Cultural assimilation - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14789147
AFAIK wrote:Can you make your point without leaving yourself space to back away when challenged? I'm not interested in being given the run around.


:roll:

How do you envision wise tribunals of community members operating?


I don't, as this has nothing to do with what I claimed. The mental image of wise tribunals came up because you talked about how communities should be judging who is assimilated, with which I have no problem.

My point, for the third time, is that wise tribunals of community members is not voting. The two are not the same or even comparable.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14789188
Thank you for the clarification. I had no idea that voting and not voting were different.
#14789270
Potemkin wrote:You mean the Maoris have only just noticed that all these white fuckers have started to settle on their land...? :eh:

Economically, they were significantly better off as a result of British settlement. The same cannot be shown for post-war immigration waves, regardless of where the immigrants came from.

Political Interest wrote:
They are a relatlively large portion of the population. They constitute fourteen percent of New Zealand. That is not a very large number of people, granted, but it is still much larger than any other indigenous groups in lands where Anglo-Saxons settled.

As far as I am aware they are a fast growing ethnic group. In my opinion this is very positive. I am always in favour of all efforts to restore the position of the Maori people in their native country.

It would not surprise me that they would be skeptical about mass immigration. Afterall, mass settlement from Europe already ruined their demographic position long ago. Why would they want more migration to make them an even smaller portion of the population in their own country? I think Europeans in New Zealand should assimilate and integrate into the local culture which could include learning Maori when the time comes.

If I remember correctly they were expected to be around 20% of the population by 2040. I don't know how much immigration would change that projection, if at all.

The argument I've heard, among others, is that they might become "just another minority" in the future, as newcomers might have less appreciation for their status as the indigenous population and over time erode the current consensus and legal arrangements.

As for the majority assimilating into a minority culture, this is just not going to happen which should be obvious for anybody with a modicum of understanding about human nature. It's not a question of right and wrong, but what is realistic.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14789458
Pants-of-dog wrote:Fine. Do you have anything to say about my actual claim?

That which is asserted without evidence; shall be dismissed without evidence.
#14789572
AFAIK wrote:That which is asserted without evidence; shall be dismissed without evidence.


If you had said this at the beginning, we could have saved a lot of time.

It is logical to assume that a third generation immigrant who is otherwise fully assimiliated will feel rejected by the host community if the host community votes to reject his or her citizenship based on racism or xenophobia, and that this rejection may make the third generation immigrant feel like assimilation is not worth it.
User avatar
By mikema63
#14789575
I don't see assimilation as a process a person actively engages in. After all stuff like cultural values are instilled at a far deeper level than simply consciously choosing them.

I think the thing that people fundamentally do not like about the idea of assimilating people versus cultural pluralism is that it's not something that's really a choice but must be imposed through the educational and media systems.
#14789579
For people to fully assimilate they need to forget about the country they came from and acquire local cultural traits. it usualy dont happen in the first generation
I was an immigrant too but in my case I came at a young age (6) and I dont like at all the country I came from so I assimilated quickly
By Suntzu
#14789584
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you had said this at the beginning, we could have saved a lot of time.

It is logical to assume that a third generation immigrant who is otherwise fully assimiliated will feel rejected by the host community if the host community votes to reject his or her citizenship based on racism or xenophobia, and that this rejection may make the third generation immigrant feel like assimilation is not worth it.


Their vote against citizenship must be based on racism and xenophobia not his/her lack of assimilation. Got it!
#14789592
Suntzu wrote:Their vote against citizenship must be based on racism and xenophobia not his/her lack of assimilation. Got it!


Their vote can be based on following what their dog told them to do, since it does not affect my argument in the slightest either way.

But yes, I would not be surprised to find such illgical choices are based in racism and xenophobia.
#14789608
Suntzu wrote:Illogical = something that does not conform to what I believe. :roll:


Feel free to show how it is actually illogical. But we both know that you will not, as that would require more than a silly one liner and a smiley. :excited:
By Suntzu
#14789611
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to show how it is actually illogical. But we both know that you will not, as that would require more than a silly one liner and a smiley. :excited:


I can generally refute anything you come up with in one line. I throw in a smiley to annoy you. :D
#14789613
Suntzu wrote:I can generally refute anything you come up with in one line. I throw in a smiley to annoy you. :D


Then do so. Please refute my argument. Thank you. :lol:
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14789771
Wow, guys! This is such a high-level debate, it's making my head spin. You're losing me here. :eek:
User avatar
By Godstud
#14789802
Please stop with the one-line posts. If you have something to say, then make an actual argument instead of simply posting a smartass comment or a quick rebuttal. Pages of one-liners are quick to read, but lack any substance.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Most laws against immigrants are founded directly in xenophobia and racism. This happens everywhere.

Proposed Swiss immigration laws show 'rise of new racism and xenophobia'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hobia.html

Immigration Reform in the US: Taking racism out of the closet
Xenophobia and racism are alive and well when discussing immigration reform in the United States, writes Comrie.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 68219.html
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14789861
Godstud,
That Daily Mail article is 10 years old. Any update on the story? Did they manage to acquire 100,000 sigs? Did the referendum pass? The gist of the article is that Switzerland isn't a multicultural society and by demanding that immigrants assimilate it is being racist.

The AlJazeera article (published March 2013) complains that immigration debates in the US don't use racially charged language.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

@47 Knucklehead Then I still disagree with it.[…]

As a simplification of the state welfare system a […]

Gun regulations and libertarianism

@47 Knucklehead Just so you know, the moderat[…]

If he went to business school, is he doing anythin[…]