Tainari88 wrote:Why do you think it is easier for Johann Baum to assimilate than another ethnic groups that remain in the USA and go back and forth to the other originating nation? Clarify it for me please Blackjack?
In your exegesis of assimilation, you noted how much of identity was language. I agree in some respects and disagree in others. I would say at least several other factors play a significant role:
1. Level of development. A German in an American context is often dealing with a similar level of development--agriculture, market towns, industrial trades. By contrast, a nomadic hunter-gatherer society just fundamentally operates differently. Agriculture-based societies necessarily have the concept of land ownership of one sort or another, whereas nomadic or hunter-gather societies generally do not. So the German and the American may have different words for tree, field, and so forth but they already share common concepts as they are agricultural and industrial societies.
2. Common values. Germans and Americans (until very recently) share a Judeo-Christian heritage. One sings "Oh Tannenbaum" and the other sings "Oh Christmas tree", but they already have common religious elements. Of course, I provided a superficial explanation here, but it clearly goes much deeper.
3. Race and Physical Characteristics: Someone from Germany and someone from America probably have common DNA roots anyway. My DNA is mostly British isles by commonality with other people genotyped, but my Y-DNA haplogroup is I1 M-256--something Anglos, Germans, Swedes, and Danes have in common.
However, that doesn't mean that persistent differences do not last that make assimilation more difficult. For example, in the European Union as in the Roman Empire, culture South of the Rhine River and culture North of the Rhine river remain as different today as it did during the Roman Empire. The strains within the European Union--while in a much more modern context economically--break geographically along similar lines as the Roman Empire. Germany doesn't play well with Italy, and so forth. The British are bowing out and opting once again for "splendid isolation." Within Europe as a whole, Roma people have been there for many many centuries, but simply do not assimilate. I see some of the same problems that Marxists see, but I do not always agree with the causes and I almost always disagree with their proposed solutions.
Rei Murasame used to participate here, but she was sort of run out for being a avowed fascist. She and I were very different in that I'm not a fascist/totalitarian and think exterminating entire races is a fools errand. As I said before, one only needs to see Israel today in the context of a society destroyed by the Roman empire and the rather extreme oppression of the Nazi government to see that even that extreme violence tends to strengthen cultural identity rather than weaken it. I have much more in common with 18th and 19th Century American Republic values, rather than dictatorship and epaulets. However, Rei and I would discuss DNA linkages and linguistic backgrounds. For example: Language and genetics
This horrifies the modern liberal and leftist, and Rei and I shared a disdain for the closed mindedness of America's elite. Come to think of it, I remember reading "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom back in 1987-1988. I was every bit the student he was talking about in a sort of passive sense, but even then I had reservations about social structure and institutions in the West and the embrace of sort of disposable families, marriages, relationships, etc.
Tainari88 wrote:Why would you say race plays a persistent role? You are arguing about some type of left that is what? Be specific? Neo-liberal? Why is assimilation relatively simpler? And why are you generically asserting that most Europeans a very big generalization are all easy to assimilate in the USA? You need to very specific BJ.
Generally today, that's going to become harder to understand because the American leftists are pushing 1691 as the founding of the United States, rather than 1776 or 1789 so that they can continue to sow the seeds of discord over the compulsory exploitation of labor that occurred principally in the Southern part of the East Coast. New England was a very different experience, more populous and basically fleeing religious oppression in the UK and the fights between Catholics, Protestants and other sectarians. So politically, the United States was founded on a maximum of personal religious freedoms, so it could embrace Episcopalians, Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, Baptists, Catholics and so forth. Culturally, that created a society that embraced the English language and a Protestant work ethic that more or less defined the United States until the early to mid-20th Century. By separating church and state, the United States created a modicum of peace/domestic tranquility.
However, to go deeper into race, I think Darwinian Sexual selection plays a role in humans too. I was raised with the integrated busing that came up in the early presidential debates when Kamala Harris was attacking Joe Biden. We did in fact have it in California too. I actually had a number of black friends as a young kid. By the time I was a teenager and living in the suburbs, I could name one black friend--one cursory friend who was a fellow musician. However, I noticed that generally among my peers too. In a private school that actively admitted blacks and Hispanics--even helping poorer families who couldn't pay, we saw precisely the same sort of self-segregation as in the video I showed above. Black kids were into break dancing and would get together to that end, while white students were playing hacky sack or whatever. The most integrated racial relationships were music (which I was heavily into) and sports (football was crazy where I went to school). Outside of those contexts, races simply separated. There was no active hostility. There was no order. There was no Jim Crow. There was not wink-wink, nudge nudge. It simply wasn't that way at all.
I think that's basically encoded in people. It's not strictly voluntary or cultural or somehow taught to people. Study: White and black children biased toward lighter skin
A white child looks at a picture of a black child and says she's bad because she's black. A black child says a white child is ugly because he's white. A white child says a black child is dumb because she has dark skin.
This isn't a schoolyard fight that takes a racial turn, not a vestige of the "Jim Crow" South; these are American schoolchildren in 2010.
See, you put it like this:
Tainari88 wrote:Caudillo? Lol. You? You are too uptight to be Latin American by far....BJ.
See? You have a stereotype of a Latin American and an Anglo, and you can make that separation in your own mind straight away without ever having met me. Is it race or ethnic based? Absolutely. Do I take offense to it? Not in the slightest, nor did you intend it that way. Yet, we can see that straight away.
Tainari88 wrote:Hmm...do you think he should never have become a citizen BJ?
No. Quite the contrary. I think he's a solid guy.
Tainari88 wrote:I think you are trying to state something? What is it? That you accept Africans? But not the Obamaphone lady? Come on BJ...what is all this taking the black friends out of the closet and dusting them off all about? Are you trying to prove you are not a racist? What are you then BJ?
Well, first and foremost, you wanted an explanation of why I think it is harder for different races to assimilate. In political debates, the only reason I would avoid a term like "racist" is because it stifles conversation into very fixed rubrics. My friend is an interesting case study, because he fits the Charles Murray discussion. He's high IQ. He does well in the IT world. In terms of "cultural capital", he was way out of his depth, but we helped him remedy that, because the bank was underpaying him significantly. However, he assimilated in the US to a significant degree and decided to pursue citizenship, whereas he did not feel accepted in France. Part of that was race and part religion, as he was a Muslim.
Tainari88 wrote:That you want a united nation and you think the only way is segregated communities and people categorized by abilities and talents and IQ and to stop the programs for saving the people from things that are not saveable? Clarify what you want BJ.
I've already stated that it was a mistake to abolish an economy for people with lower IQ and lower skills, because it simply rendered them unemployed. The 17th through the 19th Centuries saw gross exploitation of labor. Much of the 20th Century attenuated the effects of that exploitation and living standards soared. However, part of the Cold War effort to destroy the Soviet Union was to put foreign nations and their economies before our own. That was bad enough in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, from the 1990s forward, both parties abandoned blue collar and working class people and basically destroyed their ability to live without government handouts. I think that needs to stop. I think the vote buying needs to stop--e.g., "you don't have to 'find' a job if you just vote for me. I'll give you welfare and benefits." I don't think we should be propping up the communist government and economy of China. It makes absolutely no fucking sense to have sanctions on Cuba or Venezuela and then have a free trade agreement with China. So I'm frankly done with the establishment. I'm not listening to them anymore, and I'm enjoying watching them come apart at the seams.
Tainari88 wrote:Do you want a Brahmin class in the USA? Lol.
We pretty much already have one.
Tainari88 wrote:There was a man once who opened a school where he got the kids of the Untouchables and educated them like Brahmins and he had the idea of doing it with a certain mindset.
The Flynn effect shows that you can eliminate a lot of IQ differences when you address the socio-economic deficits. However, there are still differences that persist.
Tainari88 wrote:You want real change? You can't do it in isolation. It takes a whole world practically on the same page to get to real change.
That kind of change you are talking about is political, and mostly anything that requires universal agreement is tenuous at best. New technologies have been far and away the biggest drivers of changes. People will adopt new technology far faster than they will new cultures. ISIS will learn Twitters and radicalize people over social networks before they realize that once you have such technologies, the backward world they are looking for is disappealing to the overwhelming majority of people. In America, one of the few real fundamentalists types are the Amish.
Tainari88 wrote:Dehumanizing them with phrases like "Leftist Animals" and so on...
I'm talking about people who are advocating hedonism, drug addiction, casual relationships, etc. That is an appeal to the reptilian brain. That is an appeal to live without the frontal cortex playing a significant role in ones life. Math is racist, and all that nonsense. Or those MS-13 thugs who kill savagely with impunity, and Nancy Pelosi talks about their "spark of divinity" but nothing for the people they kill. I frankly do not see myself as their equals at all. Yes, I do think they are inferior and barbaric.
Tainari88 wrote:You see them as all alien to your life and experiences. They are no longer really human....do you understand me BJ?
Yes, I've heard the "think globally, act locally" stuff since I was a kid. The reality is that all humans have a prejudicial relationship to their own point of view, and I'm not different in that way. I have nothing in common with somebody shooting up heroin on mass transit and shitting on the sidewalk. It's a stretch to say I don't see them as human, but I do see them as not having any agency or capacity to contract. I think incarceration in prison environments is too harsh, but I do think we need to re-open mental facilities and simply find better ways of dealing with mental illness, etc.
"I'm Joe Biden's husband. Joe Biden."
-- Joe Biden