---

Quote: from Shaknbake at 10:15 pm on Aug. 27, 2008

---

People must accept the dominant culture. Cultural homogeneity, not racial homogeneity, is the path to peace.

---

It dont have to be completely 100% homogenous though. we can have our own specific thing on the side and still have many OTHER things in common.For example ppl can celebrate Irish festivals and italian feasts and Portugese holidays of their own and still have common American ideas and values and hopes.

---

Obviously so. Observing foreign holidays is different than practicing a non-dominant culture. Culture is not just your holidays and feast days. Culture is a fundamental way of viewing the world, and THAT has to be the same.

---

You can still preserve some part of the culture thats your own though while blending in for other things. I dont think ppl have to be all same culture 100% to get along.

---

The important aspects of culture need to be the same. How you interact with others, what's appropriate, what isn't, etc. The "parts of the culture" I expect you're talking about retaining are the least important parts, and I agree; they can stay. They're inconsequential. Imagine if the man down the road held fiercely onto his Japanese modes of behavior (an important aspect of culture) and decided he'd have nothing to do with you after you failed to bow. What if you made the horrible mistake of talking to an Iranian man's wife when he was away? If they'd retained their Persian social norms (an important aspect of culture) he'd be liable to be pissed. Or if your teenage son asked a girl out, only to find that her Indian family had arranged her marriage to an older male relative of hers? And say, perhaps, your family dog annoys your Philippino neighbors, and one day they kidnap kill and eat your dog (happened to my friend's family in the Philippines).

You understand my distinction between serious, important culture which must be (at least primarily) homogeneous and "petty" culture which could stand to be retained?

---

Some of the happiest countries in the world are the most racially integrated. Countries such as Canada and the US rank higher on the overall "happiness" scale taken every year than more homogeneously racial countries.  

Can anyone explain this inconsistency?

---

The happiest country is Denmark. Read about The Dansk Folkesparti. The Danes are AGAINST immigration because, you guessed it, "we love our country and we feel a historic obligation to protect our country, its people and the Danish cultural heritage"

Next is Switzerland. Anyone wanna hear AT THE MOST 6% nonwhite?

Third is Austria. Austria itself is 2.4% nonwhite. Big shocker there, isn't it?

THEN, it's Iceland. I'm not even going to go into the whiteness of Iceland, seeing that it's almost 100% white.

Canada ranks at #10 and the US isn't even in the top 15. Good luck with your silly claims.

---

The happiness of the people were all gauged based on simple answers and question. If multiculturalism was a pressing issue and held more weight when weighing happiness than results in an overall lower happiness scale would yield all multicultural happiness in the lower portion of the list. Fortunately, this is not the case and multiculturalism doesn't serve as a aggravating factor. I will post a source when I get back.

---

---

Resistance to integration on both sides of the issue is precisely why we see this sort of thing. The country shouldn't be a multicultural salad, with distinct items remaining distinct and crammed in amongst each other. In a society that can move beyond racism, people of different colors with the same culture have no conflict.

People must accept the dominant culture. Cultural homogeneity, not racial homogeneity, is the path to peace.

---

---

It dont have to be completely 100% homogenous though. we can have our own specific thing on the side and still have many OTHER things in common.

For example ppl can celebrate Irish festivals and italian feasts and Portugese holidays of their own and still have common American ideas and values and hopes.

---

---

Have you ever lived anywhere but the US?

---

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Imagine if the man down the road held fiercely onto his Japanese modes of behavior (an important aspect of culture) and decided he'd have nothing to do with you after you failed to bow.

What if you made the horrible mistake of talking to an Iranian man's wife when he was away? If they'd retained their Persian social norms (an important aspect of culture) he'd be liable to be pissed.

Or if your teenage son asked a girl out, only to find that her Indian family had arranged her marriage to an older male relative of hers?

And say, perhaps, your family dog annoys your Philippino neighbors, and one day they kidnap kill and eat your dog (happened to my friend's family in the Philippines).

---

But what you talking about is not "preserving" culture. its more like a bunch of really intolerant ppl who hate each other. When ppl are like that they gonna kill each other even if they the SAME culture.

Theres a lot of ways ppl can keep their culture and STILL be tolerant and forgive little mistakes. I know many moslims and they not like that at all. You just dont go peeping into their houses thats all. you respect their privacy like with non-muslims.

I know a lot of indians too and they have prearranged marriages and so what. if you really want to date their daughter you ask FIRST if she's aready got somebody SAME as you ask any girl anyway.

And im part filipno and i never ate a dog and nobody in my family ever did.

Looks like you got some crazy idea what ppl really are like.

are you really from pakistan?

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

are you really from pakistan?

---

You missed every point I tried to make.

Do you understand my distinction between petty aspects of culture and important aspects of culture? Every time you reply it's just "aspects of culture" "parts of culture."

There are aspects of culture that can be maintained and aspects which must be the same. My mentioning of the Iranian man had nothing to do with Islam, it was an example of a fundamental cultural difference and the issues that can arise when fundamental cultural differences are maintained in a new cultural context.

---

Yes.

---

Since asking that I think I might've come to understand your position better.

All of this issue of yours is really about illegals, right? Not normal immigrants, but illegal Hispanic immigrants. They really comprise two distinct issues.

---

There are aspects of culture that can be maintained and aspects which must be the same.

---

---

Ok which aspects HAVE to be the same in your view?

---

From my previous post: The important aspects of culture need to be the same. How you interact with others, what's appropriate, what isn't, etc.

And to detail: culture comprises your fundamental way of viewing the world. Everything you feel, the way you think, your way of doing things, these all come from your culture. Culture is much more than Saints days, festivals, distinct imagery/superstition, etc.

---

From my previous post: The important aspects of culture need to be the same. How you interact with others, what's appropriate, what isn't, etc.

---

---

And to detail: culture comprises your fundamental way of viewing the world. Everything you feel, the way you think, your way of doing things, these all come from your culture.

---

If thats what you meant i agree. your examples were a bit off the top though like you were just speaking of totally insane intolerants dickheads which would make trouble in ANY culture.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

And those can be different right?

---

Not if you want a happy society, no. You don't see an issue with one group accepting womens' suffrage and another steadfastly maintaining that women must be in the home? Sure, on a person to person basis, to each his own but on a larger scale, on every issue, when every group has a fundamentally different opinion?

---

Not if you want a happy society, no. You don't see an issue with one group accepting womens' suffrage and another steadfastly maintaining that women must be in the home?

---

---

Sure, on a person to person basis, to each his own but on a larger scale, on every issue, when every group has a fundamentally different opinion?

---

We have the KKK here and neo-nazis. Most ppl hate what they think and what they believe and it goes against what a peaceful society is about even. But SO LONG as they DONT harm anyone we have to allow them freedom to speak and think. In a democracy you have to do that.

Thats why even if you have ppl who believe totally different things on every single issue they still CAN live together peacefully.

And still you can live with others and NOT try to shove your beliefs or way of life on them or get upset when they don't follow yours.

I dont say democracy in practice is perfect but that what its about at the core. And that type of society CAN be pretty happy. Sure you have protests and meetings and heated discussions. But its still can be peaceful.

Post edited at 11:41 am on Aug. 30, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 3:08 pm on Aug. 28, 2008

---

Yes.

---

Since asking that I think I might've come to understand your position better.

All of this issue of yours is really about illegals, right? Not normal immigrants, but illegal Hispanic immigrants. They really comprise two distinct issues.

---

---

But thats what a DEMOCRACY is all about. People who belive DIFFERENT things even radically and still LIVE together PEACEFULLY! Its more than free speech. Its freddom of thought. And give others the freedom to thnk what they want SO LONG as they dont attack others based on that.

We have the KKK here and neo-nazis. Most ppl hate what they think and what they believe and it goes against what a peaceful society is about even. But SO LONG as they DONT harm anyone we have to allow them freedom to speak and think. In a democracy you have to do that.

Thats why even if you have ppl who believe totally different things on every single issue they still CAN live together peacefully.

And still you can live with others and NOT try to shove your beliefs or way of life on them or get upset when they don't follow yours.

I dont say democracy in practice is perfect but that what its about at the core. And that type of society CAN be pretty happy. Sure you have protests and meetings and heated discussions. But its still can be peaceful.

---

Are you SERIOUS? You think that, just because of a change in government, humans change? We will still be humans, and we will ALWAYS be humans. With that in mind, this 'perfect world' can NOT exist. It's human nature. If I walked outside into a group of negroes and yelled "White Power!!!" do you think they wouldn't harm me? Even IN a democracy, would they just shrug it off?

And about freedom of speech: We don't really have that either. If you want a good government, one better than Democracy, you're looking at National Socialism.

The National Socialists believed that the State, as the representative of the organic national population as a whole, had an obligation to regulate what media and academic ideas were fed into the population. It did not specify these must be banned, only that illusory concepts not be taught or spread through mass media. This is parallel to Socrates' questioning in The Republic of what a government should tolerate, knowing that most of its citizens could not fully understand the consequences of the ideas shown to them only as a promise of better consequences.

While we in liberal democracies are reared, and repeatedly told by our mass media, that any such government action takes away our "freedom," we also see the results every day of children seeing mass media and acting out its sexual, social, drug-related and violence-related ideals to disastrous consequences. We see how newspapers and television dilute culture with fast easy promises that turn out to be empty, and how our academics fill our children's heads with unworkable but emotive solutions, luring them away from the lives they will find most fulfilling. This is a difficult moral question that should be tackled elsewhere, yet what we must remember is that the NSDAP did not say "ban these ideas" but "do not teach them as fact, whether through academia or the media."

It is obvious that all of us here cherish our freedom of speech, and we would never want to be under a government that took that away from us. I think the ultimate freedom of speech was achieved under Hitler; where science, race, nation, and economics could be discussed in a truthful way without reprisal.

Now, as long as we live in this multicultural democratic piece of shit we call a country, freedom of speech can't really exist, and violence will continue to be the easiest option out.

The idea of Democracy may be a nice thought, but once humans are involved, it will fail.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

 If I walked outside into a group of negroes and yelled "White Power!!!" do you think they wouldn't harm me? Even IN a democracy, would they just shrug it off?

---

---

And about freedom of speech: We don't really have that either. If you want a good government, one better than Democracy, you're looking at National Socialism

---

Sieg Heil!

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP