out of each other for millenia (I actually don't view the world in terms of its conflicts, but you seem keen to). Using your formulation they shouldn't be able to live together in peace.

I'm also curious about 'Christianity' as a source of unity. Once again this requires a reading of the present back into the past that just doesn't fit. Indeed, if religion were some great unifier then hispanics wouldn't be an issue.

And while I'm at it, from the outside it looks like East & South Asians fit in pretty well. How can that be. They are less 'European' than most Hispanics & Afro-Americans.



You point to Australia as an example of how a diverse society has lived together with relative peace. While I won't argue you about Australian history , I can point to ten examples that show otherwise.

Ten examples of societies like Australia & America? Good luck with that. I struggle to get past 5.


In a modern state where the standard of living is high and people can make a decent living, you tend to have less civil disturbance. So, while increasing economic growth goes a long way to keep multicultural societies peaceful, do high levels of diversity actually benefit a society? I'm not talking about taking a few of the best and brightest from around the globe, I'm talking about mass infusions of populations from cultures that want to permanently change the shape of a country.

Yes. Migrants are more productive. Migrants innovate. They bring new perspectives on society. Migrants have driven America's success for centuries. America has experienced 'mass infusions' before. It may do again.


Would Japan be better off if we dumped 20 million mexicans on their shores, all of whom demanded that they recognize their language, represent them equally in their government and demand that Japan tear down its historical and cultural sights b/c they are offensive? No, they wouldn't. Japan would either deport them or in a few generations you wouldn't recognize Japan as Japan anymore. The same goes with any country.

Why choose Japan & why fudge the numbers? It makes the example ridiculous before you even begin.

Even if you throw every 'Hispanic' in America into the pot you only come to a bit over 10% of the population. Some 60% are native born, so they haven't just been 'dropped' anywhere. In fact, the migration has taken place over a generation & a half. Plenty of time to start an adjustment process that will take seveal generations, just like it did with Irish, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Yuglsoalvs, Russians, Jews...



I'd conclude with the argument that a country is more than a set of ideals written down on paper. A country is a collection of history, culture, language, religion, and family. A group of people who want to rule themselves in their fashion as they see fit. When large infusions of other people live within the same political boundries you see a competition among ethnic groups that is analogous to family skirmishes. Now many would say America doesn't fit my definition of a country and that's partly correct. However, as I've pointed out I'd argue that the different groups were alike enough to blend in under the circumstances. I don't think America will be the same country when I retire, as many seniors today will say this about "their" America. 50 years from now when whites have fallen to a majority minority, it will go a long way to show whether my( and many others) ideas about diversity are outdated or a dire prophecy come true.

So, America is changing, just like it always has and the henny pennys of the world are screaming about the sky, just as they always have. Google 'know nothings', much of what you are writing could have been lifted directly from them.

Just curious, how you doing with that list of non-multicultural societies & societies without conflict?

Mihais
09 May 10,, 09:33
You can be forgiven for not knowing Chinese history but being Han does not make you Chinese anymore than being Spartan, Theban, Macedonian or Athenian make you Greek.

Sir,my Chinese history is general and I won't argue about it.But by the example you gave,those ancient Greeks considered themselves to be Hellenes,even if they had their local identities.They might have spilled their guts most of the time.But they celebrated their Greek-ness at the festivals(of which the Olympics are the most famous) and stood together against the Persians(albeit only when Persia was a mortal threat to all).
In the context of ancients I think the most appropriate Chinese example would be the Warring Kingdoms.But,IIRC,once he finished the conquests,Qin Shi Huang erased the memory of the past from public conscience and he wasn't nice while doing it.


From the start, the Romans knew a single city state cannot demand loyalty from people who was not borne there. It was greed and sword, no doubt but the rewards came from with greed and sword. Share in Rome's greed and bleed with Rome's sword and you shall be rewarded with Rome's loot.

Only for a selected few.Roman citizens were never more than 10% until Caracalla's generalization to all free inhabitants of the Empire.Incidentally that came when being a citizen lost its meaning,while local identity grew stronger.[/QUOTE]


The price of Roman citizen became greater than its rewards.

And that's my point.Being Roman citizen meant privileges.No privileges,why share the goodies of the East with the half-barbarians of Spain?Or why should Gallic or Thracian soldiers die on Euphrates?
How much that resembles the present day situation in America or Europe will be known in the next centuries.We can only take a guess.

Triple C
09 May 10,, 09:33
Every time someone put "biological realities" and "race" in one sentence my mind puts it on IGNORE.

Triple C
09 May 10,, 09:36
Sir,my Chinese history is general and I won't argue about it.But by the example you gave,those ancient Greeks considered themselves to be Hellenes,even if they had their local identities.They might have spilled their guts most of the time.But they celebrated their Greek-ness at the festivals(of which the Olympics are the most famous) and stood together against the Persians(albeit only when Persia was a mortal threat to all).


Mihais,

You forgot the Spartans allied with Persians to put down Athens in the Peloponnesian War.

Mihais
09 May 10,, 09:40
Ten examples of societies like Australia & America? Good luck with that. I struggle to get past 5.

You may indirectly make his point that the failures outnumber the successes.




Yes. Migrants are more productive. Migrants innovate. They bring new perspectives on society. Migrants have driven America's success for centuries. America has experienced 'mass infusions' before. It may do again.


Migrants alone do not make a society a success.Australia and US benefited for exceptional conditions in the past.Alter those particular conditions and you'll get a different outcome.

Mihais
09 May 10,, 09:45
Mihais,

You forgot the Spartans allied with Persians to put down Athens in the Peloponnesian War.

''(albeit only when Persia was a mortal threat to all)''

I didn't.The fact that politics is a b..ch doesn't change the overall picture.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 11:42
You may indirectly make his point that the failures outnumber the successes.

Only if he completely misunderstands what I said & why so few societies can be compared to ours (hint: 'success' is not among the criteria)



Migrants alone do not make a society a success.Australia and US benefited for exceptional conditions in the past.Alter those particular conditions and you'll get a different outcome.

Without migrants there would not be an 'America' or an 'Australia'.

Bigfella
09 May 10,, 12:00
Every time someone put "biological realities" and "race" in one sentence my mind puts it on IGNORE.


Thats what I get for trying to be polite. :)

I once recall someone pointing out (and I can't vouch for it scientifically) that if we were dogs we'd all be the same breed. The weight people still attach to such tiny differences (biologically speaking) never ceases to amaze.

Mihais
09 May 10,, 12:38
Only if he completely misunderstands what I said & why so few societies can be compared to ours (hint: 'success' is not among the criteria)
Without migrants there would not be an 'America' or an 'Australia'.

Let me try to translate that into a definition:-a vast and rich territory,initially inhabited by scarce stone-age tribes,settled by vast numbers of N-W white Europeans that overwhelmed the natives,than developed the land into first world.
If success does count as criteria(and the whole discussion is about the chances of success/failure),only a few (N America,Aus ,NZ,to some extent Argentina) get passing grade.Take anything from the definition and you arrive at a different outcome.If it's not vast&rich,nobody moves there;if the natives are numerous,you get French Algeria,Rhodesia,South Africa(first two failed,the last is failing). etc...

The idea is that after the first wave of settlers moved in,they established a society similar in many ways with Europe.Bringing(or allowing)non-Europeans to become the majority(or close to parity) will change that character.You talked about inevitability of change,but(if I understand correctly Wirbelwind's point)the issue is the radical breaking with past,not mere evolution.And it doesn't change a iota the fact that many of our friends here are integrated Asians in N America.1/4 of all Asians don't live in NA.But 1/4 of all peoples originating in Europe do.

Mihais
09 May 10,, 12:44
Thats what I get for trying to be polite. :)

I once recall someone pointing out (and I can't vouch for it scientifically) that if we were dogs we'd all be the same breed. The weight people still attach to such tiny differences (biologically speaking) never ceases to amaze.

For the sake of diversity.What's not wonderful about it?

Roosveltrepub
09 May 10,, 16:11
Let me try to translate that into a definition:-a vast and rich territory,initially inhabited by scarce stone-age tribes,settled by vast numbers of N-W white Europeans that overwhelmed the natives,than developed the land into first world.
If success does count as criteria(and the whole discussion is about the chances of success/failure),only a few (N America,Aus ,NZ,to some extent Argentina) get passing grade.Take anything from the definition and you arrive at a different outcome.If it's not vast&rich,nobody moves there;if the natives are numerous,you get French Algeria,Rhodesia,South Africa(first two failed,the last is failing). etc...

The idea is that after the first wave of settlers moved in,they established a society similar in many ways with Europe.Bringing(or allowing)non-Europeans to become the majority(or close to parity) will change that character.You talked about inevitability of change,but(if I understand correctly Wirbelwind's point)the issue is the radical breaking with past,not mere evolution.And it doesn't change a iota the fact that many of our friends here are integrated Asians in N America.1/4 of all Asians don't live in NA.But 1/4 of all peoples originating in Europe do.
What group wasn't integrated by the third generation including the mexicanos who lived here in 1848? Read "Dangerous Nation" we were a radical departure from European cultural norms and our radicalism was a threat. We lacked nobility nd were mostly small farmer who owned rather than rented from a rich landlord. I'd also point out Mexicans are christians and have more of a shared heritage of colonialism than the asians who have integrated so well.

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 18:34
I am going to argue that a country is a collection of ideals, ideals that people from all cultures want.

Iran=Country, Country=collection of ideals that people from all cultures want, Iran = collection of ideals that people from all cultures want. I don't think your definition is universally accepted.


I will leave out China since you know nothing of Chinese history.

Thank you for letting me know what I do or do not know, I was really in the dark there. Ill let that Red Herring fly off into the sunset where it belongs.


Are we talking about the same America who went through a civil war and tried to conquer Canada?


Sir, did I ever say being an ethnically homogeneous state was a ticket to utopia or paradise? If I did please show me where, I cant remember.


That is the most stupid statement that you could make. Give me a 50 year timeline in any point in North American history and I am challenging you to the point back before the white man came on the scene. Show me a single border that lasted 50 years before the White Man. After the White Man, show me how us Canadians were duped into not being Americans.

Ok, I'll admit, given the way I wrote this paragraph it isn't clear and I should have been more precise. Yes of course, every 50 years every country changes regardless of circumstances. What I was writing specifically about was the demographic makeup of the country.


I challenge that to no end. Not only are the birthrates against it but show me how Mexicans borned in Mexico is going to overwhelm you.


Sir, Sen Kennedy sold that lie to the American Public back in 1965 when trying to pass the immigration bill of that time period. He and other bill supporters said the makeup of immigration wouldn't be changed, that the demographic makeup of the country wouldn't be changed, and that this wasn't going be an open door policy to the Third world. Not only have American whites fallen from 90% of this countries population to less than 65% at present, most forecasters predict that by 2040 that percentage will fall to less than half. The key question is, so what?

That is where my argument comes into play. Can a society such as the U.S stick together when its demographic makeup is changing so quickly? Is it possible that a country is the ideals that it stands for and not its pedigree? Can one group of people move in and take over a civilization that they did not create? My ludicrous example of Mexicans in Japan goes a long way to illustrate my point. While not a plausible scenario, it goes a long way to show that Japanese culture would probably be erased, hence why the Japanese have been so reluctant to allow immigration. They want to preserve Japan for the Japanese.

calass
09 May 10,, 19:38
Sen Kennedy can't be blamed for that...the 1965 immigration bill did not lead to the increase in Mexican immigration seen today.More to do with the disintegration of Mexican society from the early 90's.

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 19:45
BF said:


I'm also curious about 'Christianity' as a source of unity. Once again this requires a reading of the present back into the past that just doesn't fit. Indeed, if religion were some great unifier then hispanics wouldn't be an issue.

Christianity is not a great unifier by itself, nor is any religion. However, I would argue that despite having many different variations and denominations, sharing a faith goes a long way to bring people together. Like I said to officer of engineers being homogeneous in religion or ethnicity doesn't guarantee peace or prosperity, I never argued that.

Lets view the inverse. Does having a multitude of religions in a country help the cohesiveness of a society? Did the sub-continent of India benefit from the largely diverse religions it contained after independence from Britian? Why didn't Indian ethnic groups settle in and mix together as you imply Mexican immigrants will? Why did the sub-continent break into Pakistan, India, and eventually Bangladesh? This goes against what your saying.


And while I'm at it, from the outside it looks like East & South Asians fit in pretty well. How can that be. They are less 'European' than most Hispanics & Afro-Americans.

This brings up an interesting point. I cant argue that North/Eastern Asians have been what many people call the "model minority". Having an average higher income, lower crime rate, and overall high output many of these groups have bolstered America. However, there are two things I would point out. Most Eastern Asians aren't purposely alienating themselves and refusing to assimilate. Also, they are not coming in in numbers that will displace European culture.

This reminds me of Malaysia as a good example. At roughly 25% of the population, Chinese immigrants have done very well in Malaysia, as some Malays would argue, a little too well. On average the Chinese born Malay has a much higher IQ, income per capita, education etc. Despite the enormous amount of wealth Chinese entrepreneurship brings to Malaysia, the Malay's have enacted Affirmative action laws against theminority. Apparently the tie to blood runs a bit thick there. This begs an interesting question. What do you do when in a multi ethnic society, one group vastly outperforms the other? Many people become confused on sharing ideals when one group holds a far disproportionate level of wealth.



Yes. Migrants are more productive. Migrants innovate. They bring new perspectives on society. Migrants have driven America's success for centuries. America has experienced 'mass infusions' before. It may do again.


Migrants are more productive huh? I'm sure that's a universal Law. I would argue that all societies need interactions with other groups of people to keep innovation going, but that differs a lot from mass migrations. Europe gained a lot of benefits from its interactions with Asian and African civilizations without actually absorbing them.


Why choose Japan & why fudge the numbers? It makes the example ridiculous before you even begin.


Well, you could exclude Mexican and use Chinese, it really doesn't matter. The question was a question of principle. You could use any two variables you want.


Even if you throw every 'Hispanic' in America into the pot you only come to a bit over 10% of the population. Some 60% are native born, so they haven't just been 'dropped' anywhere. In fact, the migration has taken place over a generation & a half. Plenty of time to start an adjustment process that will take seveal generations, just like it did with Irish, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Yuglsoalvs, Russians, Jews...


10%+ now, less than 2% 50 years ago, predicted to be about 25% in 30-40 years. Yes, there have been many success stories in assimilation of populations, but there have been just as many failures too. Again, why didn't the Indian/****'s mix? What about the Kosovo/Serb, Greece/Turkey, or Czech/slovak populations mix together? Instead of mixing together they broke off into weaker states. This is highly illogical and goes further to support my idea of blood over principle.




So, America is changing, just like it always has and the henny pennys of the world are screaming about the sky, just as they always have. Google 'know nothings', much of what you are writing could have been lifted directly from them.

Perhaps, maybe I am wrong. If I am then I've wasted a lot of energy trying to spread an outdated idea. If I am right, then unfortunately its my posterity then suffers the cost. How can you so rapidly dismiss my argument when there is so much historical precedent to support it? Im not calling for the Fourth Reich, I'm saying that we should drop the PC bullcrap and realize that not all populations are equally able to assimilate.


Just curious, how you doing with that list of non-multicultural societies & societies without conflict?


That's a trap question. It depends on how you define conflict. The most homogeneous societies that are states are Iceland and Japan, probably because they have large restrictions on immigration. I can think of no others. All societies have conflict of some sorts. I never argued otherwise. What's your point?

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 19:46
Sen Kennedy can't be blamed for that...the 1965 immigration bill did not lead to the increase in Mexican immigration seen today.More to do with the disintegration of Mexican society from the early 90's.

Thats an interesting idea. However, the two correlate incredibly strong. Ill look into that.

Mihais
09 May 10,, 20:08
Wirbelwind,while the Indians here will probably respond and are better qualified about their own country,I must say that India as a country can be an example going both ways.True enough,it separated along religious and ethnic lines combined.But it also brought together countless ethnicities and religions.Granted they have a large degree of regional autonomy at state level.I humbly ask the Indian buddies here to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Don't know much about Chinese IQ(that probably makes me dumb:biggrin:).A culture of working hard may explain better their success.But beside that your point is still valid.

Also,while I agree to the obvious that Asian,particularly ME civilizations (strictly speaking the ME is in Asia) influenced European civilization the exchanges were not at all one-sided.But what was the influence of Africa?I suppose you mean sub-Saharan Africa,since the N part was nothing but an offshoot of ME.Both under the Phoenicians and later under Islam.

Mihais
09 May 10,, 20:44
What group wasn't integrated by the third generation including the mexicanos who lived here in 1848? Read "Dangerous Nation" we were a radical departure from European cultural norms and our radicalism was a threat. We lacked nobility nd were mostly small farmer who owned rather than rented from a rich landlord. I'd also point out Mexicans are christians and have more of a shared heritage of colonialism than the asians who have integrated so well.

Found one by Robert Kagan.I presume you speak of this one.I'll read it then I'll return with a vengeance:biggrin:Thanks for the tip.

But as a quick observation,you didn't lacked nobility,unless you talk about nobility by blood going back to Charlemagne or Alexios Comnenus.You had from the very start some sort of merchant,industrial and agricultural upper class that performed many of the duties of the European upper classes.
About the small farmers.First it was the thing that allowed everyone to make a living even if no job was available in urbanized East Coast.Second ,it was everyones dream in Europe.But that was still a European idea and only in America the resource(land) was available.It reinforces the point in the previous posts.

Third,the radicalism you talk about applies mostly to post 1815 and pre 1848 Europe.But even then America was a mean to ease internal pressures.Less troublemakers,more pie to share.
Since we came to talk about this period,let me say a big thanks.Several hundreds thousands of the guys from the location indicated in my avatar went to America to make a killing.Most made it and most returned(obviously,plenty remained) to buy back our province from the ruling Hungarian elites.

bfng3569
09 May 10,, 20:48
The Principal chose the option that kept children and property from being damaged. Thats his job.

his job is to teach and educate in a as safe an enviroment as possible.

appeasing bullies does not teach anything close to the right msg.

maybe the violent kids should be getting expelled, not the patriotic ones?

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 21:29
Wirbelwind,while the Indians here will probably respond and are better qualified about their own country,I must say that India as a country can be an example going both ways.True enough,it separated along religious and ethnic lines combined.But it also brought together countless ethnicities and religions.Granted they have a large degree of regional autonomy at state level.I humbly ask the Indian buddies here to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Don't know much about Chinese IQ(that probably makes me dumb:biggrin:).A culture of working hard may explain better their success.But beside that your point is still valid.

Also,while I agree to the obvious that Asian,particularly ME civilizations (strictly speaking the ME is in Asia) influenced European civilization the exchanges were not at all one-sided.But what was the influence of Africa?I suppose you mean sub-Saharan Africa,since the N part was nothing but an offshoot of ME.Both under the Phoenicians and later under Islam.

Mihais, thanks for the decent response. In response to that I'd say I'd love to hear an Indian's perspective (or a Pakistani's) on the many wars between India and Pakistan. It goes to show that diversity, of any type, is a highly sensitive matter that shouldn't be handled carelessly. While I might be a bit overzealous, to say that we should throw caution to the wind and allow any and all people to flow into our borders, without consideration whether they are able to assimilate, is naive.

IQ tests are highly controversial for a number of reasons. I read an interesting write up on Malaysia that documents that number. I'd be glad to dig it up if someone is interested. IQ, work ethic, or whatever the cause, the principle of my point still stands.

Going a bit off topic here, but one of the main influences of Africa I can think of would be the technological innovations the Europeans derived to overcome
Malaria and other diseases which inflicted a terrible death toll on early colonizers. However, I think your right, the ME would be the main focus.

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 21:35
In my earlier post I used the example of India/Pakistani's, but I used the short abbreviation of Pakistan... P A K I. It appears the system censored that as a derogatory term. My apologies for the ignorance...I didn't realize that was a slang term.

Gun Grape
09 May 10,, 21:39
his job is to teach and educate in a as safe an enviroment as possible.

And that is what he did.



maybe the violent kids should be getting expelled, not the patriotic ones?

Well #1 wearing a flag shirt does not make you patrotic. Maybe a "Feel good patriot" wear a shirt, put a ribbon on your car and hey I'm a patrotic American that supports my country" but do nothing else. BS.

In this case I would say that it makes them Instigators. I wonder how many other days they have worn those flag shirts?

You cannot expel the violent kids until they do something like, get violent.
Which leads not not fostering that safe environment that you say is the Principals role.

Seems that he did his job.

Roosveltrepub
09 May 10,, 21:49
Found one by Robert Kagan.I presume you speak of this one.I'll read it then I'll return with a vengeance:biggrin:Thanks for the tip.

But as a quick observation,you didn't lacked nobility,unless you talk about nobility by blood going back to Charlemagne or Alexios Comnenus.You had from the very start some sort of merchant,industrial and agricultural upper class that performed many of the duties of the European upper classes.
About the small farmers.First it was the thing that allowed everyone to make a living even if no job was available in urbanized East Coast.Second ,it was everyones dream in Europe.But that was still a European idea and only in America the resource(land) was available.It reinforces the point in the previous posts.

Third,the radicalism you talk about applies mostly to post 1815 and pre 1848 Europe.But even then America was a mean to ease internal pressures.Less troublemakers,more pie to share.
Since we came to talk about this period,let me say a big thanks.Several hundreds thousands of the guys from the location indicated in my avatar went to America to make a killing.Most made it and most returned(obviously,plenty remained) to buy back our province from the ruling Hungarian elites. Damn hungarian elites always selling out to those Hapsburgs! I'd say if you look at pre 1815 Europe we were a bigger threat. The rights of Man read like an American Document or visa versa. The French revoloution was a case of that republican plague crossing the ocean. Still at the end of the day what we have done best is assimilate everyone who came here of their own accord within a couple generations. Mexican Americans aren't different. Most come here to be American not in an attempt to create Mexico's corrupt at times oppressive institutions and economic stagnation here.

Wirbelwind
09 May 10,, 21:57
Every time someone put "biological realities" and "race" in one sentence my mind puts it on IGNORE.


To your detriment I assure you. Here is a good article that shows the political volatility of scientists discussing genetics and its socio/economic implications.

The New York Times > Log In (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/world/americas/09iht-dna.4.8269929.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4)

Also, look to the field of medicine.

Here is a good one on swine flu disproportionately affecting minorities:
Living | Study: Swine flu took a greater toll on minorities | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2011663055_swine22.html)

Here is yet another article discussing why blacks suffer much higher rate of cancer:
Study Finds Blacks Have Highest Cancer Rates Of All Racial Ethnicities, Yet Feel Less At Risk (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182392.php)

and another showing how different ethnic groups need to be treated differently:
Study Reinforces Focus On Personalized Treatment For Lung Cancer Patients Based On Ethnicity (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166706.php)

Race as we know it is often a misused term. I dont believe that races can be simply defined as "black people" or "white" people. I think these are broken down into population groups and even then the genetic differences are small. However, as science continues down the road of genetics we are discovering more and more about each other that was previously unknown. The articles I provided on Medicine/race are not conclusive I know, but they ask some interesting questions. Is it possible that every issue addressed in these articles is the result of a social construction or environment? Human beings are said to be 99%+ identical genetically, that fraction of a percent may go a long way in describing our of our unique characteristics.

calass
10 May 10,, 00:28
Mihais, thanks for the decent response. In response to that I'd say I'd love to hear an Indian's perspective (or a Pakistani's) on the many wars between India and Pakistan. It goes to show that diversity, of any type, is a highly sensitive matter that shouldn't be handled carelessly. While I might be a bit overzealous, to say that we should throw caution to the wind and allow any and all people to flow into our borders, without consideration whether they are able to assimilate, is naive.

IQ tests are highly controversial for a number of reasons. I read an interesting write up on Malaysia that documents that number. I'd be glad to dig it up if someone is interested. IQ, work ethic, or whatever the cause, the principle of my point still stands.

Going a bit off topic here, but one of the main influences of Africa I can think of would be the technological innovations the Europeans derived to overcome
Malaria and other diseases which inflicted a terrible death toll on early colonizers. However, I think your right, the ME would be the main focus.

IMHO It is impossible for Islam to be at peace with a large non-Islamic population because Islam encompasses every sector of governing and of life...it does not remain as a private matter of an individual.

Leaving out the muslims...the Hindus of India are a diverse group having different languages and cultures. More or less ethnic issues have not been that much of a problem in India. The main problem is religious violence but that is inevitable when Islam is involved.

calass
10 May 10,, 13:51
Thats an interesting idea. However, the two correlate incredibly strong. Ill look into that.

The 1965 immigration act put limits on countrywide immigration...the 4 countries from where the most immigrants have come after 1965 are Mexico,China,India and Phillipines(the upper limit is the same for every country in the world)...Chinese and Indian origin percentage of the population after 4 decades of the 1965 act is around 1 to 1.5% each while the Mexican population has exploded.

My theory is that the NAFTA destroyed the rural farming in Mexico and it coincided with the rise in the American economy due to the tech boom which drew a lot of the Mexican rural population into the US.

Bigfella
10 May 10,, 15:37
Christianity is not a great unifier by itself, nor is any religion. However, I would argue that despite having many different variations and denominations, sharing a faith goes a long way to bring people together. Like I said to officer of engineers being homogeneous in religion or ethnicity doesn't guarantee peace or prosperity, I never argued that.

You said this, connecting 'Christian culture' with the lessening of differnece over time:


Most Europeans came from a christian culture and as I have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between the groups melted away within a few generations.

I would disagree with your premise, but putting that aside for a moment & working within your flawed view: why did something that had been the cause of many centuries of conflict & war in Europe become a unifying force in America?


Lets view the inverse. Does having a multitude of religions in a country help the cohesiveness of a society? Did the sub-continent of India benefit from the largely diverse religions it contained after independence from Britian?

You haven't proven the converse yet, and the inverse certainly doesn't do it. Pointing out that Muslims & Hindus fight hardly proves that Christianity is a force for unity.


Why didn't Indian ethnic groups settle in and mix together as you imply Mexican immigrants will? Why did the sub-continent break into Pakistan, India, and eventually Bangladesh? This goes against what your saying.

This doesn't go against what I am saying, but it does expose one of the major problems with your method of argument. You want to simplify events that would take a bookshelf to properly explain down to a few sentences & then harness them to an argument about a society that bears no resemblence to them socially or historically. This isn't history for dummies, its history for illiterates.


This brings up an interesting point. I cant argue that North/Eastern Asians have been what many people call the "model minority". Having an average higher income, lower crime rate, and overall high output many of these groups have bolstered America. However, there are two things I would point out. Most Eastern Asians aren't purposely alienating themselves and refusing to assimilate. Also, they are not coming in in numbers that will displace European culture.

So having been provided with yet more evidence that you are wrong you simply change criteria. You've been talking about 'biological race' and the fact that cultures as different as hispanic & 'White' American can't peacefuly coexist. Groups that are more differnent racially (assuming you are using crude criteria to define - lets just) and culturally have fitted in just fine, so suddenly it isn't about differnce, but numbers. Try picking a line of argument & sticking to it.


This reminds me of Malaysia as a good example.

No, Malaysia is an extraordinarily bad example, but that hasn't stopped you so far. Tell me, what is it about their history & culture that make Malaysia & the US even remotely comparable? Stop being distracted by all the skin colours, languages & percentages. They aren't helping.


At roughly 25% of the population, Chinese immigrants have done very well in Malaysia, as some Malays would argue, a little too well. On average the Chinese born Malay has a much higher IQ, income per capita, education etc. Despite the enormous amount of wealth Chinese entrepreneurship brings to Malaysia, the Malay's have enacted Affirmative action laws against theminority. Apparently the tie to blood runs a bit thick there. This begs an interesting question. What do you do when in a multi ethnic society, one group vastly outperforms the other? Many people become confused on sharing ideals when one group holds a far disproportionate level of wealth.

I'll leave your understanding of Malaysian history to one side for a moment (I'd love to get your sources) and focus on more confusion in the argument. Are you arguing that the success of East & Sth Asian Americans is a problem, despite accepting a moment ago that their numbers meant it wasn't, or are you trying to argue that the problem is numbers, in which case the only group that comes close is less, not more economically successful. Like I said before, pick a line of argument & stick to it.


Migrants are more productive huh? I'm sure that's a universal Law.

No, just an observation across societies with lots of migrants. Inexpensive & hardworking has been one of the attractions of imported mexican workers for decades.


I would argue that all societies need interactions with other groups of people to keep innovation going, but that differs a lot from mass migrations. Europe gained a lot of benefits from its interactions with Asian and African civilizations without actually absorbing them.

Again, I'll leave the history behind for the moment & point out that your point does nothing to invalidate mine.



Well, you could exclude Mexican and use Chinese, it really doesn't matter. The question was a question of principle. You could use any two variables you want.

Why did you assume that my objection was to the ethnicity of the migrant group? My problems were with your choice of Japan (which you've already pointed out below is unusually ethnically homogeneous), your figures (high by a good 30%) and your characterization of the migration as 'dropped'.


10%+ now, less than 2% 50 years ago, predicted to be about 25% in 30-40 years. Yes, there have been many success stories in assimilation of populations, but there have been just as many failures too. Again, why didn't the Indian/****'s mix? What about the Kosovo/Serb, Greece/Turkey, or Czech/slovak populations mix together? Instead of mixing together they broke off into weaker states. This is highly illogical and goes further to support my idea of blood over principle.

No, it shows that you are prepared to use a cartoonish view of history to buttress a conclusion that I suspect you reached before you began to assemble 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely) to back it up.



Perhaps, maybe I am wrong. If I am then I've wasted a lot of energy trying to spread an outdated idea.

By far the most accurate statement you've made so far.


How can you so rapidly dismiss my argument when there is so much historical precedent to support it?

I have spent a good long time reading about the history of a good many places which is why I know that your understanding of 'historical precedent' is incapable of supporting any argument. Far from dismissing your argument (and you still seem to be struggling to get that straight) rapidly, I've spent my adult life studying the sort of information that tells me that you are a lot more wrong than you are right.


Im not calling for the Fourth Reich, I'm saying that we should drop the PC bullcrap and realize that not all populations are equally able to assimilate.

Actually, all the talk about 'blood ties' & your confused utterances on the 'biological realities of race' sound uncomfortably like the 3rd Reich. I wasn't going to break Godwin's Law, but since you are a serial offender I might as well jump in. As for 'assimilation' your arguments are so tangled up right now that I'll wait until you straighten them out some before even attempting a discussion.


That's a trap question. It depends on how you define conflict. The most homogeneous societies that are states are Iceland and Japan, probably because they have large restrictions on immigration. I can think of no others. All societies have conflict of some sorts. I never argued otherwise. What's your point?

My point is that you issued this challenge as some sort of 'proof' of the failure of 'multicultural' societies:


In fact, name a society that is multicultural and doesn't have some sort of conflict.

I wanted to point out that it was an essentially meaningless statement which you had passed off as significant (I'm afraid you probably think it actually is). The fact that you are dodging my response tells me that I was on target.

Oh, and if you are hanging some sort of proof on Iceland & Japan then you are clutching at straws indeed.

Mihais
10 May 10,, 17:30
I would disagree with your premise, but putting that aside for a moment & working within your flawed view: why did something that had been the cause of many centuries of conflict & war in Europe become a unifying force in America?
BF,I presume you don't confuse cause with pretext.Once the cause is gone,Pater Noster is translated the same in all languages and for all Christians.And Jesus did even bigger miracles:biggrin:






This doesn't go against what I am saying, but it does expose one of the major problems with your method of argument. You want to simplify events that would take a bookshelf to properly explain down to a few sentences & then harness them to an argument about a society that bears no resemblence to them socially or historically.

Sadly,this is the problem with debating on the web.You lack space and time to make a very complex argument and you end with abstract and very synthesized ideas.




Actually, all the talk about 'blood ties' & your confused utterances on the 'biological realities of race' sound uncomfortably like the 3rd Reich. I wasn't going to break Godwin's Law, but since you are a serial offender I might as well jump in. As for 'assimilation' your arguments are so tangled up right now that I'll wait until you straighten them out some before even attempting a discussion.

Well,at least race is biological.As side note,I had no idea that there are medical issues wrt to race.We have an interesting and diverse specie.

And let's relax a bit.I'll promise you I'll rip the guts of every Nazi with a dull bayonet.But you buy the beer.:biggrin:

Wirbelwind
10 May 10,, 23:55
I would disagree with your premise, but putting that aside for a moment & working within your flawed view: why did something that had been the cause of many centuries of conflict & war in Europe become a unifying force in America?

Look BF, as I said before, having a common religion in a community/city/state does not guarantee peace or prosperity. Sadly, one of Europe's bloodiest wars (30 yrs war) was fought largely over religious differences. I'd argue this: Take any given community and ask yourself, Would the community be more cohesive and friendly if they all shared the same religion or if there were multiple religions? All other things being equal, I think the answer is self evident. Do you agree with that? If not then we just disagree, and we'll leave it at that.


You haven't proven the converse yet, and the inverse certainly doesn't do it. Pointing out that Muslims & Hindus fight hardly proves that Christianity is a force for unity.


So tell me sir, how do I "prove" this? Is there some empirical study I can do that rules out ALL possible variables? Again, as I mentioned above, I think my argument is self evident as long as you don't take it to an extreme. Having multiple religions within a society increases the chance of tension and conflict. Obviously some religions are more compatible wit others, while some religions just flame everyone they come in contact with (not gonna say who)


This doesn't go against what I am saying, but it does expose one of the major problems with your method of argument. You want to simplify events that would take a bookshelf to properly explain down to a few sentences & then harness them to an argument about a society that bears no resemblence to them socially or historically. This isn't history for dummies, its history for illiterates.

Okay, your right, at least in regards to the first 2 sentences. I understand that in each example I listed there are infinitely complicated issues that surround all of them and these issues are not done justice when I simplify them with a few sentences....ok Ill admit that. However, if we use my Indian example, would India/Pakistan have been at each others for more than half a century if both countries were Hindu Indians? Of course not, in fact, I'd argue the subcontinent would never have broken up. Now Im sorry I cant prove this to you, but I think most posters here would agree, anyone else want to chime in?



So having been provided with yet more evidence that you are wrong you simply change criteria. You've been talking about 'biological race' and the fact that cultures as different as hispanic & 'White' American can't peacefuly coexist. Groups that are more differnent racially (assuming you are using crude criteria to define - lets just) and culturally have fitted in just fine, so suddenly it isn't about differnce, but numbers. Try picking a line of argument & sticking to it.


God bless Bf, that's reaching a bit. I didn't say half the things your accusing me of. I will stick the line of argument that I've used this whole time: Diversity of any type has the potential to create a fault line in societies. I didn't say that racially/ethnically diverse societies CANT live together. I specifically addressed that earlier. I'm saying that the more diverse a society gets the more divided it gets. There is an excellent analysis of this in Professor Robert Putnam's(Harvard) book bowling alone. Although this covers more than just racial diversity, he shows that the more diverse a society becomes, the more the social cohesiveness of the community breaks down.



No, Malaysia is an extraordinarily bad example, but that hasn't stopped you so far. Tell me, what is it about their history & culture that make Malaysia & the US even remotely comparable? Stop being distracted by all the skin colours, languages & percentages. They aren't helping.


I think its shows plenty. When the Chinese began immigrating to Malaysia they were very successful. Despite the increasing investment brought into the country,which would be a positive externality, the Malays noted the large discrepancy of wealth between the two ethnic groups and passed regulatory legislation against them to spread the wealth. How can I ignore the ethnicity when thats the main variable in my argument?


I'll leave your understanding of Malaysian history to one side for a moment (I'd love to get your sources) and focus on more confusion in the argument. Are you arguing that the success of East & Sth Asian Americans is a problem, despite accepting a moment ago that their numbers meant it wasn't, or are you trying to argue that the problem is numbers, in which case the only group that comes close is less, not more economically successful. Like I said before, pick a line of argument & stick to it.


Well BF, I can't argue against the success of East and South Asians. Ill also say that they have been a "model minority" as I pointed out earlier. Thus, Ill conclude that "racial" diversity isn't necessarily going to cause conflict. (Again, something I pointed out earlier) However, I would argue that the potential to cause conflict is significantly greater. One small misstep could lead to a complete alienation of an entire ethnic group, something that would not happen in homogeneous societies. How many race riots has Iceland had?

There has always been a question regarding America on whether we should be a "nation of nations" where each ethnic group retains its identity or whether we should be a melting pot and work to "melt away" the differences. We (US) seem to encourage this nation of nations outlook by encouraging racial solidarity amongst our minorities. And yet at the same time, we subtly admit that we look forward to the day where we all breed into some kind of coffee colored uni-race. (Perhaps a sly admission that diversity isn't working?)



Why did you assume that my objection was to the ethnicity of the migrant group? My problems were with your choice of Japan (which you've already pointed out below is unusually ethnically homogeneous), your figures (high by a good 30%) and your characterization of the migration as 'dropped'.


Dropped was a term that was used, perhaps incorrectly. So your saying that a long slow migration could eventually be assimilated into Japan, under the right circumstances? Perhaps, there is evidence to suggest that this is possible as you have pointed out, yet there is also plenty of evidence to show far worse possible conclusions should Japan open her gates.




I have spent a good long time reading about the history of a good many places which is why I know that your understanding of 'historical precedent' is incapable of supporting any argument. Far from dismissing your argument (and you still seem to be struggling to get that straight) rapidly, I've spent my adult life studying the sort of information that tells me that you are a lot more wrong than you are right.


Well BF, that's why I come here. I tend to "listen" a lot more than I write. I do understand that a lot of you are older and wiser than I, so I attempt to learn as much as possible. I wouldn't post here if but just to argue. However, my ideas of diversity being a source of tension more than a source of unity are pretty well founded. If you take most of the examples Ive used you find that ethnicity is the key variable.

I'm not committed to go to the advanced degree required to outline every possible variable on this subject just for your satisfaction. I seriously doubt you do the same on this forum. Furthermore, I've shown a hell of a lot more info and support for my argument than you have. In fact, what are saying, that diversity is a source of strength and unity or are saying it isn't even a significant factor? Why don't you try backing that up.

Gun Grape
11 May 10,, 03:10
This brings up an interesting point. I cant argue that North/Eastern Asians have been what many people call the "model minority". Having an average higher income, lower crime rate, and overall high output many of these groups have bolstered America. However, there are two things I would point out. Most Eastern Asians aren't purposely alienating themselves and refusing to assimilate. Also, they are not coming in in numbers that will displace European culture.

I don't know how old your are. If you were around in the 80s you might remember that the big threat wasn't the mafia or hispanic gangs or the Bloods and Crips.

It was the "Ultraviloent Asian Drug gangs".

Also you are looking at recent asian immigration. If you remember the first immigration rules were passed against the Chinese and then informally against Japan. (No law but an agreement between the US and Japan limiting immigration)

They didn't become the "Model minority" overnight.

antimony
11 May 10,, 06:38
However, if we use my Indian example, would India/Pakistan have been at each others for more than half a century if both countries were Hindu Indians? Of course not, in fact, I'd argue the subcontinent would never have broken up. Now Im sorry I cant prove this to you, but I think most posters here would agree, anyone else want to chime in?



May I?
Wirbelwind,

This may not be apparent to you (and I don't blame you one bit, I cannot possibly expect you to know), but the Republic of India faces a diversity far greater than just the religious divide that tore the country apart during Independence. On top of the fact that there are at least 20 different major regional languages ( and correspondingly ethnicities) and a larger number of minor ones, there is the divisive caste system. So, basically, linguistic ethnicities, religions, caste on a society that has huge income disparities. After inmdependence I had heard that many pundits had given India a decade or so to break up. Yet, in spite of all these differences which together have a millenium and more of historical baggage, we persevere as a nation.

When I think of the US, which gets some of the best people from ethnicities across the world, without the historical baggage (except in the case of African Americans), I do not see a convincing case of social division.

bonehead
11 May 10,, 07:37
I don't know your are. If you were around in the 80s you might remember that the big threat wasn't the mafia or hispanic gangs or the Bloods and Crips.

It was the "Ultraviloent Asian Drug gangs".

Also you are looking at recent asian immigration. If you remember the first immigration rules were passed against the Chinese and then informally against Japan. (No law but an agreement between the US and Japan limiting immigration)

They didn't become the "Model minority" overnight.


It was the 1980's when I began having problems with illegals, about the time Reagan gave them "amnesty". They have been a problem for me ever since. Hispanic gangs have run amuck in the South West since the 1990's.

Bigfella
11 May 10,, 12:20
I'll make this my last 'back 'n' forth' reply, we are getting along way from any sort of coherent argument. I'll try to make a statement at some point that covers the issues here & then we can work from that. it would be helpful if you tried to summarize what you are saying here - as I have indicated your arguments are all over the place & sometimes appear contradictory.


Look BF, as I said before, having a common religion in a community/city/state does not guarantee peace or prosperity. Sadly, one of Europe's bloodiest wars (30 yrs war) was fought largely over religious differences. I'd argue this: Take any given community and ask yourself, Would the community be more cohesive and friendly if they all shared the same religion or if there were multiple religions? All other things being equal, I think the answer is self evident. Do you agree with that? If not then we just disagree, and we'll leave it at that.

I think you are asking the wrong questions & using your examples selectively. Allow me to illustrate. You talked about 'Christian culture' as a source of unity. Christianity has been a source of considerable conflict in Europe, especially since the Reformation.

This was also the case in Nth America. In particular, during the great waves of migration from the 1840s onward. Catholics in particular were treated with outright hostility by nativists such as the 'know nothings' - a tradition continued in some cases by the KKK into the early C20th. During this period religion was a source of division, not unity, yet America prospered. This is that era of migration that modern nativists seem to view with misty eyes & nostaliga, when 'assimilation' was so easy. It wasn't, yet America prospered. In time those divisions lessened.

Flash forward over a century and you have a better argument. Christianity is no longer a source of serious division in America. Indeed. It can be a means for different ethnic groups to find points of commonality & 'intergration' in certain spheres (this actually goes beyond Christianity - keep an eye on co-operation between conservative muslims, Christians & Jews on select issues, it is already happening). This doesn't mean that people of different religions can't get along as well or better, but that is a different issue.

Here is what I don't understand. When you are talking about European migration in the C19th & early C20th, when religion was a divisive issue, you claim 'Christian culture' as a unifying element of some sort. Yet when you talk about Hispanic migration in the late C20th & early C21st, when it could be argued that religion can be a way to integrate, you seem determined to ignore it. Why?

Different groups find their 'in' to a new societies in diffent ways. The devout Christianity that is widespread in the Hispanic community would seem a natural fit for the more devout elements of American society - an aid to 'integration' that other successful communities do not have.



So tell me sir, how do I "prove" this? Is there some empirical study I can do that rules out ALL possible variables? Again, as I mentioned above, I think my argument is self evident as long as you don't take it to an extreme. Having multiple religions within a society increases the chance of tension and conflict. Obviously some religions are more compatible wit others, while some religions just flame everyone they come in contact with (not gonna say who)

I still don't think you really get this. The only way to 'allow for all the variables' is to create an imaginary world where real people & real societies don't exist. You seem wedded tothe idea that you can derive some sort of consistent principles across societies that are so dramatically different that comparisons are generally pointless (especially on the issue of broad social trends). Religion can be a source of instability. It can be a source of unity. It can be of no particular consequence. In a modern, secular, prosperous liberal democracy religious divisions tend not to be a source of instability (and if you are heading off on some discource about muslims spare me, it is a topic for another thread).

On the highlighted bit, I would argue that Christianity has improved quite a bit over the past 200 years, but yes, it does have a nasty history.



Okay, your right, at least in regards to the first 2 sentences. I understand that in each example I listed there are infinitely complicated issues that surround all of them and these issues are not done justice when I simplify them with a few sentences....ok Ill admit that. However, if we use my Indian example, would India/Pakistan have been at each others for more than half a century if both countries were Hindu Indians?

Yes. Has it occoured to you that the conflict between India & pakistan has actually been a unifying force in a nation that might otherwise have splintered along regional & language lines?


Of course not, in fact, I'd argue the subcontinent would never have broken up.

What political event caused the largest loss of life on the subcontinent since 1947?


Now Im sorry I cant prove this to you, but I think most posters here would agree, anyone else want to chime in?

So you are using something that didn't happen in an entity that didn't exist to illustrate what?

And while I'm at it, what on earth does the modern history of the Indian subcontinent have to do with modern America? The points of commonality are so few that I just don't see the point.


God bless Bf, that's reaching a bit. I didn't say half the things your accusing me of. I will stick the line of argument that I've used this whole time: Diversity of any type has the potential to create a fault line in societies.

So your whole line of argument is a statement so broad as to be meaningless in any realworld context. Tell me we've been arguing over something more substantial than that.


I didn't say that racially/ethnically diverse societies CANT live together.

If you haven't said it directly (& I'm too lazy to wade back & check) then you have implied it at every step. Practically every example you have chosen is about ethnic diversity as point of division.


I'm saying that the more diverse a society gets the more divided it gets.

What society? Diverse in what way? Divided in what way? Again, you are making broad sweeping statements that are meaningless in the particular.


There is an excellent analysis of this in Professor Robert Putnam's(Harvard) book bowling alone. Although this covers more than just racial diversity, he shows that the more diverse a society becomes, the more the social cohesiveness of the community breaks down.

I haven't read it so I won't comment. What I would say is that if you have an issue with diversity (however defined) then you are most definately in the wrong country & would have been at any point in American history.


I think its shows plenty. When the Chinese began immigrating to Malaysia they were very successful. Despite the increasing investment brought into the country,which would be a positive externality, the Malays noted the large discrepancy of wealth between the two ethnic groups and passed regulatory legislation against them to spread the wealth. How can I ignore the ethnicity when thats the main variable in my argument?

The two words I highlighted alone tell me that you simply don't understand Malaysia enough to comment. If you actually knew anything about this you would see how little relationship this issue has to America. Please stop using this example, you are embarrassing yourself.


Well BF, I can't argue against the success of East and South Asians. Ill also say that they have been a "model minority" as I pointed out earlier. Thus, Ill conclude that "racial" diversity isn't necessarily going to cause conflict. (Again, something I pointed out earlier)

You've pointed it out only to qualify it so heavily as to render the statement invalid....see below.


However, I would argue that the potential to cause conflict is significantly greater. One small misstep could lead to a complete alienation of an entire ethnic group, something that would not happen in homogeneous societies. How many race riots has Iceland had?

Again, what does Iceland have to do with America?

As for the rest, heard it all before. America is always about to have a civil war or civil breakdown or some such. If X happens than the country will fall apart (I remember one person on another board convinced that if the Dems lost the 2004 election there would be civil war). America has had all sorts of lines of division from the outset. Political violence perpetrated by ethnic minorities in America has been miniscule compared to that perpetrated by whites on each other & on other ethnicities for a variety of reasons. If anything. I would argue that ethnic divisions in America over the past few generations have proven a great deal less violent than political divisions in earlier periods.

What interested me about photos from recent rallies against Arizona's new immigration laws (which could easily be one of those 'missteps') is the presence of American flags & the display of mexican flags alongside American ones. Change the time to the 1840s & 1850s & the other flag to green & you could be at a St Patricks Day march.


There has always been a question regarding America on whether we should be a "nation of nations" where each ethnic group retains its identity or whether we should be a melting pot and work to "melt away" the differences. We (US) seem to encourage this nation of nations outlook by encouraging racial solidarity amongst our minorities. And yet at the same time, we subtly admit that we look forward to the day where we all breed into some kind of coffee colored uni-race. (Perhaps a sly admission that diversity isn't working?)

Again with the skin colours & biology. I'm seeing a pattern.

As for the rest, yes, an ongoing debate, but often one couched in questionable assumptions. It all ends up a 'melting pot' of one type or another, it is just that some people are happy to accept that not every part of the stew need be identical to every other bit while others obsess over any differnce.


Dropped was a term that was used, perhaps incorrectly. So your saying that a long slow migration could eventually be assimilated into Japan, under the right circumstances? Perhaps, there is evidence to suggest that this is possible as you have pointed out, yet there is also plenty of evidence to show far worse possible conclusions should Japan open her gates.

No, I'm saying that comparing Japan & America in this manner is pointless. America has never been anything like Japan socially, so a comparison only serves a preordained conclusion that says nothing about America.



Well BF, that's why I come here. I tend to "listen" a lot more than I write. I do understand that a lot of you are older and wiser than I, so I attempt to learn as much as possible. I wouldn't post here if but just to argue. However, my ideas of diversity being a source of tension more than a source of unity are pretty well founded. If you take most of the examples Ive used you find that ethnicity is the key variable.

My problem with your examples is that they can't be usefully applied to America (OK, not my only problem, but the simplest one to deal with here).


I'm not committed to go to the advanced degree required to outline every possible variable on this subject just for your satisfaction. I seriously doubt you do the same on this forum. Furthermore, I've shown a hell of a lot more info and support for my argument than you have. In fact, what are saying, that diversity is a source of strength and unity or are saying it isn't even a significant factor? Why don't you try backing that up.

You haven't shown much information that is relevant to this discussion (which I'm pretty sure is about America). A fact out of context is a piece of trivia, not a piece of information.

This has taken rather too long, but I will get back to you with some thoughts on the matter, though it would help if you could give a succinct statement of just what it is you have been trying to say here & what it has to do with modern AMerica..

For the moment I'll just say this. I have a lot of issues with what you are saying (to the extent I can divine a clear argument) but a lot of it is that you are overclaiming based on either innapropriate or poorly understood examples. You also seem to want to create grand unifiying principles based on cherry picking dot points of historical data with a particular obsession with serious conflict (a state of human affairs which is the exception, not the norm). This renders such correct conclusions as you make meaningless by making them too general & too far out of context.

It would probably horrify you to hear that the way you use example & try to stretch it to broad principle reminds me of nothing so much as a simplified version of the Marxism I read a bit of as a much younger man (purely for educational purposes - it is damn near unreadable in the original). I wasn't convinced then & I'm not now.

Mihais
11 May 10,, 16:21
I think you are asking the wrong questions & using your examples selectively. Allow me to illustrate. You talked about 'Christian culture' as a source of unity. Christianity has been a source of considerable conflict in Europe, especially since the Reformation.


Different groups find their 'in' to a new societies in diffent ways. The devout Christianity that is widespread in the Hispanic community would seem a natural fit for the more devout elements of American society - an aid to 'integration' that other successful communities do not have.
..
On the highlighted bit, I would argue that Christianity has improved quite a bit over the past 200 years, but yes, it does have a nasty history.

Better said political interpretations of the religion have a nasty history.Some may find offensive the last assertion.



.. conflict (a state of human affairs which is the exception, not the norm).

Do you refer to relations inside a group in the modern times,relations through history of mankind,relations with outsiders?
There is a serious case that conflict in pre-modern eras was the norm.


It would probably horrify you to hear that the way you use example & try to stretch it to broad principle reminds me of nothing so much as a simplified version of the Marxism I read a bit of as a much younger man (purely for educational purposes - it is damn near unreadable in the original). I wasn't convinced then & I'm not now.

I've read my share and they're laughable.We come to the same problem with highly synthesized ideas.But there is an important message.You cannot spread a political message using the gazillions works of Marx,Engels,Lenin or Mao.Hence you use a booklet.The very essence of anti-science,but that's politics.Launch a slogan and throw the black sheeps that don't know that ''2 legs bad,four legs good'' to the wolves.You may laugh at the message,but don't discard the messengers.They might be in large numbers and may be eager to resort to ''ultima ratio regum''.
Now,purely for intelectual sport,why don't you 2 change sides.:biggrin:

Wirbelwind
11 May 10,, 18:58
May I?
Wirbelwind,

This may not be apparent to you (and I don't blame you one bit, I cannot possibly expect you to know), but the Republic of India faces a diversity far greater than just the religious divide that tore the country apart during Independence. On top of the fact that there are at least 20 different major regional languages ( and correspondingly ethnicities) and a larger number of minor ones, there is the divisive caste system. So, basically, linguistic ethnicities, religions, caste on a society that has huge income disparities. After inmdependence I had heard that many pundits had given India a decade or so to break up. Yet, in spite of all these differences which together have a millenium and more of historical baggage, we persevere as a nation.

When I think of the US, which gets some of the best people from ethnicities across the world, without the historical baggage (except in the case of African Americans), I do not see a convincing case of social division.

Thanks for the input about India. Yes, I do my best to keep up with the world, but I always enjoy the first hand perspective. When I saw your last sentence, Ill have to say I heartily disagree with you, but maybe I'm an impartial observer. America goes a long way right now to appease many minority groups with race based legislation, admission and hiring quotas, wealth redistribution based solely on race etc. If we didn't pad the fall of so many people and if we truly encouraged equal opportunity (not equal outcome) I think much of this veneer of unity would disappear overnight. No, Im not going to elaborate, that's just my two cents.

Wirbelwind
11 May 10,, 19:04
I don't know how old your are. If you were around in the 80s you might remember that the big threat wasn't the mafia or hispanic gangs or the Bloods and Crips.

It was the "Ultraviloent Asian Drug gangs".

Also you are looking at recent asian immigration. If you remember the first immigration rules were passed against the Chinese and then informally against Japan. (No law but an agreement between the US and Japan limiting immigration)

They didn't become the "Model minority" overnight.

I'm not old enough to have cared about politics in the 80's, Ill tell you that. However, yes I do know that to this day Asiatic(I almost hate the term asiatic as its too broad) youth in America have a high percentage of their youth(compared to other races) involved in street gangs. There are a myriad of reasons that could explain this, none of which I'm going to elaborate on. I was merely acknowledging that by and large NE and South Asians have generally held better education rates, per capita incomes, and lower crime rates than multi generational whites.

bfng3569
11 May 10,, 19:17
Well #1 wearing a flag shirt does not make you patrotic. Maybe a "Feel good patriot" wear a shirt, put a ribbon on your car and hey I'm a patrotic American that supports my country" but do nothing else. BS.

In this case I would say that it makes them Instigators. I wonder how many other days they have worn those flag shirts?

You cannot expel the violent kids until they do something like, get violent.
Which leads not not fostering that safe environment that you say is the Principals role.

Seems that he did his job.

no need to split hairs over loose terminology. (patriot)

Instigators? really? wearing a U.S. flag, in america, is now considered to be 'instigating' something? now that is riuch

as far as how many other days they wear them, acocrding to the article, quite a few.

and your argument makes no sense.

don expell the violent kids before they are violent, but expell the non violent kids for fear that they did something to make the violent kids want to react violently???? what the hell kind of arguement (or society) is that?

as far as the teaching doing his job, no, he didnt.

he taught a bunch of kids that there first amendant rights are meaningless, that being an american in offensive, and that the fear and violence win out.

ya, great lesson taught there.

Wirbelwind
11 May 10,, 19:20
BF,

As frustrating as it always is to 'debate' over the internet, I have and do take what you say into consideration. Perhaps in a few days I'll reread what I wrote and correct any flaws in coherency. Yes I've bounced around on a lot of different topics but Ive addressed several people and several ideas as well. Often it is hard to measure divisions in society, there is no empirical measurement to show and say "hey, here it is". How do you describe animosity between groups? How do you measure how cohesive a society is? This seems to be a field that is short on evidence and heavy on interpretation.

Roosveltrepub
11 May 10,, 22:18
BF,

As frustrating as it always is to 'debate' over the internet, I have and do take what you say into consideration. Perhaps in a few days I'll reread what I wrote and correct any flaws in coherency. Yes I've bounced around on a lot of different topics but Ive addressed several people and several ideas as well. Often it is hard to measure divisions in society, there is no empirical measurement to show and say "hey, here it is". How do you describe animosity between groups? How do you measure how cohesive a society is? This seems to be a field that is short on evidence and heavy on interpretation.

Read up on the history of nativism in the USA a bit more especially during periods of economic insecurity The struggles and accusations immigrant groups have faced have been fairly constant regardless of the group. I don't doubt your intentions but I am sure with more accurate background information your beliefs will shift. Even in homogenous societies different fault lines form. Some of the most violent revoloutions have been in ethnically identical societies. I think you'll find it sounds good and makes sense on a cursory level but it just hasn't been the human experience

bonehead
11 May 10,, 22:26
And that is what he did.



Well #1 wearing a flag shirt does not make you patrotic. Maybe a "Feel good patriot" wear a shirt, put a ribbon on your car and hey I'm a patrotic American that supports my country" but do nothing else. BS.

In this case I would say that it makes them Instigators. I wonder how many other days they have worn those flag shirts?

You cannot expel the violent kids until they do something like, get violent.
Which leads not not fostering that safe environment that you say is the Principals role.

Seems that he did his job.

Being patriotic would be up to the individual wearing the shirt. It may not be kosher per the rule book but it is a damned sight better than having a whole generation being afraid to display the flag at all. Now if I found myself in Mexico, Canada or any other country during the fourth of July I would not find it offensive at all to see some local wearing their countries' flag on their shirt. What has to be examined is : 1 Why people from other countries find it so offensive to see American flags on American soil. and 2) What makes them think they have the right to tell Americans not to exhibit our own flag in our own country.

antimony
11 May 10,, 23:51
Thanks for the input about India. Yes, I do my best to keep up with the world, but I always enjoy the first hand perspective. When I saw your last sentence, Ill have to say I heartily disagree with you, but maybe I'm an impartial observer.


And I am an impartial observer for US politics.



America goes a long way right now to appease many minority groups with race based legislation, admission and hiring quotas, wealth redistribution based solely on race etc. If we didn't pad the fall of so many people and if we truly encouraged equal opportunity (not equal outcome) I think much of this veneer of unity would disappear overnight. No, Im not going to elaborate, that's just my two cents.

I had heard of welfare queens but I had no idea that the US has a huge appetite explicitly set out of appeasing minorities. Can you point some of them to me:biggrin:

Bigfella
12 May 10,, 09:43
BF,

As frustrating as it always is to 'debate' over the internet, I have and do take what you say into consideration. Perhaps in a few days I'll reread what I wrote and correct any flaws in coherency. Yes I've bounced around on a lot of different topics but Ive addressed several people and several ideas as well. Often it is hard to measure divisions in society, there is no empirical measurement to show and say "hey, here it is". How do you describe animosity between groups? How do you measure how cohesive a society is? This seems to be a field that is short on evidence and heavy on interpretation.


OK, I'll await a concise statement of what you are trying to argue before I discuss what you've said any further.