CRUSADE 2012

[Horza]

sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

Your compliments move me, but truly I stand on the shoulders of giants - specifically, frost giants. If I may be so bold I would like to re-purpose your dedication to the dwellers of Niflheim, who have for aeons struck forth from their misty abode to slay with blade and icy claw those infidels who would have us believe patriotism is some merely subjective attribute and not inscribed into mans flesh and armpit hairs at the Dawn of Days.

[King Aerys the Just]

this is a total load of crap.

problems in former yugoslavia were much deeper than this and to say that one ethnic group caused it all (or that an ethnic group were solely innocent victims of that war) would be a massive oversimplification and a display of ingorance of colossal proportions.

other than that, what scale was used to measure patriotism, what was the sample of the people questioned, who did the survey, when and for what purpose?

or did you just offhandedly pronounce serbs the most patriotic?

Please. I never claimed that there were no other problems in the republic, nor that the war didn't have other causes. I claimed that Serbia started the civil war (which they did), and that they were the most loyal and positive towards the Republic of Yugoslavia (which they were). Sure. I could have written a small essay on how balkan developed after the fall of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, how the hostilities between the ethnic groups who had supported the different empires in the area (Bosnians and Albanians siding with the Turks by converting to Islam, for example) took place. Or about World War 2, where the muslim balkanese and Croatia sided with Nazi Germany while Serbia took the side of the Soviets, and subsequently won and gained control of the Balkans. How the "Yugoslavian" Republic they created afterwards was basically just a state for serving Serbian interests, and how this led to the other nations wanting to break free once Tito died, Etc.

But that didn't matter, because this thread isn't about those topics. So I didn't feel the need to go into that. What I wanted was an example of how patriotism and "identification with your state" doesn't automatically mean that you like the other ethnic groups living in your country. Apparantely the example wasn't very good, since some guy started rambling about me being "ingorant" and shit instead of staying on topic. So I'll put it like this instead: most White Americans during the 18th and 19th centuries would have been very patriotic and "proud to be American". Did that mean that they didn't opress other ethnicities, or that they regarded all peoples living within their country as equals (being fellow Americans and all).

No. So patriotism is a pretty pointless way to measure integration and harmony amongst communities.

@ Deathwalker

Well. Both dumped wages and decreased social trust/cooperation is positive for international capitalists, for one.

[baxus]

Apparantely the example wasn't very good

let's just call it quits with this understatement of the month

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

3. Why is culture being used in a nodding-and-winking, mischievous euphemism for race, by certain individuals in this thread?

To whom are you referring? I mean, spit it out.

Or is that you are unable to draw a distinction between race and culture? Do you believe that race actually determines how people behave, and that you therefore assume everyone else shares your views on that? Because that's the only logical explanation for your remark.

My country is made up of people of all sorts of different races. In fact, we're close to being unique in the sense that our nation isn't defined by specific liguistic/tribal origins. A great many other nations historically have been defined by the ethnic/linguistic makeup of the people who live there. "France" was largely the people who spoke French. Germany that of people who spoke German, etc.. The U.S. doesn't fall into that category -- we're a nation of mongrels, populated by a very diverse mix of races and national origins.

Yet despite that, there exists a generally common American culture and belief system that differs from that in a lot of the rest of the world. Among those general beliefs are a greater emphasis on individuality over society, as compared with how that is balanced in other nations, and a bunch of other things. Those beliefs form a culture that has nothing to do with race or national origin, because it is not determined by genetics but by choice. I have a lot more in common with black Americans than they do with West Africans, where the only commonality is perhaps a more similar racial/genetic background.

There is a huge difference between race/genetics on the one hand, and culture on the other. Individuals who leave other cultures to come to the U.S.. will tend to adopt U.S. cultural norms. That's a good thing. Americans of Mexican heritage are just as American as I am, and generally share those same values. But at the same time, I don't want to take the entire population of Mexico and plop it down into my own country, because if you do that, there won't be assimilation, but rather a wholesale importation of a culture that most Americans view as less desireable. The same applies to immigration from other places. As long as the immigration is at a rate where assimilation of our values is occuring, and the loyalry of the immigrants shifts to this country rather than a homeland, that's great. If it occurs at a rate where people are not assimilating fast enough, then it is a problem.

Why are US posters egging on the UK non-hating Muslim posters into adopting their own xenophobia? Why does the US push this view, in concordance with common statements about terrorism, into the UK and Euro areas in general?

Whether or not different countries in Europe are actually having assimilation issues is something I think can really only be known by who live there, or who have significant personal familiarity with those locations. If there are no such problems, then there is no validity to arguments by anyone that changes to immigration policies are needed. However, it should be pointed out that for the most part, Americans who comment on such things are not basing their opinions on personal knowledge, but rather on statements/comments made by people within those countries. We just hear what they're saying, so if there are misperceptions, it's largely due to your own people creating them.

A fairly recent example of this are John Cleese's comments last year about London "no longer being an English city". Now, I personally think there is an enormous difference between what would amount essentially just to a genetic change, where the culture stays the say but the skin color is different, and an actually cultural change. The former is irrelevant to me -- I am no more or less American than someone of Japanese, African, or Mexican heritage. It's the underlying beliefs and values that matter. However, if Cleese's point is that the actual culture is changing, then I could understand some folks in the U.K. wanting to slow down immigration so that the country retains the cultural core of what makes it the U.K.. But that is essentially a question of fact rather than one of opinion. The article I read said that about 1/3 of the population of London was born outside the U.K., and it seems to me that can't help but be making the culture of London less British.

[TerraPrime]

Culture is not a static thing, nor is it an indelicable line on the door frame measuring progression. Each wave of immigrant that moved to the U.S. changed the U.S. culture in some ways. In the last 20 years, Latino/Hispanic immigrants seem to be the dominant force, and we're seeing the changes now, in our food, our entertainment, etc., even in areas that are not the hot spots of Hispanic/Latino immigrants.

In other words, it's silly to think that "assimilation" is a one-way process. Just as immigrants adapt values of the dominant culture, so too, will the dominant culture adapt values of the immigrants' cultures. There's a picking and choosing process, of course, where the incompatible values are rejected, but there are plenty of shifts and sidesteps that take place as a group of immigrants meld into the larger society.

[Sci-2]

Yeah, I think of things like the treatment of women/gays/transpersons/minorities as part of human decency, which we've seen time and time again reproduced across the globe.

Not really sure if that's connected to culture.

[Robin Of House Hill]

A few Observations:

1. Props to the level-headed English in this thread. My confidence had wavered a tick, but has been restored.

2. Why do the Muslim detractors seem to keep mentioning IEDs, Rape, Sharia, Jihad, Terrorism, and such in the same post? Are they postulating that if Muslims move to my area, it will become a warzone?

3. Why is culture being used in a nodding-and-winking, mischievous euphemism for race, by certain individuals in this thread?

4. Why are known alarmist papers (i.e. the Daily Poop) being included in the official canon of evidence?

5. Why are US posters egging on the UK non-hating Muslim posters into adopting their own xenophobia? Why does the US push this view, in concordance with common statements about terrorism, into the UK and Euro areas in general? Are they unaware of the social issues already plaguing Europe, as we speak? For an example, look to an earlier poster's highlighting of Anders Behring Breivik, noted perpetrator of the 2011 attacks in Norway.

1. We wouldn't want your confidence to waiver.

2. No, only that within a population where such things occur, the likelihood is that some of those responsible, will be amongst those moving into your neighborhood.

3. Because races have no predisposition to any behavior, while cultures develop such things over time.

4. Because that the source may be a bunch of baboons, does not preclude the possibility that the information may have value.

5. Why do xenophobes even ask such questions?

this makes it official - you are just trolling this thread.

What is made official is that you don't have an answer to the question asked.

[paddington]

I wouldn't be sure on the breakdown of numbers, but that 1/3 is going to include alot of Europeans, a goodly amount of Amercians, and Aussies, Kiwis and South Africians. I doubt you could have ever really classed London as mono-culture city, I'm not a Londoner so I stand to be corrected.

Edit:- Fewer IED's in Britian since the start of the peace process in Northern Ireland.

[Greywolf2375]

What is made official is that you don't have an answer to the question asked.

It's not that there isn't an answer, it is a pointless question to ask.

[kuroishi]

My country is made up of people of all sorts of different races. In fact, we're close to being unique in the sense that our nation isn't defined by specific liguistic/tribal origins. A great many other nations historically have been defined by the ethnic/linguistic makeup of the people who live there. "France" was largely the people who spoke French. Germany that of people who spoke German, etc..

I guess your point would be kind of valid if you decided that History began in the XIXth century.

As this is not the case, you are very, very wrong. If you put together commoners from Brittany, Provence, and Picardy from any century between the XVIth and the XIXth (when they were all part of the Kingdom of France at the time), you can be sure that they wouldn't have been able to share many thoughts on the state of the Realm...

And this is the same for about every continental country in Europe.

Those nations were all founded, not on a community of ethnicity, language or interest, but on centuries of warring, alliances, weddings, trade between the different monarchs of the place. That in the beginning of the XXth century, some of these countries had became more or less homogenous places was more an effect of centralization by strong states than anything else.

[Robin Of House Hill]

It's not that there isn't an answer, it is a pointless question to ask.

Are you suggesting that countries cannot flourish without draining resources from other countries? If a country needs more people, change the tax code to encourage more breeding.

[Järv]

If a country needs more people, change the tax code to encourage more breeding.

Doesn't work. We try this here in Germany since several years.

[Robin Of House Hill]

If tax incentives don't work, show more porn on TV.

Seriously, I have no reason to doubt you, so I find this even more worrisome than anything else in this thread. When did parts of humanity start thinking extinction was better than survival?

[kuroishi]

If tax incentives don't work, show more porn on TV.

Seriously, I have no reason to doubt you, so I find this even more worrisome than anything else in this thread. When did parts of humanity start thinking extinction was better than survival?

Since parts of humanity have decided that cultural homogeneity was more important than anything else (looking at you, Japan...)

[Masonity]

A fairly recent example of this are John Cleese's comments last year about London "no longer being an English city". Now, I personally think there is an enormous difference between what would amount essentially just to a genetic change, where the culture stays the say but the skin color is different, and an actually cultural change. The former is irrelevant to me -- I am no more or less American than someone of Japanese, African, or Mexican heritage. It's the underlying beliefs and values that matter. However, if Cleese's point is that the actual culture is changing, then I could understand some folks in the U.K. wanting to slow down immigration so that the country retains the cultural core of what makes it the U.K.. But that is essentially a question of fact rather than one of opinion. The article I read said that about 1/3 of the population of London was born outside the U.K., and it seems to me that can't help but be making the culture of London less British.

The culture of London is pretty different today compared to what it was 50 years ago...

But the culture in 60s London was pretty different to Victorian / Georgian London too...

Go back another 50 years and you are truely in Dickensian London, a different beast again!

Sure London has changed. But that's what cities do.

[Järv]

If tax incentives don't work, show more porn on TV.

Heh, you obviously don't know German women...

Seriously, I have no reason to doubt you, so I find this even more worrisome than anything else in this thread. When did parts of humanity start thinking extinction was better than survival?

Then I think I have bad news for you: The more developed a country becomes, the lower sinks its fertility rate. Practically all rich countries are below replacement level with their fertility rate, meaning that their population cannot sustain itself, on the long run. The only exception being two slightly crazy countries: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg

[The Iceman of the North]

Are you suggesting that countries cannot flourish without draining resources from other countries? If a country needs more people, change the tax code to encourage more breeding.

Why, when there's lots of places worse off that would love to supply you with labour? It's not like the world as a whole needs to increase the population, rather the opposite.

[Järv]

It's not like the world as a whole needs to increase the population, rather the opposite.

I am not sure about that. Replacement fertility is somewhere between 2 and 3 children per woman, depending on the extent of boy-birth-surplus and the number of people who die before they can reproduce. The world - as a whole - is currently at 2,5 children per women, and the rate is constantly going down since many years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

[Sci-2]

It seems FLOW and Robin Hill are arguing for a consideration of probability. If we take more immigrants from place X which has a probability of Y of being hostile to our country, then we're just endangering ourselves.

It's like the drunk driving version of immigration.

So the question is, is this a fallacious argument? Are there even other places replacement immigrants could come from besides wherever they are coming from now?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Since parts of humanity have decided that cultural homogeneity was more important than anything else (looking at you, Japan...)

I'm going to be depressed. But I don't accept your reason. Cultural homogeneity is unlikely to be the cause of declining birth rates. I'll bet if we turn off their televisions, the birth rate will go up. Or, more seriously if we change our economics so both married partners don't have to work, having children would become more popular.