I just demolished a Freeper-type on immigration.

[Archae]

I got one of those e-mails (sent to a whole bunch of people, naturally,) whining about all the Mexicans coming into this country and not learning English.

I asked this particular e-mailer if they would have let this one guy in I knew, who never learned English but stayed in areas where his native language was spoken.

The person said to me, that the person I knew should have been deported back to Mexico.

I told him the person was my great-grandfather, a Lutheran minister who lived in Milwaukee and never learned English, he only spoke German his whole life.

He lived to be 102, that's why I was able to know him, my family visited him once in a while.

Original e-mailer has no answer.

[niyad]

1. I hope the idiot's head exploded.

[conscious evolution]

2. +1

[spanone]

3. no sense of history, no sense of now...stupid is as stupid does

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I tell them my ancestors had to sneak in the country because they couldn't afford to come legally

in 1850. They were from Ireland and stowed away on a boat.

[sarge43]

5. Yeah, same here with one of my great grandfathers.

He learn just enough English to cope, but he never mastered it. According to my hubster his Ukrainian grandmother never learn English. Her husband translated when needs be.

This country has always had people to whom English was/is a foreign language -- Native Americans excepted. They of course might point out that English is the foreign language. 99% of the time for the second generation it's L1. It's the process.

You can take it to the bank that bunch are Know Nothings (not that they know who KNs were). And facts? "We don't need no stinkin' facts. We're bigots."

[treestar]

6. The second generation always knows English, too

The actual immigrant is often older, when it is more difficult. The second generation is bilingual.

Freepers always claim their ancestors came "legally" which is enough to make one :rofl:

They will claim it was via Ellis Island - they know damn well they can't prove that and that some ancestor of theirs at some point just came. Nor will they admit there were few restrictions in the 19th century and that the laws were even more uneforceable then, anyway.

Idiots.

[sarge43]

9. Ellis Island was opened as an immigration portal in 1892.

Their grasp of American history is tentative at best and I'm being generous here. And you might have made a mistake calling them idiots. You may get a call from the lawyers representing The International Union of Idiots with a view to a class action suit for slander. :evilgrin:

[verges]

10. I believe it's fairly simple to prove

whether one's ancestors came throught Ellis Island.

[Chan790]

30. Extremely...

they keep records and lists...it's a genealogists wet dream. When I was in 5th grade, we went on a class field trip and they even have a computer you can put your ancestors names into and it will return a list of everybody who ever passed through EI with that name, a date of entry, a DOB (if known) and a point of departure for entry (if known). Since that was 1987, I'm guessing the information center there is even more useful now with far more information...the records are for the most part complete and substantial down to who was turned-away and why.

Also, the number of people to enter through EI is substantially small compared to the immigration pool of that day.

[Kalyke]

7. I'd have asked if he could speak Apache, Bella Bella or Cherokee.

Those are some of the original languages of the United States... not English.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hippywife]

21. And what languages were being spoken

before the English settlers arrived? There were already inhabitants of this continent was already well settled before they arrived, you know.

[inthenever]

24. Yes. I understand that. . .

The question is, do you think the USA should exist?

Clearly, there were settlers from many countries in North America in the 1600s; well before establishment of the Articles of Confederation and our eventual constitution. Clearly, there was a population of native Americans here before they got here. But, this is, as far as countries go, ancient past. The USA is, I believe, the oldest continuous (in terms of the current consitution) system. If you go back in any nation's history, you'll find that they were established in at least some blood. So, when we think about what ideals are important. . . freedom, equality, and so on, we must think about how we procede moving forward, not how we proceded hundred of years ago. In my opinion, if we want things like progressive social ideals (e.g., gay marriage), we need to carefully manage our population. I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to allow the USA to melt because we dislocated/killed native Americans at the start of our country's existence.

[hippywife]

26. You're asking the wrong person.

I have no pride in this country at all. I think it's pretty much been developed and continued to prosper at the expense of too many people, both here and abroad. I find no reason to take pride in where I live because it was a total accident of birth, so the rah rah position of "We're number one!" is so fucking ludicrous. If you were born in any other country, you would feel that way about whatever country you were born in. I think it's truly stupid to take pride in something you had absolutely no control over.

And the fundies are the worst offenders on this topic. What would an invisible border line mean in the eyes of Jesus? Hmmmm?

[inthenever]

33. pragmatics

"I have no pride in this country at all. I think it's pretty much been developed and continued to prosper at the expense of too many people, both here and abroad."

Such is the story of any nation.


"I find no reason to take pride in where I live because it was a total accident of birth, so the rah rah position of "We're number one!" is so fucking ludicrous."

I agree, jingoism is silly.


"If you were born in any other country, you would feel that way about whatever country you were born in."

Possibly, though if things are bad enough, people often leave. There is some truth to the "Beacon on the hill" ideal with regards to the USA.


"I think it's truly stupid to take pride in something you had absolutely no control over."

I agree. But, we can shape that destiny now. And, that's what we should have pride in, individually, our contributions to the world and the development of our nation. Selling it down the river because you see that it is propped on a bed of exploitation is historically naieve in my opion.

"And the fundies are the worst offenders on this topic. What would an invisible border line mean in the eyes of Jesus? Hmmmm?
"

Hey, I'm an atheist. . . or perhaps a believer in Spinoza's God, depending on how you define the construct, God.

[hippywife]

35. Pride is not a sensible emotion and

can only bring pain in the long run because it is so self-focused. As long as a person is a true humanitarian with compassion for all people and makes the world a better place not just their country, it doesn't matter where they are from.

This beacon on the hill does a lot of horrible things still in the name of protecting its interests and need for materiel from other countries, many of them poor, to drive it's consumerist lifestyle.

[inthenever]

36. prides, beacons, and the world

"can only bring pain in the long run because it is so self-focused. As long as a person is a true humanitarian with compassion for all people and makes the world a better place not just their country, it doesn't matter where they are from."

Self-referent and other-referent are both important to cultivate. Pride is a part of the spectrum of human emotion. It is not something to be supressed, completely. It is part of self-esteem; self-efficacy. It is necessary. Yes, we need compassion for others and to strive to make the world a better place. But. . .

"This beacon on the hill does a lot of horrible things still in the name of protecting its interests and need for materiel from other countries, many of them poor, to drive it's consumerist lifestyle."

Some. . . but, the world is an interesting place. There's lots of stuff going against this beacon on the hill. . .lots of regressive cultures that would see us cease to exist. We are tied to our economic power. It is a necessity.

[hippywife]

38. Apparently you haven't stopped to ask yourself

why this statement is true:

There's lots of stuff going against this beacon on the hill. . .lots of regressive cultures that would see us cease to exist. We are tied to our economic power. It is a necessity.

If you've not read it yet, I would suggest that you look into A People's History of the United States: 1492 to the Present by Howard Zinn for just a beginning.

One of my favorite sayings and it's a grand idea is this: "The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you. They are unique manifestations of the human spirit."

If everyone thought that way, there would be less reason to treat other nations and their peoples like they don't matter as long as our commercial interests in what resources we need are protected and we can profit by them without regard to the welfare of the people who live there. That is how we project abroad because that is our footprint abroad.

And if you think we feed the world and give so much aid to other starving nations in return for nothing but disrespect, I would suggest Diet for a Dead Planet by Christopher D. Cook to learn what really drives our farm policy and food aid to other countries, as well as how devastating that aid actually is on their own economies. Did you know that immigration from Mexico increased 18% almost immediately after NAFTA? Ask yourself why and then go find out.


And pride and self-esteem are two different things. Self esteem is a realization that you are no better or worse than anyone else who exists in this world. Pride is merely a puffed up idea that somehow you are better,

[inthenever]

39. truth, relativism, and existence

"If you've not read it yet, I would suggest that you look into A People's History of the United States: 1492 to the Present by Howard Zinn for just a beginning."

It's on my list. It has been recommended before.

"One of my favorite sayings and it's a grand idea is this: "The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you. They are unique manifestations of the human spirit."

I agree. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they are compatible. When I reference regressive cultures, I am judging from my ethnocentric perspective and vision of what I want the future of humanity to reflect. Ergo, theocratically dominated cultures, dicatorship, familial-dominated political lines, and so on, I view as regressive. This would include much of the muslim world. In our own culture, I dislike the power of the evangelicals/christians. I think we should outlaw relatives and friends of politicians elected/appointed to a certain level from ever holding any sort of office. E.g., no Hillary Clinton, No Ted Kennedy, No George W Bush. . .

"If everyone thought that way, there would be less reason to treat other nations and their peoples like they don't matter as long as our commercial interests in what resources we need are protected and we can profit by them without regard to the welfare of the people who live there. That is how we project abroad because that is our footprint abroad."

That's an ethnocentric way of looking at it. Remember, we must look at it from other vantage points as well. If everyone thought that way, they would be of your cultural viewpoint and there wouldn't be any reason to fear. However, the world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Some of those unique manifestations of the human spirit don't care about our approval/acceptance or dissaproval of their cultural norms, nor do they approve/accept ours.

"And if you think we feed the world and give so much aid to other starving nations in return for nothing but disrespect, I would suggest Diet for a Dead Planet by Christopher D. Cook to learn what really drives our farm policy and food aid to other countries, as well as how devastating that aid actually is on their own economies. Did you know that immigration from Mexico increased 18% almost immediately after NAFTA? Ask yourself why and then go find out."

Careful thinking you have all of the answers.

"And pride and self-esteem are two different things. Self esteem is a realization that you are no better or worse than anyone else who exists in this world. Pride is merely a puffed up idea that somehow you are better."

I am familiar with neither of those definitions. Self-esteem is a complex construct that includes pride and self-efficacy. Moderation is important. Too much self-esteem, too much pride, too much importance placed on being better can land one on the narcissistic spectrum. But, to be emotionally healthy, self-esteem is necessary; pride is necessary.

[hippywife]

40. They don't need to be compatible

for them to coexist in peace. Only respected. If we'd get our "needs" and interests, and our army bases, out of other countries or pay for them fairly without holding up their tyrannical leaders, or even putting them in power at times, there wouldn't be the need for fear.

You haven't a clue how to view or interact with the rest of the world outside your own ethnocentric view. And by calling much of the Muslim world "repressive" you've just qualified yourself as a right wing freeper. I have nothing more to discuss with you at all.

[inthenever]

41. I disagree

"for them to coexist in peace. If we'd get our needs out of other countries or pay for them fairly without holding up their tyrannical leaders, or even putting them in power at times, there wouldn't be the need for fear."

I disagree. Look at the difficulties other countries have in assimilitating incompatible cultures. For example, the French, Dutch, and English are all having difficulties with middle eastern cultures immigrating into their nations. For what it's worth, I invite many different cultures into my lab (I'm a scientist). I currently have researchers from Lebanon, Iran, Korea, and Poland working with me. You understand that there is a difference between educated and uneducated populace. Think about "fundys" in our own country. When one is operating from an unreasonable perspective with a view of absolute truth and divine will, we run into difficulties in coexisting peacefully.

"You haven't a clue how to view or interact with the rest of the world outside your own ethnocentric view. And by calling much of the Muslim world "repressive" you've just qualified yourself as a right wing freeper. I have nothing more to discuss with you at all.
"

Regressive is the word that I used, not repressive. I am not a freeper. You are arguing emotionally, and hence, poorly, choosing to label, categorize, and dismiss rather than engage in thoughtful discourse. Regressive is a word I'd use to reference our own government when it doesn't move in positive humanistic directions and when it falls on irrational myths (religion) to further various agendas.

[hippywife]

45. Oooh! I made a typo. Unheard of on the internet, isn't it?

Count me among the unwashed, uneducated masses you so fear. If I argue emotionally, it's because I'm worn out from all of the horrors and injustices man inflicts upon his fellows. My heart is full of the sorrows that are every where I turn around.

The problems other countries are having with immigration are the same as here. It's pure bigotry and xenophobia. Instead of offering compassion and aid, people fear the changes that immigration brings about to their own cultures without realizing or acknowledging that their cultures are no more than centuries of immigration and change. Nothing about any present culture was born whole as it is.

I firmly believe that if the common people would work together to make sure that we are not divided and conquered by the manipulations of those playing from a position of greed, and treat each other as equals with the same needs, then there would not be the conflicts that exist. We will never know that, tho, will we?

There is more than enough for all if so many weren't afraid to make sure that each received fairly and according to their need.

[inthenever]

48. A typo, but it shifted meaning, so I clarified. ..

"Count me among the unwashed, uneducated masses you so fear. If I argue emotionally, it's because I'm worn out from all of the horrors man inflicts upon his fellows. My heart is full of the sorrows that are every where I turn around."

There is lots of good out there as well. It may do your heart well to focus on that.

"The problems other countries are having with immigration are the same as here."

Not really. Check out Japan's solution.


"It's pure bigotry and xenophobia. Instead of offering compassion and aid, people fear the changes that immigration brings about to their own cultures without realizing or acknowledging that their cultures are no more than centuries of immigration and change. Nothing about any present culture was born whole as it is."

Cultures bring with them their own memes. These may or may not be compatible. In the US, we have many cultures from similar roots, or at least, historically. There are, however, lots of potentials for incompatible memes. It's not about bigotry and xenophobia, at least not purely. It's more complicated than that. If an incoming culture is completely intolerant of the existant culture, well then, what do you have? Trouble.

"I firmly believe that if the common people would work together to make sure that we are not divided and conquered by the manipulations of those playing from a position of greed, and treat each other as equals with the same needs, then there would not be the conflicts that exist. We will never know that, tho, will we? "

I think the common people are slaves to the form of culture (a tendency to behave by rote, without rational consideration), more so than others. Look at various polls in the middle east and their thoughts on Israel (hell, in Lebanon they don't even refer to Israel as an independent state). So, in my opinion, while there may be some genesis of rot, if you will, from those in power, be they religious, political, or corporate leaders, the issues extend far deeper. They aren't the memes of a few, they are the thoughts of many. We should treat each other with respect, but we must also be assertive with respect to what we believe is right. It is not immoral or wrong to defend our cultural viewpoint, especially within our own borders.

[hippywife]

50. And I have yet to see this as the rule rather than the exception

in this country or any other: If an incoming culture is completely intolerant of the existent culture, well then, what do you have? Trouble. Never has this been the rule and you know it. I have met so many immigrants of different cultures who only wish to be welcomed and treated as human, as the equals that they are. Oh, wait! I have seen it...only in invading armies!

I'm third generation Italian American on one side, and German/Irish on the other. My ancestors who emigrated here were treated just as poorly. We are a country of immigrants. Which culture should we then choose to be representative here?

Most of these people are emigrating out of desperate need, out of a desire to survive. Who of us would rather leave our homes and families behind just so we can go to a strange country, knowing we will be hated and denigrated, if we didn't have to? How many of us have had our survival and that of those we love imperative upon doing so? I held a woman the other day who was crying because her father was dying and she could not go back to see him else she wouldn't be allowed to come back here to earn a living for herself and her family. Yeah, boy! I'd choose that as a way to live.

I tell you now, like I told my father the other day when he was claiming that the looters in Haiti be shot...you have no idea what you would do in their circumstances. You cannot speak to their desperation unless you, too, share it. So please do not even pretend to know what it is that drives them here.

The scariest people on this earth to me are wealthy white republican men, not the brown man, woman or child who just needs to find a way to eat.

[inthenever]

51. scary white men?

"Never has this been the rule and you know it. I have met so many immigrants of different cultures who only wish to be welcomed and treated as human, as the equals that they are."

It is often the case that an incoming culture will be intolerant of an existing cultural set. If you allow that in large numbers, you have a problem. For example, the muslim riots in France. Think about it. Take a fundamentalist culture, one that doesn't allow their women to shake hands (Iran), that has strong opinions about how others should comport themselves (e.g., homosexuality, drinking, dating, etc. . .), and insert it into a secular society and watch the fireworks.

"Which culture should we then choose to be representative here?"

It seems you want a tolerant society; that would suggest a secular, humanistic vantagepoint. How about that? It seems consistent with the ideals upon which the USA was founded. The ideology underlying the bill of rights. Thomas Jefferson had it right in many ways.


"I tell you now, like I told my father the other day when he was claiming that the looters in Haiti be shot...you have no idea what you would do in their circumstances. You cannot speak to their desperation unless you, too, share it. So please do not even pretend to know what it is that drives them here."

I'm a psychologist, it's what I do. But, keep in mind, there is a difference in understanding motivations and in sharing the emotional impact of it. We can emphasize with folks if we open our minds and try to understand the world from their view, but we may not be able to sympathize (depending).

"The scariest people on this earth to me are wealthy white republican men, not the brown man, woman or child who just needs to find a way to eat."

The scariest people on this earth to me are irrational zealots, whatever their flavor of pigment. I don't know why you'd pick on white republican men. It doesn't make sense, especially in the context of your "tolerant" viewpoint.

[hippywife]

52. Because at this point

they are the least empathetic and most controlling, the most xenophobic and bigoted. The most likely to be intolerant and spew the hate that incites violence. That is why they scare me.

Tell me why the Muslims riot in France? They are slowly being stripped of their cultures by laws being passed about how they are permitted to dress or comport themselves. They didn't come into France demanding that the French change their ways of life to suit them.

If one is able to empathize, one is also able to sympathize. Or should be able to. If they cannot, it's only a matter of where a bigot draws their line. You know...well, I think it's fine if they do this, as long as they don't do that. Such as in intermarry, but not have children. Or it's okay if they go to school, but not with my child. Many people think they are open-minded but make statements like that.

Now, thank you for the conversation but I have dinner to prepare.

[inthenever]

54. intolerance?

"they are the least empathetic and most controlling, the most xenophobic and bigoted. The most likely to be intolerant and spew the hate that incites violence. That is why they scare me.
"
I see. But, why can't you just accept their culture, as you've conceptualized it, and coexist peacefully? Are you saying their viewpoints and actions are incompatible with your view of how the world should be? Interesting.

"Tell me why the Muslims riot in France? They are slowly being stripped of their cultures by laws being passed about how they are permitted to dress or comport themselves. They didn't come into France demanding that the French change their ways of life to suit them. "

They didn't? They have here. For example, in Minnesota, they demanded foot baths in public bathrooms. Regarding, the French problem. . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4375910.stm Keep in mind, France was a spearhead in the libertarian secular movement. This is not an intolerant country in philosophy, and yet they are faced with this problem, "Islam is seen as the biggest challenge to the country's secular model in the past 100 years." (from the article).

"If one is able to empathize, one is also able to sympathize. Or should be able to."

No, sympathy requires a degree of common experience. Empathy does not necessarily.

"You know...well, I think it's fine if they do this, as long as they don't do that. Such as in intermarry, but not have children. Or it's okay if they go to school, but not with my child. Many people think they are open-minded but make statements like that."

That's true, but is that what we're discussing here? The various shades of bigotry? It's an interesting topic and I suppose I can see how that might relate to this discussion.

"Now, thank you for the conversation but I have dinner to prepare."

Likewise, enjoy your dinner.

[Call Me Wesley]

59. Besides from ignoring the ambivalency of Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery,

you seem to have a lot of 'Wikipedia' windows open. Being a psychologist (I assume,) you pretty much seem to lack a proper overview.

"We should treat each other with respect, but we must also be assertive with respect to what we believe is right. It is not immoral or wrong to defend our cultural viewpoint, especially within our own borders."

That's plain xenophobia, ignorance and bigotry.

Of course, invoke 'morality' and 'what you believe is right,' and 'within our borders,' and you might get your own show on Fox. Congrats on that.

First, moral is not ethics. Did you miss the course? Moral is what the religious, political or corporate leaders you talk about put on you; no matter if it's right or wrong. Moral is culturally based, and it's mainly cheap. Really cheap.

Second, you gave some links to the 'Muslim riots in France.' Europe is a strange place I guess and probably not as easy to understand. While the term 'riot' is easily added to any kind of protest where cars are burning and people differ from how they're being treated, etc., you forgot the 'riots' we have every year on several occasions. Burning cars, shattered glasses. If this threatens you personally or makes you afraid and phobic of any other belief than the one you hold morally as 'right' in your mind, then the World is a harsh place and you might seek proper counseling. Welcome to the reality, if you like it or not.

And it's really nice to see that you describe common people as slaves to the form of culture. I always wished I found a psychologist with this great insight; one that really looks down on most and probably spits when he talks. On another thought:

"We should treat each other with respect, but we must also be assertive with respect to what we believe is right. It is not immoral or wrong to defend our cultural viewpoint, especially within our own borders."

Slave to the form of culture? Are you so common?

[inthenever]

63. Thomas Jefferson, applying morality from one era to another, and strawmen

"Being a psychologist (I assume,) you pretty much seem to lack a proper overview. "

Proper overview? What's that supposed to mean?


"That's plain xenophobia, ignorance and bigotry. "

That's not consistent with any definition of those three constructs to which I've been exposed. And, if you apply it so, it would encompass most of the world. Given the goals of secular humanism, this seems problematic to establishing any real progress. Wouldn't you say? I think you paint with too broad a brush.

"First, moral is not ethics. Did you miss the course? Moral is what the religious, political or corporate leaders you talk about put on you; no matter if it's right or wrong. Moral is culturally based, and it's mainly cheap. Really cheap. "

I think you're being a bit narrow. Here, read. . . http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/.

"Second, you gave some links to the 'Muslim riots in France.'"

Yes, BBC. Not good enough for you?

"If this threatens you personally or makes you afraid and phobic of any other belief than the one you hold morally as 'right' in your mind, then the World is a harsh place and you might seek proper counseling. Welcome to the reality, if you like it or not."

You are making some erroneous assumptions. The purpose of bringing that up was to refute a vein of rationale presented by Hippywife. Namely, that if we all are geared towards acceptance and respect that such unpleasantness might be avoided. And yet, at the heart of libertarian thought and secular progressive society, we have. . . riots. We have discussions of setbacks with respect to secular culture because of the introduction of a different culture in large numbers.

"And it's really nice to see that you describe common people as slaves to the form of culture. I always wished I found a psychologist with this great insight; one that really looks down on most and probably spits when he talks."

Heh, I don't spit. You see how you demonize what you perceive to be an opponent? This isn't an impressive display of tolerance on your part.

[Call Me Wesley]

67. Okay, this posting format makes me a bit dizzy, but I'll try ...

"Proper overview? What's that supposed to mean? "

Here, read ... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overview

"That's not consistent with any definition of those three constructs to which I've been exposed. And, if you apply it so, it would encompass most of the world. Given the goals of secular humanism, this seems problematic to establishing any real progress. Wouldn't you say? I think you paint with too broad a brush."

I could make a really good joke here, but I'm tired. I love quotes. I could quote you like:

"That's not consistent with most of the world. Wouldn't you say? I think you paint."

"I think you're being a bit narrow. Here, read. . . http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition /. "

Uh-huh ... The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

"Yes, BBC. Not good enough for you?"

BBC is fine. So is France1, France2, ARD, ZDF, SF1. You fully missed the point. Okay, Muslims rioted in France. Oh my! Oh my! I don't know if BBC airs the 1st of May riots in Berlin, but if, you should watch it. Only you will have a hard time to brush them with fundamentalism, unless you go all the way and take any protest as threatening your specific culture. You'd make a sloppy revolutionary.

"The purpose of bringing that up was to refute a vein of rationale presented by Hippywife. Namely, that if we all are geared towards acceptance and respect that such unpleasantness might be avoided. And yet, at the heart of libertarian thought and secular progressive society, we have. . . riots. We have discussions of setbacks with respect to secular culture because of the introduction of a different culture in large numbers."

Hey, I really like this quoting thingie! So, you're totally for gay marriage, equality 'n stuff? Just to avoid the riots, I mean, of which you rather seem to be afraid. You're not afraid of Scots getting citizenship, are you? What if they all come to the US? And the Irish, too? And what if they're all gay?

"You see how you demonize what you perceive to be an opponent? This isn't an impressive display of tolerance on your part."

Demonize? Do we bring religion in this now? Nah. For tolerance, you betcha! :woohoo:

[inthenever]

69. Replies and such

"Here, read ... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overview "

I know the definition of overview, I just don't see how it applies.

"Uh-huh ... The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

Yes, and it applies both in relativistic and absolute forms. In the relative (normative) form, many subcultures are recognized; things become individualized.



"You fully missed the point."

. . . and you missed the point for why I posted it. I'm not condeming muslims. I was pointing out that even if a society has the best of intentions as a whole that there can be incompatibilities. And, as we strive to integrate different cultures, we must keep that in mind. That doens't mean we don't welcome other cultures or that we abandon the idea of the USA as a melting pot. But, we need to be cautious with rates. Especially, when the majority of new people from a specific cultural group have come here illegally, which means that we aren't able to have a say in that rate.

"Hey, I really like this quoting thingie! So, you're totally for gay marriage, equality 'n stuff? "

Absolutley. Gay marriage should be legal. edit: What do you think Muslims, by and large, think of gay marriage? If we let 50 million or so into the country, what would it do to the gay marriage movement? I am all for a secular humanist society, one that is tolerant of others and does not try to impose restrictive values on others. But realize that kind of freedom IS a cultural value.

"Just to avoid the riots, I mean, of which you rather seem to be afraid. You're not afraid of Scots getting citizenship, are you? What if they all come to the US? And the Irish, too? And what if they're all gay? "

You're missing my point. And, you've mis-categorized me.

[Call Me Wesley]

70. I'm off to bed, ince I'm of a different culture and timezone.

"But, we need to be cautious with rates. Especially, when the majority of new people from a specific cultural group have come here illegally, which means that we aren't able to have a say in that rate."

Fundamentalism starts there. Xenophobia you have proven already, no matter how you twist and turn now. Absolute Nighty-night! :boring:

[inthenever]

71. you are debating the self-evident

"But, we need to be cautious with rates. Especially, when the majority of new people from a specific cultural group have come here illegally, which means that we aren't able to have a say in that rate."

"Fundamentalism starts there. Xenophobia you have proven already, no matter how you twist and turn now. Absolute Nighty-night!"

You are debating the self-evident because you don't like the way it sounds. It's not xenophobia. You are being impractical. There's an ideal and there's the logistics of implementation. And, I'm certainly no fundamentalist (I'm an atheist. . . an atheist that supports gay marriage, women's rights, works as a professor in a university, is a psychologist, and has traveled all over the world). Good night.

[jdp349]

74. I never understood this argument

Isn't what happened to the Native Americans a case study in to exactly why it is a nations self interest in terms of self preservation to control immigration and promote cultural assimilation?

[patrice]

8. I know it may be asking for a bit too much, but I hope you Reply All -ed.

Tends to get one's but kicked, but it IS the internet and if folk just can't deal with a reasonable Reply All, they need to get rid of email.

[inthenever]

12. immigration

The problem isn't the 1st generation folks coming in and not learning English. That's typical. Usually, the 2nd generation is fluent. But, what we're currently doing with regards to the illegal influx of Mexicans is not very smart. We, as a nation, have a right to control immigration. It's important that we do so. The rapid influx of illegal Mexicans/Hispanics is fundamentally altering our culture in many areas (e.g., Miami). Further, it places strain on our educational and healthcare systems. It changes our political landscape. Some of these changes are for the better (e.g., access to good Mexican food!). Some are for the worse. The point is, we need reform that stems the flow of illegals into the country, re-establishes our immigration laws so that it is both fair for those who want to come here and fair for those that already here. It is the black market that brings illegals into the country, a black market that subverts all of those labor protections that have been fought for over the years.

[treestar]

16. We don't control those borders

We choose not to. We choose to exploit cheap labor and blame the cheap laborers.

[inthenever]

17. exploitation

Yes, I agree. Which is exactly the wrong policy. It benefits a few business at taxpayer expense. . . and cultural expense. The motivations of illegals are clear. I don't blame them. I blame are government for allowing it.

[patrice]

19. I don't mean this as a put-down, but it's like beating and beating and nothing but beating

an animal, and doing absolutely nothing else to correct, or help them correct, the problems.

[inthenever]

22. Elaborate

. . ..

[patrice]

28. The cultural adaptations on both sides of the situation are like a

teacher saying to young students "You will do calculus and chemistry or else!!!" and then providing no materials, no step-wise curriculum, no support processes, no rewards and just walking away until some unspecified time in the future, at which s/he returns and demands to see the equations and no matter what s/he receives, no matter if there is any part of the work that is at least a little bit right, the students are punished and then the "teacher" disappears again, without providing any of what is needed to help the learning to happen, and then re-appears at some arbitrary point in the future again, to demand the work again . . . and that's all that ever happens.

Having been in highschool classrooms myself for 8 years, it is an important aspect of what I am saying here that: both groups in the immigration situation function as teachers to the other group and both group SHOULD function as students to the other group.

What we have now is Both groups are acting as dysfunctional teachers and both groups are functioning as students who become more and more resistant to the learning:teaching process.

Both sides recognizing and accepting responsibility for their roles in reciprocal relationships is the key.

[patrice]

32. P.S. Though there are no rewards for learning & growing beyond the problems, there are

plenty of reinforcers (social and political), WITHIN each of the groups, for NOT learning and growing beyond the group's limits.

[patrice]

18. Yes. The problem is things being, in effect, wide open and then the only response most people

seem to be able to get behind is indescriminent and punitive to the max.

[Xipe Totec]

44. altering our culture in many areas (e.g., Miami)...

Last I checked, the Hispanic population in Florida, and particularly Miami, is overwhelmingly Cuban, not Mexican.

And Cubans to this day have the right to automatic permanent residence in the United States simply by stepping on dry US soil. So, in that respect, there are few if any "illegal immigrants" in Florida relative to the total immigrant population.

And, if I remember my history, that part of the country had an established Spanish speaking European population long before the Unites States existed.

So, who's altering who's culture here?

[inthenever]

46. Miami

"Last I checked, the Hispanic population in Florida, and particularly Miami, is overwhelmingly Cuban, not Mexican."

Cuban, yes, but actually, that demographic has shifted substantially. There are many hispanic cultures represented in Miami.

"And, if I remember my history, that part of the country had an established Spanish speaking European population long before the Unites States existed.

So, who's altering who's culture here?"

I grew up in Miami. The change in Miami from the 70s to today is remarkable.

[Xipe Totec]

47. Miami

"Cuban, yes, but actually, that demographic has shifted substantially. There are many hispanic cultures represented in Miami."

So you're okay with Spanish speakers, so long as they're Cuban?

"I grew up in Miami. The change in Miami from the 70s to today is remarkable."

That's 40 years or less; a relatively short time. The real change is that we no longer have segregated housing, so you are more exposed to the real culture now than when you were younger.

[inthenever]

49. Miami

"Cuban, yes, but actually, that demographic has shifted substantially. There are many hispanic cultures represented in Miami."

So you're okay with Spanish speakers, so long as they're Cuban? "

I'm okay with Spanish speakers, generally. I speak Spanish, though not well. My first girlfriend was Cuban. I'm just curious about the wisdom of allowing such rapid expansion of those cultural roots. Why?

"I grew up in Miami. The change in Miami from the 70s to today is remarkable."

That's 40 years or less; a relatively short time. The real change is that we no longer have segregated housing, so you are more exposed to the real culture now than when you were younger."

I don't agree. Those cultures were not heavily represented before. Look at the shift in demographics in recent history. It wasn't so long ago that blacks were by far and away our largest minority. It's not even close now.

[Xipe Totec]

55. Florida 2000 Census

In 1980, this first year when the census begins tracking hispanic identity, The population of Florida was 9,746,961. Of these, 1,351,548 considered themselves black, and 858,210 considered themselves Hispanic.

Even if we assume that black and Hispanic are disjoint populations (which they are not), that would leave 7,537,203 people who are neither black nor Hispanic. That's 77% of the population.

In 2000, the population of Florida according to the census was 18,807,219. Of these, 2,468,576 considered themselves black, and 2,682,933 considered themselves hispanic.

Again assuming that black and Hispanic populations are disjoint, that would leave 13,655,710 people who are neither black nor Hispanic. That's 72% of the population. Hardly something to be alarmed about.

The proportions look pretty similar to me; I wouldn't say they are "not even close".

http://edr.state.fl.us/population/web7.xls

[inthenever]

56. Florida is a big state

Florida is not Miami. The demographics change signficantly as you travel North in the state.

[Archae]

14. Yes I did.

Most of the others are saying back "Pwned!" or something along that line.

One asshole though called me a Nazi Kraut. :eyes:

[patrice]

15. Congratulations on your courage!

[shraby]

11. Our neighbor when I was in high school

came from Czechoslovakia as adults. (They were old people when we became their neighbor) They raised 7 children here, all went to school and graduated and the father spoke very broken English and the mother, even with 7 children going to an American school, never did learn English. She still spoke her native language with a few words of English, when she died.
She said it was too heavy to her.

[tuckessee]

20. Did you greatgrandfather's generation demand special taxpayer funded services in German?

Did they want ballots in German? Translators in court? Were special teachers hired by the public schools to teach them EASL? Did he expect the government to provide him documents in his native language as opposed to the native language of his adopted country?

[datasuspect]

31. um

you know nothing about the history of this country as it concerns immigration, so discussing the issue with you is pointless.

please do some research on your own. this requires reading, so please bear this in mind.

nevertheless, in the united states, especially during the surges of german immigration, politicians made damn sure their message was communicated to people in the language they understood.

the germans brought their beer halls with them to this country, and in many areas, these were places where you could find work, get a loan, and hear a politician speak. they were social service centers in addition to places to get tanked.

the german communities in this country had plenty of german language businesses and if you lived in chicago's lincoln park/old town in the 1890s, you'd have no problem negotiating the system in your native tongue.

and yes, children were sent to parochial schools where german was spoken, and children were taught our US customs and traditions in their native tongue:



germans had german language newspapers:



businesses marketed to germans in german:



german, german, german, german:



now, the germans brought with them their cherished traditions, history, identity, culture, and construction skills. it made this country a better place.

so what specifically do you have against mexicans?

[Lucky Luciano]

34. I believe you can claim pwnership of the previous poster! LOL nt

[datasuspect]

37. it's the hate and it's the stupid

but no, i'm sure they have absolutely nothing against mexicans other than that they are violating the law.

yeah, that's the ticket.

[Kali]

57. you fucking rock!

:toast:
prost y salud!

[Call Me Wesley]

62. Oh noes! Ze Germans!

You know they have riots every year? They burn cars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuxghiwjgQc

:hi:

[RB TexLa]

64. Why wouldn't an American citizen be given a ballot in their spoken language?

Why wouldn't an American citizen be taught in their spoken language?

Why wouldn't an American citizen be provided documents written in their language?

Please tell me why a government wouldn't do that for a citizen? Starting with why they shouldn't do it for you.

[K8-EEE]

23. What amuses me is everybody's ancestors "stood in line" NOT

The derogatory slur against Italians, "WOP" stood for With Out Papers -- yet you cannot meet any descendants of such people, everyone is descended from people who had every T crossed and every i dotted. RIGHT! It's like they kind of idealize their own tribe, and btw, the Mayflower people didn't have no stinkin' papers and they didn't speak the native language -- not to mention survived on "handouts" from the native Americans!

[Brickbat]

27. "Without papers" is folk etymology.

It's generally recognized that it comes from the term "guappo" or "guap," used around Naples, and means a cocky or arrogant person.

/pedant

[Mopar151]

25. The trouble with these goobers

Is that they don't speak any language very well, and are not all that literate - look at the spelling!
And It's very ironic, in my case, that my in-laws are French - Canadian, asd still use some of the slang - and they are the ones who carp about the whole "can't speak English" thing.

[lynne]

29. There are thousands of stories about immigrants in that era -

- Consider the masses that entered through Ellis Island alone. However, our immigration laws were very different then.

[B Calm]

42. My grandmother and grandfather spoke Flemish. Their little bit of English

was terrible. They lived here from 1911 to their deaths in the early 1970s.

[Cleita]

43. It seems like lots of European immigrants in the last century never learned

English. My best friend's grandmother in high school only spoke Slovenian and another college friend in college, who came from Swedish ancestry in Minnesota told me that out in the woods where she came from there were second and third generations who only spoke Swedish. No one seemed to be concerned about them back then. When I went to the wedding of one of my college roommates in Kansas, it was a big German wedding that lasted for a couple of days and I heard a lot of German being spoken by the older folks. This was all back in the early sixties.

[Cursive]

53. Good for you! nt

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Call Me Wesley]

60. ROFL!

You're such immoral! I think I saw you rioting in France, am I right? You burned this poor Renault down to its tires!!!!111!!!!

:rofl:

[Kali]

65. I really hate France

crossed the border from Germany and couldn't find a freaking border guard ANYWHERE to get my passport stamped:wtf:

[Call Me Wesley]

68. Just walk through!

Enjoy the sight and the oh là là! ;)

[inthenever]

66. interesting

Are you saying you think I'm a bigot?

Care to explain?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inthenever]

73. You must not be fond of anthropologists

Ah, I see. We should all be concerned about our culture. Afterall, isn't anyone who supports the social end of the progressive movement?

Your generalizations belay a poorly conceived bias; dare I say, the musings of a bigot would indeed be consistent.

[Kali]

76. ...

:spray: :rofl: :patriot:

[csziggy]

61. If they want to slur Hispanics, how about the people who lived in the SW

Long before the US took it from Mexico? There are families who lived in Texas and other parts of the Southwest before the Mayflower saw this continent. They were systematically excluded from the US sanctioned government and culture and many of the family members continue to speak Spanish as their primary language to this day.

And this is only the people of European Hispanic descent, not the Native Americans who pre-dated them.

They cannot "go back to Mexico" since their ancestors have been in what is now the US long before the US was formed.

I want a US that is more inclusive not more exclusionary!

[RedCloud]

75. Maybe some different focus too on the Migra