Diversity makes the US stronger ????????

[William Joyce]

I think integration, rather than diversity, makes us stronger. It's like the Borg or the Zerg. For a long time, when a new ethnic group hit America, they tried to fit in, and America tried to welcome them. Parts of their culture that proved benificial and enjoyable were integrated into society, making that society stronger, much like the Borg and Zerg would integrate the more benificial parts of a conquored species into the collective, thus making it stronger. Doing this formed sort of an alloy, a mixture of cultures that resulted in a much stronger unified culture. It's evident even in our language, where many of our words are unaltered versions of foreign words, like garage (which is French). This is what made us strong. What we are now is what happens when you try to make steel without heating the iron enough to mix properly with the carbon. It's a brittle patchwork of cultures determined to stay seperate. Assimilation is the only way a diverse background can make us strong.

Your point's well taken. But 30 million Mexicans and scads of other third-worlders aren't going to assimilate because the metals just won't mix.

 

[Hobbit]

Your point's well taken. But 30 million Mexicans and scads of other third-worlders aren't going to assimilate because the metals just won't mix.

I think the metals will mix, but first, they must be melted. The pressure to assimilate is the fire of the forge, yet liberals are aggressively removing this pressure and the strengthening heat that comes with it. People will adapt if they have to. Minorities now just don't have to. I, personally, don't mind Mexican culture melting a bit of itself into ours, but dangit, they better not re-celebrate Cinco de Mayo on Quatro de Julio. I'll give them their holiday, but they better give mine back. I'm also not going to learn Spanish for the sole purpose of keeping them from having to learn English.

 

[dilloduck]

Your point's well taken. But 30 million Mexicans and scads of other third-worlders aren't going to assimilate because the metals just won't mix.

Hell--we have Mexicans here who won't even admit they even SPEAK english.
It's the anti-assimilation groups that are trouble.

 

[theim]

The Louisiana National Guard soldier said, "We are doing the best we can with the resources we have, but almost all of our guys are in Iraq."

Nice!

That statement is quite proveably false. Sorry.

 

[theim]

Multiculturalism is most definately not a good thing. Firstly, it requires us to pretend that other cultures are our equals. Many are not. Many are, simply, barbaric, and by no reasonable standard worthy of emulation. And many, however well they served people 500 years ago, are simply ill-suited to adapt to the modern world, and should therefore, cease to exist. Native American and Middle Eastern cultures are prime examples. Attempting to artificially preserve cultures not out of merit or survivability but out of sheer nostalgia is not rational.

Ancient vikings had a "vibrant" and "unique" society. People discovered though, that whatever the adventerous and romantic value that was to be found in raiding and pillaging in the name of Thor was simply not a viable way of surving in changing times, as more barbarian tribes around Europe settled down into fortified cities. Viking culture died out.

Likewise, like ancient Rome, Native American and Middle Eastern have their appealing points, and great histories, but their time is over. To attempt to "flash freeze" them and maintain them not totally but as a living museum exibit will only result in a cheap, hollow, husk. A shadow of the culture's former glory. It's pointless.

Secondly, it is vital to maintain this nation that American culture remain dominant. Eventually, having some sections of the country act as de facto territory of other sovereign states will lead to some sections of the country becoming de jure territory of other states.

 

[dilloduck]

Multiculturalism is most definately not a good thing. Firstly, it requires us to pretend that other cultures are our equals. Many are not. Many are, simply, barbaric, and by no reasonable standard worthy of emulation. And many, however well they served people 500 years ago, are simply ill-suited to adapt to the modern world, and should therefore, cease to exist. Native American and Middle Eastern cultures are prime examples. Attempting to artificially preserve cultures not out of merit or survivability but out of sheer nostalgia is not rational.

Ancient vikings had a "vibrant" and "unique" society. People discovered though, that whatever the adventerous and romantic value that was to be found in raiding and pillaging in the name of Thor was simply not a viable way of surving in changing times, as more barbarian tribes around Europe settled down into fortified cities. Viking culture died out.

Likewise, like ancient Rome, Native American and Middle Eastern have their appealing points, and great histories, but their time is over. To attempt to "flash freeze" them and maintain them not totally but as a living museum exibit will only result in a cheap, hollow, husk. A shadow of the culture's former glory. It's pointless.

Secondly, it is vital to maintain this nation that American culture remain dominant. Eventually, having some sections of the country act as de facto territory of other sovereign states will lead to some sections of the country becoming de jure territory of other states.

Nice assessment !

 

[José]

originally posted by Theim
Likewise, like ancient Rome, Native American and Middle Eastern have their appealing points, and great histories, but their time is over. To attempt to "flash freeze" them and maintain them not totally but as a living museum exibit will only result in a cheap, hollow, husk. A shadow of the culture's former glory. It's pointless.

I don't know exactly what you mean by Middle Eastern culture.

But if you are referring to the islamic theocracies that presently rule many ME countries, I couldn't agree more.

Their time is definitely over.

Secularism will eventually bring down all those ME theocracies, INCLUDING ISRAEL, a theocratic/ethnocentric state.

I would just like to point out a slightly ironic aspect of this story.

Many people who support the overthrowing of these medieval forms of government also support the blurring of the frontier between church and state in the US.

I believe the main idea behind America (despite the eventual reference to God) is a secular government where religion plays no part (please, notice I'm not referring to the moral principles deduced from natural religion = belief in a Deity and a set of moral rules any human being can obtain through reasoning).

But whether secularism is part of what you call “american culture” or not is just an academic discussion with no influence in the course of History.

What will eventually triumph not only in the US but all over the world is the model of government/society based on individual freedom, absolute secularism and democracy.

Americans who support the idea of blurring the frontier between church and state will find themselves on the wrong side of History and will, sooner or later, be buried with it.

 

[Nuc]

A stronger society is, in fact, more ethnically homogenous.

I've reviewed this thread, and nobody has answered that question. Please provide an example of diversity making us stronger.

An ethnically homogenous society is BORING AS FUCK!

And why do you guys emphasize that "America is the greatest country in the history of the world" if you don't believe it? Because it sure isn't and has never been the most homogenous.


:nine: :chains: :funnyface

 

[Nuc]

Multiculturalism is most definately not a good thing. Firstly, it requires us to pretend that other cultures are our equals. Many are not. Many are, simply, barbaric, and by no reasonable standard worthy of emulation. And many, however well they served people 500 years ago, are simply ill-suited to adapt to the modern world, and should therefore, cease to exist. Native American and Middle Eastern cultures are prime examples. Attempting to artificially preserve cultures not out of merit or survivability but out of sheer nostalgia is not rational.

Ancient vikings had a "vibrant" and "unique" society. People discovered though, that whatever the adventerous and romantic value that was to be found in raiding and pillaging in the name of Thor was simply not a viable way of surving in changing times, as more barbarian tribes around Europe settled down into fortified cities. Viking culture died out.

Likewise, like ancient Rome, Native American and Middle Eastern have their appealing points, and great histories, but their time is over. To attempt to "flash freeze" them and maintain them not totally but as a living museum exibit will only result in a cheap, hollow, husk. A shadow of the culture's former glory. It's pointless.

Secondly, it is vital to maintain this nation that American culture remain dominant. Eventually, having some sections of the country act as de facto territory of other sovereign states will lead to some sections of the country becoming de jure territory of other states.

What is "American Culture"? Nascar, Michael Jackson, Walmart? America is a lack of culture. Why romanticize something that doesn't exist? How can a country full of illiterates, musical idiots, corporate food, artistic nobodies and cinemagraphic primitives qualify as a "culture"? Have you ever been anywhere else? What gives you the right to determine what is culture in the first place, and secondly to rank this one higher than others today or in the past? You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Hobbit]

Jose, nucular, why? Why do you have to come in here trolling in the middle of the most civil conversation I've ever had with WJ? We just got through saying our case of why multiculturalism is bad but why integrating other cultures is good, and you just can't help yourselves and you just hop in and attempt to divert the topic, degrade American culture, and just troll this otherwise good thread into the dirt. Post something constructive or get lost.

 

[Nuc]

Jose, nucular, why? Why do you have to come in here trolling in the middle of the most civil conversation I've ever had with WJ?

Sorry to interrupt, but maybe you guys should get a room!
:clap1:

 

[José]

<B>Why do you have to come in here trolling in the middle of the most civil conversation I've ever had with WJ? We just got through saying our case of why multiculturalism is bad but why integrating other cultures is good</B>

This is wishful thinking, Hobbit... excess of good will

I doubt Joyce has ever made a case for racial integration here or in any other thread.

<B>degrade American culture</B>

Fine mess you got me into, nucular... thanks ... LOL

<B>and you just hop in and attempt to divert the topic</B>

Finally!!

You got that right.

I did divert the topic (it&#8217;s race relations not secularism).

Sorry, I just happen to be interested in this topic...

 

[William Joyce]

An ethnically homogenous society is BORING AS FUCK!

This is a dangerous, dangerous liberal misconception. Ethnically homogenous societies are the ones that bear the highest culture, the highest civilization. Ethnically mixed societies produce nothing but confusion and dischord.

The Renaissance, Greece and (EARLY) Rome, Western Europe, China, Japan --- they were all ethnically homogenous, and they've given us our greatest treasures of literature, music and art.

Hint: The Porsche 911 is made by an ethnically homogenous society. And it's very exciting.

In a sense, this is a very anti-white sentiment, because you'd never say "African culture" or "Hispanic culture" is "BORING AS FUCK!"

 

[OCA]

But Willie this is America, there is no homogenous race native to this land. This country for better or worse was founded upon multiculturalism and will always be that way. You are simply in the wrong country.

And yes the parts go together they just need the proper lubrication.

 

[Nuc]

This is a dangerous, dangerous liberal misconception. Ethnically homogenous societies are the ones that bear the highest culture, the highest civilization. Ethnically mixed societies produce nothing but confusion and dischord.

The Renaissance, Greece and (EARLY) Rome, Western Europe, China, Japan --- they were all ethnically homogenous, and they've given us our greatest treasures of literature, music and art.

Here's what I had to say about that earlier in the thread: "Sorry but I disagree. I used to live in Italy and I've spent considerable amounts of time in Asia. These are societies that look homogenous, nevertheless they have all kinds of strata and they also blame their problems on "the other". In Italy it's a north/south thing and in Asia it's caste or religion. Also relative darkness of skin. It is human nature to form groups and probably human nature to blame other people. It's a lot easier when it's a totally different race, but when it's not there are other signifiers."

America had an ethnically homogenous culture. Until 1492. Why don't we all move back to our ethnically homogenous roots. I'll move back to Scotland, you move back to Ireland (or whatever). Give the place back to the Native Americans.

I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are implying that America would be a better place if it were all white. Well, even that is a vexed question. Groups of people who are counted among white in this country (Italians, Greeks, Irish) were received with hostility in this country when they arrived because of RACIAL issues. They were perceived as separate races. Today in certain places (Australia for example) Italians and Greeks are not considered white. What do you think?

I love the art of the cultures you mentioned. But for example Roman art is rehashed Greek Art, Japanese art is all derived from Chinese sources. Perhaps it would be possible to say a lot of their ideas started in Greece and India. But in reality there is no such thing as a hermetically sealed culture which owes nothing to its predecessors or contemporaries. Every culture is "multi-cultural" to some (usually large) extent. To say otherwise is ignorant.

Have you travelled widely? Sounds like you live in books.

 

[William Joyce]

No, America wasn't "founded on multiculturalism." This has to be one of the vilest lies of the left, pumped into little kids' brains early on. The Indians and the whites didn't dance together, THEY KILLED EACH OTHER. In fact, WE WIPED THEM OUT. As for blacks, WE BROUGHT THEM HERE AS SLAVES. Only recently have we begun to pretend that we're friends with them, but we're clearly not. They hate us and we hate them.

Beyond those two groups, it was whites, whites, whites, far as the eye could see. The founders, who brought British culture, weren't just "white" --- they were from one nation, England. For CENTURIES, from the 1500s until 1965, America was 90 PERCENT WHITE. This made America strong and prosperous. The whites were hard-working, moral, industrious people who spoke the same language and shared values. This moved us FORWARD instead of dissolving into multi-racial confusion and squabbling. Race was a critical part of this. We launched men into space. We achieved great things.

Only since 1965 has America started to become non-white. In a few decades it will be minority white, if present trends continue. This isn't making America better place. It's turning our nation into a Third World shit-hole. We have crime, drugs, gangs in the streets, Mexicans urinating in front of the 7-11, blacks looting in NO, you name it.

Was America better when you could leave your door unlocked at night? Or now? Who's trying to break in? Not white people.

Nucular asks:

I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are implying that America would be a better place if it were all white. Well, even that is a vexed question. Groups of people who are counted among white in this country (Italians, Greeks, Irish) were received with hostility in this country when they arrived because of RACIAL issues. They were perceived as separate races. Today in certain places (Australia for example) Italians and Greeks are not considered white. What do you think?

I say:

Yes, there are intra-racial differences. But they are not as powerful as inter-racial differences. A Swede and an Italian can more easily blend into the same society because their DNA is literally closer. Not so for blacks.

Nucular says:

Have you travelled widely? Sounds like you live in books.

I say:

Yes. What you see when you travel the world is how neat, clean and orderly a place like Japan is, and how messy and smelly and violent and chaotic a place like Brazil is.

 

[Nuc]

Nucular says:

Have you travelled widely? Sounds like you live in books.

I say:

Yes. What you see when you travel the world is how neat, clean and orderly a place like Japan is, and how messy and smelly and violent and chaotic a place like Brazil is.

I'm pretty sure I've travelled more than you have, and distilling everything to a racial level is silly.

And you know what they call white people in Japan? Barbarians.

OCA was right, dude you're living in the wrong country. Wrong century too. Maybe wrong planet. Why don't you move to Austria or somewhere you might feel more comfortable?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm pretty sure I've travelled more than you have, and distilling everything to a racial level is silly.

And you know what they call white people in Japan? Barbarians.

OCA was right, dude you're living in the wrong country. Wrong century too. Maybe wrong planet. Why don't you move to Austria or somewhere you might feel more comfortable?

And you know what they call white people in Japan? Barbarians

.

How many centuries ago were you there ?

 

[Nuc]

.

How many centuries ago were you there ?

Last, January 2005. You?

 

[dilloduck]

Last, January 2005. You?

LMAO--what in the hell you do---jump in a bath with all your clothes on?
That barbarian crap went out with Hirohito.

If you really WERE called a barbarian it only goes further to prove Williams' point about races