Over my time at AD I've heard some pretty curious statements on the idea of cultural relations both here and abroad.

Here are three examples of what I'm talking about



A couple of points:

1. I have refrained from including names with the quotes because frankly I don't care. They are irrelevant and I'd rather not deal with flaming, so please don't identify the posters.

2. I am not grouping all the quotes together as if their writers all have the same "mindset" or are representative of the full range of views of the persons who posted them. Long winded way of saying I mean no offense, I simply disagree.

Now then on to the important part:

1.Is the concept of "multiculturalism" a problem in society?
2. If so, how?
3. Is cultural assimilation desirable?
4. Is so, why?
5. What are you thoughts on the quotes? Agree? Disagree (without being disagreeable)?

1&2. I suppose that would mean how we define "multiculturalism." I'll define it as the blending of cultures. Multiculturalism then, as I see it, is not a problem. The United States has always been a nation of mixing cultures. It's who we are and what are history is.

3&4. Neither yes nor no. Again, cultural assimilation is what our country was founded upon. I think immigration is neither good nor bad. It's something that should be allowed, but I don't think it's a "good." I think it's a right we should afford others. I think illegal immigration, however, makes a joke of our laws and security. Having worked for a DA's office before, I can tell you that a great percentage of crimes (I worked with DUIs) are committed by illegals. I think the reason of this is that many do not believe the United States treats crimes seriously.

5. I disagree with the first quote because I disagree with its premise. I don't think multiculturalism decreases the social engineering of the federal government.

I agree with the second quote if we define multiculturalism as the forced integration of cultures (I consider it more of a natural process). We should not be re-writing textbooks to be politically correct or to make sure all peoples are represented equally. In the case of history, this is most dangerous. We should not let political viewpoints dictate education.

I disagree with the third quote. I think tolerance is extremely important. It's what makes us Americans. But tolerance goes out in all directions. It should apply to different races, different cultures, different religions, different lifestyles, etc. Additionally, tolerance should apply to majorities as well. This often gets lost in the discussion.

1.Is the concept of "multiculturalism" a problem in society?

It isn't so much a problem as a feature, something that just is, like a face having a nose. When a country allows immigration, other cultures come in. First generation immigrants tend to hang onto their cultures more tightly than second and onward. Eventually, a blending does occur with vestiges of the original culture.

This was also a feature of conquering countries like the Roman Empire, British Empire and so on. It's interesting to look at history from a cultural perspective.

2. If so, how?

I can see this being a problem for specific situations, like crime or education. I can see it as beneficial for bringing in variety and the the improvement of the main culture. Overall though, it looks to me that diversity in cultures brings in more positive than negative.

3. Is cultural assimilation desirable?

Not all the time, but some assimilation is bound to happen. That's the way people work. One big exception is the strong resistance to assimilation by a conquered people. The conquering country might think assimilation is part of the war spoils, but history has shown this not to be true, hardly ever.

4. Is so, why?

People like to feel together, as one, even with differences. So it's desirable to do as the main culture does to get this feeling. That's why communities develop, musical styles blend, ethnic foods take on different flavors, and so on.

As for conquered people, the desire is to resist in both active and passive manners.

5. What are you thoughts on the quotes? Agree? Disagree (without being disagreeable)?

I'll skip this one.

Multiculturalism is NOT a problem in and of itself. Multiculturalism becomes a problem when some, seeking to promote it, decide that the culture of one group is irrelevant (the majority). If we are going to have a truly multi-cultural society then we need to face the fact that everyone needs to be equally respected.

For example. We do not allow religion in the classroom of public schools. This is a constitutional issue, but in a way it is also a multicultural issue in that we do not want those who do not belong to one particular religion to be left out. Then, after 9/11 in New York schools there was a surge of classes on Islam.

Now, I have no problem with a class that seeks to explain the basics of Islam. I just have a problem with that being OK when a class to explain the basics of Christianity, or any other faith is not permitted.

If we want to be inclusive, then we need to be inclusive of ALL. If we are not, then we are simply trading the oppression of one culture for another.

As for assimilation. Well, this depends on how you look at it. Should people in America all try to be "white suburbanites" at the expense of their own culture? Absolutely not (and it would be a boring place if they did ). Why give up your identity, your ideals, and your history? Diversity is what makes life interesting.

However, there is a practical side to life as well. If you come to America from a non-english speaking country and you want to succeed here, you really need to learn the english language. Learning a second language is not an attack on culture. It does however, broaden you opportunities and allows you a greater chance and achieving the American Dream.

To me, Multiculturalism is a good thing. Where it goes wrong is some of the attempts to achieve it. And where it fails people is giving them the unreasonable expectation that they can succeed in America without learning to at least live within the dominant culture (learn the language, the laws, the social expectations). You don't have to give up who you are, but if you want to succeed you have to learn how to get along with everyone as they are.

1.Is the concept of "multiculturalism" a problem in society?
Multiculturalism is almost non-existent where I live and everything is predictable. Blending cultures always interjects unknowns and preconceptions that are often false. After having served over twenty years in the army my experience with differing cultures is broad. Well, I also have married three times into different cultures, Korean, German and Puerto Rican. But, in almost all cases it was I that was interjected into their culture for the most part. The military expends much training on cultures of peoples you will be visiting and you are always taught to be an American ambassador in your actions. The army pushes the theory of understanding, respecting, learning basic language skills and friendship with contacts of other cultures. The military approach is a theory of assimilation while maintaining and proudly wearing your homeland culture. For each culture is a list of “do’s and don’ts” to keep from insulting the local national.

2. If so, how?
The absence of predictability, or norm will always cause discomfort. With that said in America no one is preparing other cultures to the impact to the incredible American culture, or I should say cultures with exception of those who have had extensive contact with Americans prior to coming to America. Those who do not prepare themselves for another culture will always create a problem when culture shock strikes home for the culture they visit or vice versa and it’s compounded with lacking language skills. Some American soldiers always consider local nationals as foreigners even though they are in the people’s country. I’m sure the same exist for those moving to America with a different culture.

3. Is cultural assimilation desirable?
It was and I think pretty much is expected, learn the language, customs verses the rest of the nation adjusting to you. This is not to say a person from another nation should not be proud of homeland customs and cultures, rather cognizant of differences. For example an American shouldn’t insist on wearing shoes into a Korean house in Korea no more than a Korean should bring his chickens onto the train when in America.

4. Is so, why?
Causing displeasure by violating the norm will always result in bad feelings. Even where the parties are from the same country with different culture, white and black Americans can make each other miserable if differences aren’t respected. Apply a compound “shock” of another culture without complete communication skills and both make lasting conclusions that both are morons and undesirable.

5. What are you thoughts on the quotes? Agree? Disagree (without being disagreeable)?
Actually, I find most statements pretty palatable. I think the onus is on the visiting culture party to prepare for the culture and try hard to fit in. I don’t think government documents or education should be offered in alternate language unless the person immigrated at fault of war or refugee of war where America was liable, the Vietnamese brought to America after the sudden end of hostilities for example. I would not want my children indoctrinated into any other culture for the comfort of immigrants on my tax dollar, I don’t think Americans should adapt to foreign cultures but the other way around. Cursory mention of dress differences in school may be helpful to understanding but then again I think school uniforms are a better alternative. Here in PR all schools public and private wear uniforms K-12 and it has an equaling factor as a GI getting his basic training scalp job.

This is one of the issues I was trying to get clarification on.
My answer to that statement would be, why not?

If the government involved finds multi-lingual education to be more effective why should they not use it?

I understand the practical considerations involved in assimilation, but sometimes it seems it goes beyond practical for some reason.

Into some sort of moral/philosophical obligation....


Without getting into my opinion on school uniforms (blech! so glad my school didn't waste my time with that!)...

...What is meant by "indoctrination" into another culture?

No, it is about America is the country they want to come to and we have all to lose. Legal immigration requires applicants to be financially capable of their own support while living here. Unless the immigrant is exceptionally wealthy how, without language skills of the host would they maintain their qualification as an immigrant?

I guess I think immigration rate by national origin should be limited so that it would not be economical to use dual language documents. Immigration rate should support assimilation because as soon as a person immigrates and gains citizenship they immediately sponsor a relative. By requiring early adaptation of standard language the sponsor will be the mentor of the relative they sponsor.

Imagine if Puerto Rico suddenly had to prepare dual language forms and education for their main immigrant for example, the six or eight Chinese families that open restaurants in each major town, it just wouldn’t make sense. Let’s say the Chinese families really liked PR and wanted to invite ten families each? The government should say no, only what percent the economy and the sponsor can financially support and assimilate into the community without impacting on citizens. The rights are belonging to citizen’s verses the immigrants.
The government controls immigration so the rate should be maintained to a rate to allow assimilation.

Any waste of taxpayer’s money that supports government to teach my children about another nations specifics outside of a social studies class. It simply is not justifiable to spend valuable school resources on teaching my children about the social norms of the Chinese son or daughter of the local restaurant. Maybe instead the kid could explain differences to my kids on recess or if they become friends after school. In fact that is how it is done here.

Perhaps a culture fair if there is enough diversity to have exhibits on a Saturday afternoon would do the trick? Otherwise, I guess I could learn about the culture when I wait for my Chinese food and tell my kids about their new Chinese counterparts culture.

So then Ol Sarge, which language is the one language of government documents of Puerto Rico? If countries should limit their people to doing business in one language then can I assume that this is true in Puerto Rico and no domestic government business in conducted in any language other then Spanish?



So then I guess students in Puerto Rico should be taught nothing of the social norms of America in school, since Puerto Rico is a separate country.

In America, the problem I have with producing documents and having translators availible to conduct government business in other languages, of having classes in public schools to teach english as a second language is the expense. I would support it, if those requiring such documents, translators or classes paid for this service to cover the costs of providing it. It was their choice to come to a country that did not speak their native toungue without learning the language of that nation first. IMHO that makes it their responsibility to deal with the language barrier. I do not feel that when the government is already overspending by the billions that we should create more programs that benefit those who have the ability to resolve the issue themselves, but apparently not the will.

As for multi-culturalism, why is it wrong to teach kids that there are all sorts of different people out there and that this is what makes them different and this is where we are all the same.

One of the most important lessons that a child can learn IMHO is that what someone is (black, white, hispanic; Gay, Straight, Bi; Rich, Poor, middle class; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist) means nothing when compared to who someone is and how they act. I see no reason why children should not be taught this concept, and I firmly belive that society is better off if children learn that people are people and it is the actions you should use to judge them.

Is cultural assimilation desirable?

Wasn't this country originally populated by native American's?? Why is it that throughout history, White Europeans conquer other lands and peoples and force them to follow their flag and their laws and that is OK, but if someone dares to cross our borders seeking a new life without a full understanding of our language and culture then they are wrong and are somehow a risk to our society?

If I decided to leave this country for another would I invest time in learning the language and trying to get all the information I could on the laws and cultural differences? Sure! It makes sense, a better understanding of the place you live and the people who live there with you the better your chances of success. Would I require this of anyone seeking to come to America? Absolutely not. I do not fear that they will result in my way of life going the way of the Native Americans. I don't think they will have as good a chance of succeeding here, but as can be seen in every city in America, people who speak nearly no english and choose to stick to the ways of the culture of their birth place rather then assimilate into the culture of America succeed here near daily.

1.Is the concept of "multiculturalism" a problem in society?

Yes

2. If so, how?

I understand Multiculturalism to mean how our country promotes "groups" to maintain their ethnic roots. The notion that our nation is better off with alot of "groups" all living together but maintaining their cultural roots and IDENTITY. I think it is problematic for several reasons. First, it promotes the tendency in our country to identify people, not as INDIVIDUALS but as members of certain groups. That person is hispanic or arab or vietnamese. Second, multiculturalism shifts the focus from our similarities to our differences. We shouldn't be focusing on our DIFFERENCES we should be focusing on our SIMILARITIES. We all live in America, the greatest nation on earth. We have tons of opportunity here. If you work hard, you get ahead, etc.

We should be welcoming in our immigrants and at the same time making it clear that we are all americans and this is not -- as they used to say-- "the old country". That expression is very telling : "old country". My Dad came over in the 40s from Lebanon. So, I grew up around a lot of arab immigrants. Of course, I love arabic food and all that, but my Dad's first and foremost goal was assimilation. He was a teenager when he came over and I remember he used to say how he refused to speak Arabic at home etc. Back in those days the goal was assimilation. It was clearly understood that my Dad and his whole family was here to start a new life in a new country.

3. Is cultural assimilation desirable?

Yes, of course it is good. Cultural assimilation does not mean that we all become nationalistic automotons. It just means that when you immigrate to this country you understand that you are making a new life in a new country. You accept your new country and try to fit in. New immigrants bring a lot with them as well. The cuisine in the U.S. has greatly expanded due to all the immigrants. They can bring much to share with us. However, we should not be fundamentally changing our culture for them. The language is English and it shouldn't be changed to accommodate immigrants.

France is currently having a terrible time with its muslim population. It has grown enormously over the past 25 years and many are not assimilating into French culture and instead are forcing changes in that country to reflect more muslim views. And many are not learning French but continue to speak arabic.

In response, the French have taken to somewhat drastic action forbidding school girls from wearing the traditional muslim head garb in public schools.

The concept of multiculturalism, as presented by the left, is a problem.

How? Because it encourages groups of people who live in our society not to become members of it and to create their own parallel subculture within our country. Of course, the expectation still remains that all the advantages of US society membership are to be provided in spite of the voluntary refusal to join into the larger group.

Cultural assimilation is desirable. But this does not mean the same thing that leftist champions of "multiculturalism" claim which is that all elements of a person's "heritage" are discarded. Instead, assimilation means that the core elements of American society are adopted and the social mores followed.

This is just human nature. American society is tolerant of diversity as a rule. We respect the individual as much or more than any other society in the world. However, the endless focus on what is different about each of us cannot bring us together closer as a society. That's the misguided element of the "multiculturalism" movement. In their zeal to protect all superficial aspects of various "cultures", they stomp all over the dominant culture that forms the glue that holds our society together.

The end result of an unchecked "multicultural" movement is the "balkanization" of the United States. That end result would be a disaster.

In PR there is one language in PR government and that is Spanish. Documents are prepared in English and Spanish for public use. All US Federal government here is one language and that is English. All public schools have English language as a mandatory class.

PR is not a state but has the option to vote through referendum to become one and therefore the requirement for mandatory English classes in schools. PR is a transit society with more citizens living in America than in PR and many citizens cannot speak Spanish but return here to live and therefore the bilingual government forms. PR government and all official forms are based on sovereign nation and require citizens be identified with full names including your last name, which in my case changes to my mother’s maiden name. No forms are available in any other language.

The population understands if they elect to become a state they must transition into English as a primary language.



We actually have more diversity in culture pertaining to language than most schools in America. Because 99.9% of the population is Puerto Rican and such a large portion is transit many students have difficulty learning in public schools where all classes with the exception of English class is presented in Spanish. No classes are presented in social norms of America other than Civics where American history, law, constitution and culture are presented. The mix of NewyouRicans, ChicagoRicans and San FranRicans is so great the local nationals learn the culture on TV. Language difficulties are overcome by US government title 1 teachers that tutor primarily English speakers to learn Spanish and likewise to teach primarily Spanish speaking students with English learning difficulties to learn English.

Now in my home state of WV in my high school of, lets say 1,000 there were three blacks, one Jew, one Syrian and the remainder were third or more generation white folks. In contrast when my family moved to NJ and I attended my senior year at Princeton HS third generation white folks were a minority and in fact I honestly don’t know what origin had the majority because the diversity was so great. Had we had classes on each diverse group in Princeton there would not have been time for any classes other than diversity.



That is the whole point of assimilation; we don’t need a nation of Chinatowns, Saudi towns, German towns, and French towns. If we didn’t want and desire an expected norm we would have adapted to the American Indians rules and just co existed as a society. America is all about expected nationalism norms. Go away and come back as I know you have and it is clear, I fail to understand a PC justification for change.

1.Is the concept of "multiculturalism" a problem in society?

Yes.


2. If so, how?

Because there is no such thing as 'multiculture'. Culture is the totality of a nation's character and any change in that character is permanent, so in other words, by introducing 'multiculture' to a nation like Denmark (my nation) then what your really doing is replacing the pre-existing culture with a new one.

The idea that a nation can survive the pschitzophrenic shock of having more than one culture is a dangerous lie that doesnothing to harmonize national unity, and everything to promote ethnic tension. (This is already happening in every nation in Europe where the Eurocratic monopoly of opinion dictates that immigration is PC)


3. Is cultural assimilation desirable?

Yes.


4. Is so, why?

Because it demonstrates the williingness of the outsider to conform to the nation they wish to reside in.

Anything else is a blatent display of hostility and disdain.


5. What are you thoughts on the quotes? Agree? Disagree (without being disagreeable)?

I agree with what I wrote then.

When I look at America, I see a nation that can barely describe itself as a democracy, filled with ethnic tensions and lacking in any real cultural identity.

I see America's 'culture', not as the 'melting pot' by which it is commonly described but as unchecked capitalism (or greed to use its old fashioned name) being used as a substitute for tradition in value system that increasingly puts economic considerations before all others.

I do not want to live in such a culture. My nation has had a culture it can be proud of for hundreds of years and yet now that culture is being eroded by the Eurocratic and American idea of multiculture, where by sheer economic muscle is being used to systematically destroy our social and cultural value's and all in the name of 'multiculture/capitalism/greed'.

I see no reason why we should have to import immigrant workers we don't need in order to satisfy the guilt ridden PC demands of other nations like Britain, France and the USA.

So let me get this straight then. Because there is a large population of English speaking people in PR, there are government documents available in English as well as special classes and teachers to teach non-spanish speaking kids Spanish.

Why is this OK for PR but not for America?



You do not need to have an individual class to cover every variation of diversity out there. Heck, you don't even need a separate class. You need to be inclusive of the accomplishments of all races of Americans in American History for one thing, and you need to establish a culture within a school that promotes the simple value that WHAT some is means nothing when compared to WHO some is and how someone ACTS. In America we have celebrated diversity for generations. Just look at all the events surrounding St. Patricks Day, Columbus Day, etc.



Why not? Some of my favorite Neighborhoods in America are Ethnic. And when taking a historical perspective we always had separate neighborhoods. New York was completely divided by race years ago, not just by skin color but by heritage as well. There was the German Neighborhood, the Irish Neighborhood, the Polish neighborhood, etc. Living separately on a daily basis and coming together for the greater good when needed is how America operated throughout modern history.



Sure. Our wholesale slaughter of the Native Americans had nothing to do with wanting to steal their land for ourselves, we just wanted them to Assimilate. And we promoted this assimilation by putting those we failed to slaughter on separate reservations away from everyone else.



You are the one advocating change here, at least in a sense. For over a century, ethnic immigrants came to this country and banded together in their own neighborhoods, keeping much of their culture intact. Now that others want to do what has effectively been an American Tradition for generations, it is wrong and needs to change. I fail to understand the justification for this change.

1. Is the concept of "multiculturalism" a problem in society?
2. If so, how?
3. Is cultural assimilation desirable?
4. If so, why?
5. What are you thoughts on the quotes? Agree? Disagree (without being disagreeable)?

I'll address all these questions at once, if I may.

I think we are not the first generation in the history of humanity to face problems stemming from the integration, or otherwise, of other ethnic or religious groups into an otherwise more or less homogenous population.

Let's think, for example, back to medieval British history. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales were separate but neighbouring countries. While they had many common ties, they had distinct and different cultures. The Welsh were the first to be "integrated" into English culture, forcibly, and it took centuries for them (us!) to stop fighting and live peacefully. Even now, the better part of 900 years after losing our independence, the Welsh still have a distinctly different cultural self-perception from the English, though to be truthful we have far more in common than most people will admit.

Yet, transplant the Welsh to the US, and after a few centuries they are practically invisible in modern day America outside the history books and a few place or sur- names (e.g Bryn Mawr), at least by comparison to more recent hyphenates such as the "Scotch-Irish" (whatever that means), Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc. Aside: This is as I found out to my sadness on arriving in the US on St David's Day - March 1 - only to find most of the North Eastern USA already decked in emerald green ready for Paddy's Day two weeks later. And to be asked by someone with the surname "Pritchard" whether the three feathers on my red rugby jersey represented the school that I went to *sigh*

On the other hand, most of the Roman legions that colonised and dominated Britain until the 4th century were from far flung parts of the Roman Empire. The regiment that manned Hadrian's Wall at the time of the withdrawal of Roman power from these islands is strongly believed, with supporting evidence, to have been made up of black African legionnairies, and they are thought to have been left behind here when the Romans withdrew. Where are these people now? Well, they would almost all have been men, so they would have had little option than to intermarry with locals, so they will have long merged with the English/Scots border people. Doubtless they tried to keep their own culture going for a generation or two, though.

Also, the British "Raj" ran India for several centuries, using either British or high-caste Indian administrators. There was a good deal of intermarriage between the races, resulting in a subset of high-caste Indians of mixed parentage. Since the end of Empire, much of the special status of these people has gone - their place in Indian society is now determined by the remnants of the caste system rather than their skin or eye colour being paler than usual. They are as Indian as anyone can be.

Similarly, the port of Cardiff and South Wales had documented and separate black and Arab African communities that pre-dated the slave trade by several centuries (at least back to the 1400s, I read). Where are these people now? Where is their separate identity? Integrated into Cardiff and the rest of South Wales.

Another example - the Hugenots were refugee French protestants who arrived in numbers in England in the late Middle Ages. Few spoke English, and most settled into distinct Hugenot communities, relying on their British-born children to translate for them. Where are the Hugenots now? Apart from a few surnames that sound a bit French, you wouldn't notice them if they jump up and down on your head.

My point?

Voluntary migration - be it of overlords, refugees, or just traders - almost never integrates straight away, but it pretty much always integrates eventually. All it takes is time. Here in the UK, Afro-Caribbean populations (who arrived in the 1950s) and Ugandan Asians (who arrived in the 60s and early 70s) are noticably more integrated than Pakistani or Bangladeshis who first arrived in the 1970s and 80s (and in some cases still are), who are in turn more integrated than Sudanese, Somali or Ethiopians who arrived in the 80s and 90s, or Iraqis or Albanians who arrived in the last decade.

In America, Italian or Irish communities are now more American than Italian or Irish in everyone's estimation (the most extreme extremists excepted). Even the Vietnamese, who were supposedly such a problem when they first arrived, are now hyphenate Americans and suddenly it's Islamic immigrants who are the problem (perhaps understandably).

In Denmark - a far less enthnically diverse country than either the USA or UK - nobody bats an eyelid these days at people of Nowegian, Dutch or German descent. On the one hand, they all white and European (not factors we should utterly ignore). On the other, for the most part permanent residents of such descent have been there a hell of a lot longer than the Muslims everyone's getting hot under the collar about today. Give it 50 or 100 years, and if Mosques aren't falling into disuse and being converted to bars or apartments (just as churches are across Europe now), while Arab-Danes are behaving more or less exactly the same as the rest of Denmark, and I'll eat my hat. (Though neither you nor I may live to see it, moif.)

Victims of involuntary migration, on the other hand (e.g. occupied citizenry or losers by conquest - like the Welsh or Native Americans, or forced migrations such as slavery - like most black Americans), almost as reliably will do everything in their power to retain their own distinct culture. Over time, it may become unrelated to their original culture, defined as it is more by difference from the dominant culture rather than continuance of the pre-contact culture.

So let's not pretend that there is only one type of multiculturalism.

One is transitional, and in the space of about a century it disappears - it is my contention that this type is the one that most people are exercised about when we talk about modern-day immigration. It's a cultural growing pain, nothing more.

The other is practically permanent, and perhaps this is the type that should be indulged, if not celebrated.

The one area of concern I have with multiculturalism is the way that in the last decade or so certain elements of the dominant culture have taken it upon themselves to tell all minority cultures that they should celebrate themselves, should not try to integrate at all (rather than just at whatever pace they are comfortable with, which will almost always be slower than the host culture would like), and so on.

They are treating all "guest cultures" in a given Western society as if they are the type of oppressed and subjugate culture that perhaps should try to be distinct for it's own self-respect, when it's really only the oppressed and subjugate cultures that have the need or reason to fel that way about themselves.

This in turn makes the host society - which traditionally in history has treated subjugate cultures with rather more respect, or at least seriousness, than "guest" or "immigrant" cultures, to which it has generally been more hostile - hypersensitive to any perceived "foreign-ness".

So it isn't mullticulturalism itself that is a problem in my mind, but the PC insistence that it is somehow intrinsically "a good thing", rather than just an age-old transitional stage on the way to total integration. Unfortunately this particular facet of liberal do-goodery seems to be the mainstream of political thinking across most of Europe.

Except, notably, in France, where instead of saying "celebrate your ethnic identity (unless you belong to the majority population because you might cause offence to minorities)" they pass laws to prevent people wearing religiously-inspired garb to state schools. And the rest of us rant at how illiberal the French are because - well, it's fun to beat up on the French, mostly.

I want to look at this from the other side for a minute. How many of you, as adults, would assimilate wholly into another culture? If you were to move to Egypt for a job... let's say you were teaching at American University in Cairo. Would you learn Egyptian and adopt the culture of the Egyptians? Not just in part, but totally? Let's see, you move to another country, in which there is a small enclave of Americans. You find you can get by learning a little bit of Egyptian (for when you take a cab, or go shopping, etc.). So, do you assimilate? Or are you going to be mostly hanging with and identifying with the other Americans there?

Isn't it part of our nature to stick with the familiar? I have been to many countries, and for the most part the Americans I meet who live there tend to be segregated. It's not that they are racist usually, it's that people tend to seek out the familiar. It's comfortable.

I've known any number of American kids who grew up in another country. Almost all of them had only a cursory knowledge of that country's language. Most of them did not even really participate in the country's culture, except as an observer. Contrast that with the children of foreigners who move to the US. Many of those kids speak English without even an accent.

Even when people live in "ethnic" neighborhoods, I see in general much more assimilation to our culture, than I ever have seen Americans doing elsewhere.

The types of "dangers" associated with multiculturalism are largely the invention of xenophobes. When the US opened up the gates of massive immigration, we defined our nation as multicultural by default. I also find most complaints about multiculturalism have racial undertones. The people complaining don't generally bring up St Patrick's day parades and Oktoberfests. They focus on non-European cultures as being the source of the problem.

If you don't want to live in a multicultural society, there are plenty of places to go. Japan is very monocultural, as are some small European countries. The US isn't one of those places; we were founded by immigrants, and immigration has forever defined us.

Julian.

What you are talking about here is history, and where as everything you say is more or less true* what your not taking into account is the time scale and the sheer weight of numbers involved.

For instance; looking at your British Raj example: At the height of its existence, the Raj never imported more than a few hundred thousand British People into India, and where as Britain ruled over all in the Raj, at no point did the British culture ever seriously threaten to subvert, or in any other major way, change the native Indian culture. In Britain today however, a nation far far smaller than India, the level of Indians and Pakistani's having gained entry and influence on British culture is far greater than Britain can accommodate without undergoing serious changes to its sense of national identity.

Where as any BBC 4 listener can tell you, this change is widely accepted by one class of British citizens, it is in fact widely resented by another and the burden of having to accommodate so many Afro-Caribbeans, Ugandan Asians, Pakistani's, Bangladeshis, Sudanese, Somali, Ethiopians, Iraqis and Albanians all in the space of a few short decades cannot but help place a serious strain on the British population.
As a consequence, Britain is a crowded, violent and dirty place which I shall most probably never return to live in.
Being accosted by ill tempered African 'gentlemen' in London's festering streets has cured me of any illusion as to the willingness of modern immigrants to assimilate into British culture.

After all, why should they? London is no longer a part of British culture. It belongs to the cosmopolitan multiculture where criminals are glorified in film and music and 'the street' is valued far higher than any university.


I'm sorry Julian. But as the CIA has predicted that Europe will be 35% Islamic within the next fifteen years, I seriously doubt that we shall see 100 years of peacefull co existence with our Islamic cousins. We're already experiencing major ethnic tensions on a level never seen before in history (There are over five million Muslims in France alone)

As for Denmark's attitude to our German and Norwegian citizens and their progeny. These people are our direct neighbours. They share much of our own cultural identity.

But Germans are STILL forbidden to buy property in Denmark.

The bottom line is, we don't need these people and they are not coming here to escape persecution or war. The vast majority of our immigrants are here to earn money.


No. Its serious over crowding, followed by a rise in crime, unemployment, poverty and pollution. And worst of all, assimilation, or 'cultural growing pain' as you describe is impossible if the flow of immigration never stops.

What we're all facing is the prospect of becoming a minority in our own country whilst the nations that are exporting these countless thousands of immigrants remain culturally, and ethnically static.

This is the cold hard fact that has suddenly come to roost in Holland, France and the rest of Europe.


*There's the usual spin about Africans in the 1400's that ignores the way ethnic minorities were generally treated by people in the early middle ages, but I can forgive you that so very British illusion.

the event of multiculturalism is not so much the threat as is being replaced by foreign populations and your fading away.
One of the dangers faced by european nations is that they do not have very large families--I think the study i read extimates something along the lines of 2.1 children per family, where as many of the various muslim cultures average 3.5 to 4 children per family.
A culture needs and estimated 2.5 children per family just to maintain current levels.
Within 50 years countries like France will have a majority that is not of the historic french bloodlines.

I have seen studies here in the states that show the stereotypical red state identity family averages 2.5 to 3 per family while blue state liberals average only 1.5 to 2 children per family.
To put it simply the liberals and dems should reasonable expect to become outnumbered steadily every year from now unless their is a cultural shift away from the current trend towards conservatism in the new young families--example would be California. While the cities and coast will most likely remain Blue, the inland areas and communities will steadily become redder and redder. Expect a Republican majority there within 20 years. (Aquilla STOP doing the victory dance) Qyuite simply Blue state political philosophies seem to be losing adherents at just less than 1/4 each generation. Since many of the Blue Staters are often young, single or gay there is no future upcoming generation to replace them.

I have to agree with MOIF. There is a danger of the influx being to great to successfully integrate. Which raises the question of what is the acceptable threshhold for immigration if one wishes to maintain one's personal culture.

Having individual and group identity are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Heck, I'm about as individual as it gets (I believe the proper terminology is "oddball" ) and yet I also have a sense of African-American identity. Americans consider themselves as a member of a group called a nation, does that make them any less individual?

Maybe we should just forget the idea of nations and all come together as human beings...

Nonsense, multiculturalism correctly applied embraces both similarities and differences. There is nothing wrong with people being different, it's not something to shun or ignore.

I fail to see the problem aspect of this yet....

No one starts a "new life," that is simply a delusion, your past is always with you, the mind never forgets. Why should your father have to forget or ignore his past?
It harms no one to speak one's familiar language in the home.

Why not? Language is merely the means to communicate universal concepts. What difference does the language they are communicated in make?

Yes, they have rejected the way of multiculturalism and have taken an authoritarian bent in order to preserve something that isn't really in danger. Irrational fears are dangerous things.



"Become members, join the group" this is a nation, not a club. Are taxes like dues?

What does it mean to become a member, to speak English at all times? To subsist on hamburgers for the rest of your natural days? America's actions are a results of a mixing of cultures. English itself is a mix of Germanic and Latin languages.

What is the core? I have already noted that following social mores in order to avoid unnecessary offense to other makes perfect sense. It seems some opponents of multiculturalism have more in mind than that...

Nonsense, again differences do and will always exist period, full stop, close the book!

The solution is not to ignore the obvious but to acknowledge and accept harmless differences. That is multiculturalism. It does not destroy the similarities to acknowledge the differences. Both are indestructible, short of a genocide or immigration on a nearly impossible level. (As in: Let's invite China over for dinner... all of it )


Cultures change, that is unavoidable. If we stop all immigration the culture of the present Americans will still be unrecognizable in three-hundred years. We must stop trying to blame the influence of others for the change in culture, if you want to preserve a culture start a society and build a couple museums. Have communal meetings and sing-a-longs. Don't practice intolerance, it will make your already temporary culture not worth preserving.

Edited to add:
Almost left you out moif,

Although it is often described that way, culture is not the character of the political entities we call nations. It is the shared practices of groups which may or may not have shared political identity. Multiple nations can have the same dominant culture. Conversely, multiple cultures can exist in the same nation.

The idea that a nation can sustain multiple cultures of the groups living within it is what has diffused much of the ethnic tensions present in the US. Before tolerance was embraced by the majority of Americans, racial violence was rampant in this country to a degree that would horrify those who live here today.

Non-conformity is hostile? Just because someone else a way of life that I don't feel is best for me, that person must be hostile towards me, or I towards them?

That is simply untrue, choosing to live differently is not disdain, it is the natural product of free choice.

Here in America it is "Black History Month." I would advise you to read up on the past racial history of our nation. If you think what we are now is "filled with ethnic tension" you have no idea where the philosophy of multiculturalism has brought us from.

I included that last statement in the opening post because it betrays a crippling lack of knowledge about America. It is something I think only someone who has not.
1. Read up on contemporary American history
2. Visited America for any reasonable length of time

..could believe.

No argument about the cultures change bit Turnea. In fact Moif's comment about Americans is actually a very important point


We are not like other peoples and countries in that we do not ideed HAVE a singular culture. While one can look at most other cultures and find certain characteristics that define what it is to be French or German. They themselves define what they are and hold on to it tightly. America however, regardless of the Eurocentric Judeo Christian claims--exists more on shared ideals than bloodline. To be french or any other cultural identity is almost always anchored by blood. They trace their bloodlines back.
In America every single white judeo christian could disappear overnight and America would likely remain the same. The only differences would probably be a small shift politically and maybe a different flavor of popular culture. But I doubt by much.
Many times recent immigrants or 1st to 2nd gen hold the American ideals of hard work and making ones way by force of will and sacrifice to realize a dream far more strongly than the majority of generationally anchored Americans who seem in many cases to take it all for granted.
It is indeed this influx of "new blood" that continually refreshed --if you will-- the American spirit.
It is this identity by ideal instead of genetics that may remove America from the cultural cycle of ascencion and inevitable collapse. We possess the ability to contiually renew ourselves--while a culture like many of the failing european cultures which are based on a genetic identity will eventually fade away as their cultural values are replaced. Its not that their values are replaced since all cultures share the majority of values--hard work, family, theft is bad, etc........ but that which makes them iconically the culture they proudly claim is replaced or even cast aside by the people. After all look at the rate at which "American culture" is accused of overrunning other cultures globally. Oh the kids today is the cry.

Yet the question remains Turnea. If the exchange rate is too great to allow assimilation the old culture is remade. That is the point of people who are afraid of multiculturalism. What they know and cherish can indeed be swept aside by those who refuse to assimilate and if the numbers are indeed great enough they can be replaced.

Many who come to America, come here to make money and even follow their dreams--yet they demand to be treated as if they were still from their home country and not as Americans. If you come here and stay you should indeed expect to assimilate to our culture. It is our culture which made this the place you want to come to.

I dont demand you dress up like a cast extra or eat any cheesburgers-- --but who wouldn't want a cheesebuger--MMmm Burgers

turnea

It is my belief that a nation can indeed hold a multitude of different perspectives, opinions, idea's, religions and traditions. That one United States of America can hold a thousand ethnic minorities, all with their own cherished 'old world' belief's and mannerisms.

All of these taken together is what makes a culture.

If you have a city with several ethnic groups living in each their own area, with fluid boundaries perhaps, and some groups having a greater definition than others, this does not qualify, in my opinion as 'multiculture'. It is merely, traditions.

The culture of this hypothetical city is the sum of ALL those traditions.

Christopher makes a good point, but what he, and a good many other Americans fails to understand is that Europe is, and always has been, a 'melting pot' in the same way that America is described.

Take Britain for example. It contains no less than five (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Cornwall) indigenous national cultures and the remnants of several others (Danish, Norman French, French, Latin &tc)

The difference between Britain and America is that Britains many national identities were welded together over a very long period of time which gave the people the chance to homogenise into a shared culture.

In America, the shared culture is capitalism. That is the only thing to which the majority of Americans can agree to aspire to. The American dream. The hard work = success ethic that Christopher refers to.

The reason for that, I believe, is because ultimately, its the only thing most Americans have in common. In Denmark however, we Danes have a shared history that you Americans simply don't have. (Christopher, we do not have shared blood lines. We are not all related to each other) What Americans have, is the shared history of all the rest of the world.

This is not a criticism. Its an observation. The whole of the rest of the human race is much the same, which (I believe) is why American 'culture/capitalism' is so readily adopted.

Greed, is universal.


Certainly not in all instances, no. But in the matter of applying to live within the state system of another people? Yes.


I was taught the history of American civil rights in school. I am very familiar with the lessons of the Ku Klux Klan, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. But thank you for your consideration.
Unfortunately I have a different perspective on the reality of multiculturalism and what it really is. I believe what King, Parks and the other civil rights activists achieved, was not 'multiculture', but an acceptance that ethnic differences really don't matter if all are equal in the eyes of the people as well as the law. That racism, and segregation was against the law (constitution).

There was once a nation where religious differences were ignored. Where all people were looked upon as being members of the same unified nation.

This nation was so proud of its culture and was so regarded as a solid example of how different people's could live together regardless of the religious or ethnic differences that it was even give the privilege of hosting the Winter Olympics in one of its major cities in 1984.

That nation was Yugoslavia.

There is no such thing as multiculture. It is a myth. An illusion created to attempt to unify people, and in truth, there is nothing wrong with that.

But, take away the law, and the myth is seen for what it is. Only the law prevents anarchy and protects minorities from the all to easy hatred that lies beneath all our morality. It does not matter if you are African, European, Asian, American or some where in between. Robert Mugabe and Radovan Karadžić and those like them, are here, right now, in amongst us and a part of us, like bad seeds waiting to grow, and they always will be.

Hatred is also universal.


editted to correct a typo

You almost have it, but the binding of America was Christianity coupled with capitalism. The secular movement along with its baggage of socialism has changed the face and origin of America. The origin was a mass of like thinking Anglo-Saxon religious majorities with a superior value concept of government, conservative capitalism. First religion, community, second a way to make it function effectively, conservative capitalism.

We were like the force of Ireland with a constitution separating the Protestants and Catholics from taking over the government in their view of how society should operate. This was the binding factor not greed! Indians, blacks and Chinese were used like tools to further the main force of community and capitalism. Look at this link about half way down, the paragraph after the one notating reference 80. http://www.constitution.org/jury/pj/nelson.txt the nationalism was “expected norm” based on religion and consistent system of capitalism.

Slaves, Mexicans, Indians and Chinese were considered tools for the higher good. The nation prospered and was first torn apart by the civil war by seculars and a difference in northern and southern economics. Seculars killing slaveholders and northerners protecting manufacturing tariffs verse the south’s cotton industry. Still the country was unified by religion and capitalism in a transition period from slavery. It was the liberal Democrats that started the KKK from the north and not the slaveholders.

Regardless the former slaves didn’t fit into the capitalism system as well as the Chinese slave labor that built the railroads that proved more resourceful in business. Some were assimilated in the north but for the most part competition in the south of the American dream left little upward mobility for capitalistic involvement.

There was no positive action on behalf of minorities other than the passage of the 14th Amendment to affirm citizenship of minorities until after WWII which sated all persons born in America after the signing would have citizenship. Even during WWII Japanese citizens were imprisoned.

FDR and Truman turned around ships with Jews they knew would be slaughtered and seems to speak volumes of how immigrants were multi culture welcome. Truman took action to integrate blacks into the military but did nothing for the former Chinese slaves because they had became adapted to capitalism and warranted no assistance.

Immigration remained controlled equal to a jail release requiring assimilation until much later when liberal majority followed the FDR socialism era opening the gates.

Back to your point America is based solely on capitalism isn’t really true. Germany and much of Western Europe fall into that category. Germany for example is the American “left’s” dream of what they would make America into. And, in Germany social programs abound to the lefties wildest dreams the citizens either don’t want to make babies or they are from the former East Germany and want to play Afro American and suck off the entitlements. As this happens the Turks are taking over the identity of the nation as if conquering it.

What is almost laughable about this debate is the Mexicans, and I’m guessing our liberal debaters are concerned with dual language and understanding of culture will do to America what the Turks are doing to Germany. The funny part about it is the Christian Missionaries did a really great job of making the Mexicans Christians, hard working just like our founding fathers and they will soon be in the congress and courts as the secular lefties who worried about them make one baby and die off leaving a giant Christian majority with dark skin in majority. Well, it is almost funny?



That Afro American culture is not accepted other than by government and a select group of Americans. The majority of Americans still judge people’s behavior on actions and the fitting into the capitalism system productively like the Chinese do, some since of imagination of self-respect and responsibility for actions. Today on the news again a reminder of how the African American community feels about their place in the American society, a 13-year-old shot to death by police is the fault of the police according to the community. It is not in the eyes of the AA community a problem that the 13 year old was aiming a 4,000 pound car at the police to maim or kill the police, he was just a misfortunate misguided black child acting out a scene in San Andreas video game at zero dark 4:00 am in the morning with real cops. If my kid was doing the same I would hold my head in shame but I’m not on crutches like the black community.

Well then it seems to me you and I have very different definitions of culture.


Definition
You will note not one of the definitions says that culture is something that must occur on a national level.

This is what I have been trying to say. Culture is not the domain of nation as described by legally defined boundaries and a political system. Culture is the property of groups of people wherever they may go in the world.


This could not be called true culture. Culture is not a hypothetical, it is a reality.

Note the definition again, culture is not the sum of these differing sets of traditions, each of these differing traditions is a culture.

I think this betrays a deep misunderstanding about American life, one that is perfectly understandable given the often misleading influence of our media and popular sayings.

Not all Americans value hard work or capitalism. Most of us, given the chance would love to live a life of luxury with no work. I detest the idea of work for work's sake as I believe it serves no one. Most people find that our immigrants of most political note (from Mexico, Central and South America) seems to work much harder than the average American.

Maybe hard work is Mexican culture and we just stole it...

Besides, saying America has one culture is misleading. The numerous subcultures of America (formed by ethnic differences and perhaps more importantly differences in living circumstances [city & country; south & north]) have a significant overlap of basic social mores held by most Americans which is in a sense "American Culture", but not the end of it.

...yes, which is why I find it ironic that you think it is "American" culture. Did capitalism not exist before America or did we just perfect it? (Hint: it's neither, we just had no serious enemies to compete with for long enough to form an enormous nation with lots of resources that benefitted from England's top notch intellectual tradition).

Capitalism is not American, I think the current form was invented in France (or was it England? I forget... )


What is the state system, is it the law or your idea of a nation's culture? I think the concept that a Sikh walking through a park in Denmark with a turban is somehow hostile or offense to the nation is palpably ridiculous. I find it so hard to deal with, because I don't understand it in the least.

That is the popular teaching, but I seriously doubt the framers of the constitution had any idea of equality for negros in mind when framing the document.

The triumph of the Civil Rights Movement is not that America suddenly noticed it was violating its Constitution but that the majority of Americans realized the inherent evil (there I said it) of its treatment of African-Americans regardless of the law.

Before desegregation courts ruled time and time again that segregation was perfectly legal under the constitution, it wasn't the law that saved the country's conscience it was multiculturalism.


America is no Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was a nation pieced together based on ethnic sections after World War I, it never experienced the mingling that spread its groups widely across the nation on the level that the US experience (reference "The Great Migration").
It was subject to a communist dictatorship which turned the country into a garrison state. The country also suffered from sever economic difficulties.

It was held together by force for most of its history, America is held together by choice.


As long as the majority of us believe in peaceful co-existence then we will always be hear to lock such scum away in an institution where they belong.

Multiculturalism isn't weak because of hatred, it is the strongest defense against it.

..oh, and it isn't a myth I've lived it (and might I say enjoyed every minute )


Sarge I'm afraid I cannot extend the same benefit of the doubt about not understanding America that I did to moif. You should know better than to say this is somehow a description of African-American culture.

The only thing that can help this type of ignorance is exposure, please get some.

No, but like most things, when taken to the extreme, it becomes a problem. I'm all for different cultures, and preserving one's heritage [I speak Italian occasionally and and am extremely proud of my heritage.], but I also believe that if someone moves to a country, the least they can do is learn the language.

Multiculturalism waters down the country that it is rampant in.

Absolutely not. The great thing about this country is that I can hop on the Path train and eat manicotti in Little Italy, walk a half a block and eat pork fried rice in China-Town. Heritage and different cultures are essential in any country. Honestly, who wants a homogeneous population?

CP

How should I take the people in the street demonstrating against the cops? If they were demonstrating in front of the mom and dads home of the kids condemning them for not caring more for their child than they did the white majority would embrace them!

I was 100% behind Martin Luther King’s movement for your people and I know what they are up against but I cannot excuse after all of these years the folks in the inner-city always blaming the cops when it is clear the folks need to get the house MLK built for them cleaned up a tad. Kids of all races screw up but it isn’t correct to automatically blame the government for everything a black kid does wrong. What about his parents?


I have people in my family blacker than you and in a lower social economic condition and they wouldn’t blame the cops for their kids stupid actions either.

I’ve been exposed, perhaps a little overexposed and am not ignorant to the issue. My friend in the link below looked ironically like Jessie Jackson with buggy eyes; only he was chunky and had crooked teeth. But he had correct on his side and I stood with him. This kid didn’t and the community should be blaming the community and his family not the cops. It’s time for the black community to be black and proud, accept responsibility and place it where it belongs the government did not make that baby.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=139856

If ever there was someone who so clearly demonstrates why there is an ongoing need for diversity and multiculturalism, it's you, Ol' Sarge and people like you.

You seem to think black people need your understanding or good will or support.

They don't. Black people don't need any of those things from you. The acceptance of white people such as yourself was never wanted, never needed. Black people are here to stay and that is an unalterable fact as gravity. Deny it all you want, but you can't give black people something that is not yours to dispense: their right to exist as human beings and live their lives as it pleases them, not you.

You're the one wobbling on a crutch, Ol' Sarge. The crutch that a white man leans on when he deludes himself that he can bestow the rights upon black people that they were already granted by their creator. Black people don't want the embrace of white people who arrogantly consider themselves the arbiters of conduct and behavior.

So you were down with MLK? So what? Does that give you some kind of license to lecture black people in how they should conduct themselves and what they should be outraged about? Who cares about your token black friend with buck teeth who looked like a chunky Jesse Jackson? The only black people you seem to be comfortable around are the ones who don't challenge your preconceived and narrow notions of what black people should act like. I foresee a lifetime of further disappointment coming your way.

Conservatives like you love to toss around words like "responsibility" but why don't you take some responsibility yourself for the multitude of ills plaguing the white community before you go around trying to lecture blacks on how to live?

I'll tell you why. Because for white conservatives like you black people are a problem. As long as you can frame the debate in terms of black crime, black drug addiction, black families and black pathology it means you can ignore criminality, drug addiction, crumbling families and pathology of white people.

That's why you're so opposed to multiculturalism Ol' Sarge. You are able to continue to remain blind, deaf and dumb to the dysfunctional behavior of white people as long as you point instead to the dysfunctional behavior of black people.

turnea

Yes, but since you have posted a dictionary definition to back up your position, then I feel I must accept your take on the meaning of the word culture as sound.

My own is a personal perspective. I see that now. I still don't believe in the concept of multiculture, even if it does have a dictionary definition though.


Art reflects who we are. Your nation's media and your nation's artistic/ cultural expression clearly show who Americans are. American culture is full of violence and repressed sexuality. Whether or not you feel this represents you, is neither here nor there. That is America (the national culture) in a nutshell. Violent and sexually repressed.


Of course. They are buying into the illusion because they are not jaded by familiarity with the reality of that illusion.

I'm sure most Americans (like most people, myself included) would rather live in the bossom of luxury, but that doesn't mean you don't believe in the hard work ethic. Even if you don't work hard yourself due to laziness, you still accept the validity of the hard work ethic, right?


Yes. Capitalism has always existed in one form or other.
Whats changed is the nature of capitalism. The media/ digital saturation of US led capitalism that is eroding at the complexities of individual cultures and putting Coca Cola and McDonalds &tc &tc into every single city on the face of the planet.

I live in Århus, and this city is now half Danish half American. American English brand names are on every street, on every channel, in every home.

You can say that it is our choice to buy into these brands or not, but it is not so. We have no choice when our small domestic companies, just like our small domestic culture is underbid, swamped, swallowed up and discarded by huge rich American/ global companies.

For example: what possible relevance does 'Seinfeld' have to us? Not very much. People watch it, people laugh, but on the whole its not very popular, and yet it is available in every DVD shop and shows on several channels.

Why? Because its cheap for a giant US corporation to produce in bulk and flog to the rest of the world.

In return, how much of our culture is permitted to go back into yours?

Without recourse to Google, what do you even know about our culture?


The problem is not the Sikh wearing his turban and walking through the park.

The problem is the foreigner who travels to Denmark under the guise of wishing Danish statehood, only to sit in his government provided flat, with his imported, extended family, draining the social services paid for by the high Danish taxes, whilst refusing to take responsibility for the (often violent) criminal acts of his children, refusing to even learn how to speak Danish, whining about his rights when ever he is expected to do anything, and eventually shooting his daughter dead in an 'honour killing' because she took a Danish boyfriend.

This may sound like an extreme example, but we've had enough of these people in the last three decades to put the conservative/nationalists in power here and make Denmark the hardest country in Europe to emigrate into now.


I understand what you mean, and I agree with you.


And yet America was also once torn up in war due to cultural and political differences...


The people who lived in Yugoslavia in the past are the same as all other Europeans. One great mix of ethnic differences and cultures. What happened to them can happen to any one. It could happen in France if the immigrant Muslim population continues to grow at the rate it is doing.


All nations are held together by force, even when the people agree to live together.


Peaceful co-existence I can agree to, but not at the expense of my childrens future.

If multiculture leads to the destruction of this nation then I will oppose it. So far I have never voted for the nationalists, but after three decades of unchecked immigration, unchecked cultural erosion and unchecked media pollution I'm starting to lose faith in my nations politicians. There is only so much a country this small can accommodate.

Add to that the imminent possibility that Denmark, through a referendum, may soon adopt the EU constitution and (in my opinion) cease to be a sovereign state, then I'm almost at the point of despair.

Do we control our country or not?



editted to add:

With regards to Ol Sarge's opinion. From my perspective, here on the outside. There is NO real difference between an American with light skin and an American with dark skin. For example, in Europe the most respected politician in the Bush administration thus far, has been Colin Powell, but that respect has had nothing what so ever to do with the tone of his skin, nor the ancestory of his family but everything to do with the quality's of his character as opposed to the rest of America's political establishment.

Any differences that may exist within your culture have no real impact on us, except as lessons on ethnic relationships to be absorbed and learned.

You knew I'd object to this didn't you?

First of all I object to the fact that