Speaking of Speaking

[Statistikhengst]

Some people don't understand about dialects and languages. Germany, small as it is, has 90 dialects. When I lived there, I lived on the southern border with Switzerland. People there and people who spoke what is considered standard German had difficulty understanding each other.

Indeed. There are a number of major dialects:

Kölsch
Bönnsch
Münsteranisch
Platt (low German)
Berlinerisch
Dessauerisch (Anhaltinisch)
Sächsisch
Fränkisch
Hessisch
Bayerisch
(there are even a couple of small towns in Bavaria, where Bayerisch is spoken, but with the american "r")

In Baden Württemberg, from small town to town, there are very individual dialects:

Weinheim (Woinem)
Heppenheim

etc...


The dialect that is considered clean, neutral High German is Hannoverisch.

Which dialects did you hear and understand?

 

[Unkotare]

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English that [sic] we can imagine here.

That is, of course, not true. Exaggerating so much to make a supposed point makes you look like even more of a child than usual.

Educate yourself

British Accents and Dialects | Dialect Blog

Languages of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What did you imagine to be the 'educating' aspect of posting those unnecessary links?

 

[Jughead]

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

Everywhere in the world has been or is multicultural. That is how it works. For thousands of years humans have migrated from one place to another, invaded other cultures, settled in areas that were also settled by people of other cultures, mixed blood with each other, and so on. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. There is never going to be a time when that isn't so. It is always difficult and causes strife, but in the end it always works. When the Irish, Italians, etc., came to America from Europe, they lived in ghettos or their own neighborhoods, as did others who arrived during the course of American history. It takes generations for new people to blend into the the overall American culture. Those who are open minded about it will enjoy the diversity; those who aren't will always be pestered by it.

IMO, Spanish should be the second language in America, and we should enjoy that. In Europe, and around the world, many countries have a second language. No one seems to be aghast about it; it's just normal for them. They enjoy it rather than bitch about it. Where I am now is on the border with Italy; many French people here speak Italian; many Italians on the other side of the border speak French. The other day when I was a the supermarket, a women approached me and asked if I spoke Italian; she thought I was French. She wanted information about a product in the store. I said I couldn't speak Italian, but we managed to communicate somewhat anyway. The thing is, she was visiting from Italy and assumed a Frenchwoman would speak some Italian. This town, a couple of hundred years ago, used to belong to the political region controlled by Genoa.

My attitude about Americans having issues with people, even immigrants, speaking other languages is to get over it. Just get over it.

As far as the problems in London and other European cities, I have spent a lot of time in those places, such as Paris and London. I would have to go back and count how many times I've been to London or Paris, for example. The riots and strife you see in the news are far exaggerated in people’s mind. I learned a lesson long ago when I was traveling in Morocco. There was war going on there in one part of the country and the news made it look like the country was at war, but if you stayed away from the war region, which was on the southern border, you would have no idea the country was at war: everywhere else, everything was as normal. The point is that the media makes it look like there is a huge problem, but there isn't. Never once in any of those countries, have I seen any problem based on immigrants. Just haven't. And I know people who live in those countries and don't believe there is any big problem. Most of seeing a big problem with immigration is perspective

I do realize that these violent demonstrations and riots are in isolated areas of the country. However, what I find odd is the US which accepts more newcomers than any other country in the world usually never has any violent demonstrations with these newcomers. You would expect that large cities like New York or LA would also have it's fair share of violent clashes like you see in London or Paris, but there's no such thing. I believe this has to do with the fact that most legal newcomers do indeed quickly assimilate into American culture because the government does not encourage multiculturalism. That's just my perspective.

 

[Esmeralda]

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

Everywhere in the world has been or is multicultural. That is how it works. For thousands of years humans have migrated from one place to another, invaded other cultures, settled in areas that were also settled by people of other cultures, mixed blood with each other, and so on. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. There is never going to be a time when that isn't so. It is always difficult and causes strife, but in the end it always works. When the Irish, Italians, etc., came to America from Europe, they lived in ghettos or their own neighborhoods, as did others who arrived during the course of American history. It takes generations for new people to blend into the the overall American culture. Those who are open minded about it will enjoy the diversity; those who aren't will always be pestered by it.

IMO, Spanish should be the second language in America, and we should enjoy that. In Europe, and around the world, many countries have a second language. No one seems to be aghast about it; it's just normal for them. They enjoy it rather than bitch about it. Where I am now is on the border with Italy; many French people here speak Italian; many Italians on the other side of the border speak French. The other day when I was a the supermarket, a women approached me and asked if I spoke Italian; she thought I was French. She wanted information about a product in the store. I said I couldn't speak Italian, but we managed to communicate somewhat anyway. The thing is, she was visiting from Italy and assumed a Frenchwoman would speak some Italian. This town, a couple of hundred years ago, used to belong to the political region controlled by Genoa.

My attitude about Americans having issues with people, even immigrants, speaking other languages is to get over it. Just get over it.

As far as the problems in London and other European cities, I have spent a lot of time in those places, such as Paris and London. I would have to go back and count how many times I've been to London or Paris, for example. The riots and strife you see in the news are far exaggerated in people’s mind. I learned a lesson long ago when I was traveling in Morocco. There was war going on there in one part of the country and the news made it look like the country was at war, but if you stayed away from the war region, which was on the southern border, you would have no idea the country was at war: everywhere else, everything was as normal. The point is that the media makes it look like there is a huge problem, but there isn't. Never once in any of those countries, have I seen any problem based on immigrants. Just haven't. And I know people who live in those countries and don't believe there is any big problem. Most of seeing a big problem with immigration is perspective

I do realize that these violent demonstrations and riots are in isolated areas of the country. However, what I find odd is the US which accepts more newcomers than any other country in the world usually never has any violent demonstrations with these newcomers. You would expect that large cities like New York or LA would also have it's fair share of violent clashes like you see in London or Paris, but there's no such thing. I believe this has to do with the fact that most legal newcomers do indeed quickly assimilate into American culture because the government does not encourage multiculturalism. That's just my perspective.

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true. When the London riots were going on a couple of years ago, I had a colleague from the UK who was also a friend. She was saying it was a mixed bag, not just immigrants but just people from low income background--the same type who riot in the States, not just immigrants. As far as Paris, these are poor neighborhoods in the suburbs or outlying areas. The French are not generally racists. Many famous American artists immigrated to France to get away from American racism. The French do expect assimilation to happen pretty fast though. As I noted before, if you are an expat working and living here, you are required to take French language lessons to maintain your work-residence visa. I am in France now and see no issues whatsoever with multiculturalism. I think when we see these problems on the news and we hear some political people talking about it, we get a skewed view that is much more of a problem than it is.

Both France and England have been multicultural for ages as both countries were colonial powers in Asia and Africa. I think the problem now may be the numbers are higher, not that they encourage multiculturalism. One of my best long time friends (25 years or so) is a French Vietnamese woman who is married to a German. She has never had any problem one way or the other being a part of both German and French culture.

 

[Jughead]

Everywhere in the world has been or is multicultural. That is how it works. For thousands of years humans have migrated from one place to another, invaded other cultures, settled in areas that were also settled by people of other cultures, mixed blood with each other, and so on. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. There is never going to be a time when that isn't so. It is always difficult and causes strife, but in the end it always works. When the Irish, Italians, etc., came to America from Europe, they lived in ghettos or their own neighborhoods, as did others who arrived during the course of American history. It takes generations for new people to blend into the the overall American culture. Those who are open minded about it will enjoy the diversity; those who aren't will always be pestered by it.

IMO, Spanish should be the second language in America, and we should enjoy that. In Europe, and around the world, many countries have a second language. No one seems to be aghast about it; it's just normal for them. They enjoy it rather than bitch about it. Where I am now is on the border with Italy; many French people here speak Italian; many Italians on the other side of the border speak French. The other day when I was a the supermarket, a women approached me and asked if I spoke Italian; she thought I was French. She wanted information about a product in the store. I said I couldn't speak Italian, but we managed to communicate somewhat anyway. The thing is, she was visiting from Italy and assumed a Frenchwoman would speak some Italian. This town, a couple of hundred years ago, used to belong to the political region controlled by Genoa.

My attitude about Americans having issues with people, even immigrants, speaking other languages is to get over it. Just get over it.

As far as the problems in London and other European cities, I have spent a lot of time in those places, such as Paris and London. I would have to go back and count how many times I've been to London or Paris, for example. The riots and strife you see in the news are far exaggerated in people’s mind. I learned a lesson long ago when I was traveling in Morocco. There was war going on there in one part of the country and the news made it look like the country was at war, but if you stayed away from the war region, which was on the southern border, you would have no idea the country was at war: everywhere else, everything was as normal. The point is that the media makes it look like there is a huge problem, but there isn't. Never once in any of those countries, have I seen any problem based on immigrants. Just haven't. And I know people who live in those countries and don't believe there is any big problem. Most of seeing a big problem with immigration is perspective

I do realize that these violent demonstrations and riots are in isolated areas of the country. However, what I find odd is the US which accepts more newcomers than any other country in the world usually never has any violent demonstrations with these newcomers. You would expect that large cities like New York or LA would also have it's fair share of violent clashes like you see in London or Paris, but there's no such thing. I believe this has to do with the fact that most legal newcomers do indeed quickly assimilate into American culture because the government does not encourage multiculturalism. That's just my perspective.

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true. When the London riots were going on a couple of years ago, I had a colleague from the UK who was also a friend. She was saying it was a mixed bag, not just immigrants but just people from low income background--the same type who riot in the States, not just immigrants. As far as Paris, these are poor neighborhoods in the suburbs or outlying areas. The French are not generally racists. Many famous American artists immigrated to France to get away from American racism. The French do expect assimilation to happen pretty fast though. As I noted before, if you are an expat working and living here, you are required to take French language lessons to maintain your work-residence visa. I am in France now and see no issues whatsoever with multiculturalism. I think when we see these problems on the news and we hear some political people talking about it, we get a skewed view that is much more of a problem than it is.

Both France and England have been multicultural for ages as both countries were colonial powers in Asia and Africa. I think the problem now may be the numbers are higher, not that they encourage multiculturalism. One of my best long time friends (25 years or so) is a French Vietnamese woman who is married to a German. She has never had any problem one way or the other being a part of both German and French culture.

Kudos to France for encouraging newcomers there to learn the national language by requiring them to take French language classes ... ... that is indeed a great way to encourage integration into the mainstream society. Of course some may always slip through the cracks. For instance, if a child is born in France, he is a French citizen, however if his parents move elsewhere when he is still a child, he may not learn the language. When he's an adult, if he decides to move back to France since he's a citizen, he'll have no knowledge of the language, but because he's a citizen, the government would not be able to require him to learn French. I'll bet this scenario would be likely to occur amongst French and British citizens.

 

[Esmeralda]

I do realize that these violent demonstrations and riots are in isolated areas of the country. However, what I find odd is the US which accepts more newcomers than any other country in the world usually never has any violent demonstrations with these newcomers. You would expect that large cities like New York or LA would also have it's fair share of violent clashes like you see in London or Paris, but there's no such thing. I believe this has to do with the fact that most legal newcomers do indeed quickly assimilate into American culture because the government does not encourage multiculturalism. That's just my perspective.

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true. When the London riots were going on a couple of years ago, I had a colleague from the UK who was also a friend. She was saying it was a mixed bag, not just immigrants but just people from low income background--the same type who riot in the States, not just immigrants. As far as Paris, these are poor neighborhoods in the suburbs or outlying areas. The French are not generally racists. Many famous American artists immigrated to France to get away from American racism. The French do expect assimilation to happen pretty fast though. As I noted before, if you are an expat working and living here, you are required to take French language lessons to maintain your work-residence visa. I am in France now and see no issues whatsoever with multiculturalism. I think when we see these problems on the news and we hear some political people talking about it, we get a skewed view that is much more of a problem than it is.

Both France and England have been multicultural for ages as both countries were colonial powers in Asia and Africa. I think the problem now may be the numbers are higher, not that they encourage multiculturalism. One of my best long time friends (25 years or so) is a French Vietnamese woman who is married to a German. She has never had any problem one way or the other being a part of both German and French culture.

Kudos to France for encouraging newcomers there to learn the national language by requiring them to take French language classes ... ... that is indeed a great way to encourage integration into the mainstream society. Of course some may always slip through the cracks. For instance, if a child is born in France, he is a French citizen, however if his parents move elsewhere when he is still a child, he may not learn the language. When he's an adult, if he decides to move back to France since he's a citizen, he'll have no knowledge of the language, but because he's a citizen, the government would not be able to require him to learn French. I'll bet this scenario would be likely to occur amongst French and British citizens.

Could be. In those countries as well as in the US, if you want to work or have a career within the mainstream, you have to learn the language. You aren't going to get an office job in the US unless you speak English or work for a company that is run by someone and whose customers are people who live and function only within their ethnic community. For example, if you live and work only within the Chinese community, then you don't need to learn English. But if you want a career in mainstream American, you need the language. It works that way everywhere, not just in America.

The French are intense about their language and culture being preserved. "The Minister of Culture is, in the Government of France, the cabinet member in charge of national museums and monuments; promoting and protecting the arts (visual, plastic, theatrical, musical, dance, architectural, literary, televisual and cinematographic) in France and abroad; and managing the national archives and regional "maisons de culture" (culture centres). The Ministry of Culture is also charged with maintaining the French identity. ” This includes language. But they are very unique in this way compared to the rest of the world. I have found, however, that they are very appreciative of visitors at least trying to speak French. They are very nice people, not at all like the stereotype of being rude and arrogant.

 

[Carla_Danger]

On a thread about illegal immigration, some numbskull starting ranting about people in his country speaking a language other than English in public. Does anybody really give a rat's ass what other people are speaking to each other out in public if they are not speaking to you specifically? What business could it be of anyone else? Are there any here who really want to legislate and enforce what language people speak to each other in private conversations at home or out and about?

Are you kidding me? There are loads of people that think it should be illegal to speak a language that is not American English.

Not really.

There are many people who think the official language of the U.S. should be English, and that we should get rid of divisive multilingual requirements. That is hardly the equivalent of outlawing other languages for non-official speech.

Historically, there is no truly successful nation that has run on a multilingual system.

Surely you're not serious.



.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's not a restaurant in Mexico...

It was a MEXICAN restaurant, you moron. You were shocked, SHOCKED! that everyone working there didn't look and speak just like Richie Cunningham? And if you went there for 3 fucking years you were probably able to communicate well enough. You just decided to be a pissy little douche. Do yourself a favor and stay in your gated community eating grilled cheese for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, Poindexter. AMERICA will get along just fine without your bitching and moaning.

I expected them to learn English so that we could communicate beyond pointing at the menu.

I'm still not sure why you drag yourself out of the gutter after your daily bender. Something tells me your urine soaked clothes and tobacco stained fingers are not very welcome at the library computer station.

My guess is that they could speak English, they just didn't like you. It's probably a good idea that you don't eat there, next time you might find pubic hairs in your taco. LOL!



.

 

[Pogo]

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

Everywhere in the world has been or is multicultural. That is how it works. For thousands of years humans have migrated from one place to another, invaded other cultures, settled in areas that were also settled by people of other cultures, mixed blood with each other, and so on. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. There is never going to be a time when that isn't so. It is always difficult and causes strife, but in the end it always works. When the Irish, Italians, etc., came to America from Europe, they lived in ghettos or their own neighborhoods, as did others who arrived during the course of American history. It takes generations for new people to blend into the the overall American culture. Those who are open minded about it will enjoy the diversity; those who aren't will always be pestered by it.

IMO, Spanish should be the second language in America, and we should enjoy that. In Europe, and around the world, many countries have a second language. No one seems to be aghast about it; it's just normal for them. They enjoy it rather than bitch about it. Where I am now is on the border with Italy; many French people here speak Italian; many Italians on the other side of the border speak French. The other day when I was a the supermarket, a women approached me and asked if I spoke Italian; she thought I was French. She wanted information about a product in the store. I said I couldn't speak Italian, but we managed to communicate somewhat anyway. The thing is, she was visiting from Italy and assumed a Frenchwoman would speak some Italian. This town, a couple of hundred years ago, used to belong to the political region controlled by Genoa.

My attitude about Americans having issues with people, even immigrants, speaking other languages is to get over it. Just get over it.

As far as the problems in London and other European cities, I have spent a lot of time in those places, such as Paris and London. I would have to go back and count how many times I've been to London or Paris, for example. The riots and strife you see in the news are far exaggerated in people’s mind. I learned a lesson long ago when I was traveling in Morocco. There was war going on there in one part of the country and the news made it look like the country was at war, but if you stayed away from the war region, which was on the southern border, you would have no idea the country was at war: everywhere else, everything was as normal. The point is that the media makes it look like there is a huge problem, but there isn't. Never once in any of those countries, have I seen any problem based on immigrants. Just haven't. And I know people who live in those countries and don't believe there is any big problem. Most of seeing a big problem with immigration is perspective

Yup, well said. I found the same in in Ireland. To hear our news you would have thought the entire Ulster region was cowering in a continuous hail of bullets, rather than an occasional flareup within a particular radius of a few blocks. That's what I meant by the news always being hyperinflated before it gets to us.

 

[Pogo]

That is, of course, not true. Exaggerating so much to make a supposed point makes you look like even more of a child than usual.

Educate yourself

British Accents and Dialects | Dialect Blog

Languages of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What did you imagine to be the 'educating' aspect of posting those unnecessary links?

Translation:

 

[Pogo]

Everywhere in the world has been or is multicultural. That is how it works. For thousands of years humans have migrated from one place to another, invaded other cultures, settled in areas that were also settled by people of other cultures, mixed blood with each other, and so on. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. There is never going to be a time when that isn't so. It is always difficult and causes strife, but in the end it always works. When the Irish, Italians, etc., came to America from Europe, they lived in ghettos or their own neighborhoods, as did others who arrived during the course of American history. It takes generations for new people to blend into the the overall American culture. Those who are open minded about it will enjoy the diversity; those who aren't will always be pestered by it.

IMO, Spanish should be the second language in America, and we should enjoy that. In Europe, and around the world, many countries have a second language. No one seems to be aghast about it; it's just normal for them. They enjoy it rather than bitch about it. Where I am now is on the border with Italy; many French people here speak Italian; many Italians on the other side of the border speak French. The other day when I was a the supermarket, a women approached me and asked if I spoke Italian; she thought I was French. She wanted information about a product in the store. I said I couldn't speak Italian, but we managed to communicate somewhat anyway. The thing is, she was visiting from Italy and assumed a Frenchwoman would speak some Italian. This town, a couple of hundred years ago, used to belong to the political region controlled by Genoa.

My attitude about Americans having issues with people, even immigrants, speaking other languages is to get over it. Just get over it.

As far as the problems in London and other European cities, I have spent a lot of time in those places, such as Paris and London. I would have to go back and count how many times I've been to London or Paris, for example. The riots and strife you see in the news are far exaggerated in people’s mind. I learned a lesson long ago when I was traveling in Morocco. There was war going on there in one part of the country and the news made it look like the country was at war, but if you stayed away from the war region, which was on the southern border, you would have no idea the country was at war: everywhere else, everything was as normal. The point is that the media makes it look like there is a huge problem, but there isn't. Never once in any of those countries, have I seen any problem based on immigrants. Just haven't. And I know people who live in those countries and don't believe there is any big problem. Most of seeing a big problem with immigration is perspective

I do realize that these violent demonstrations and riots are in isolated areas of the country. However, what I find odd is the US which accepts more newcomers than any other country in the world usually never has any violent demonstrations with these newcomers. You would expect that large cities like New York or LA would also have it's fair share of violent clashes like you see in London or Paris, but there's no such thing. I believe this has to do with the fact that most legal newcomers do indeed quickly assimilate into American culture because the government does not encourage multiculturalism. That's just my perspective.

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true.

We're actually number 26 in the world.

Looks like Jughead shot down his own point there anyway.

 

[Jughead]

I do realize that these violent demonstrations and riots are in isolated areas of the country. However, what I find odd is the US which accepts more newcomers than any other country in the world usually never has any violent demonstrations with these newcomers. You would expect that large cities like New York or LA would also have it's fair share of violent clashes like you see in London or Paris, but there's no such thing. I believe this has to do with the fact that most legal newcomers do indeed quickly assimilate into American culture because the government does not encourage multiculturalism. That's just my perspective.

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true.

We're actually number 26 in the world.

Looks like Jughead shot down his own point there anyway.

I said that the US accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world, and I was right....

List of countries by foreign-born population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Esmeralda]

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true.

We're actually number 26 in the world.

Looks like Jughead shot down his own point there anyway.

I said that the US accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world, and I was right....

List of countries by foreign-born population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, you were correct in the overall number, but this is a large country. Per capita, as far as immigration, we are 26 in the world. So the point is there are 25 other countries who deal with a more intense immigration problem than the US.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's just a matter of how you want to measure it. In terms of percentage, we are 26. In terms of raw numbers, we are 1.

Easy.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not sure that the US accepts, per capita, more immigrants than any other place on Earth. I don't think that is true.

We're actually number 26 in the world.

Looks like Jughead shot down his own point there anyway.

I said that the US accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world, and I was right....

List of countries by foreign-born population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes you did, as an absolute number. Which means countries with higher populations (e.g. China, India) don't get as many proportionally as we do. Not even close in those cases in fact. But your prior point was that "multiculturalism" (a term that grows increasingly ambiguous as we go, especially with the suggestion that government has some kind of control of it*) engenders violent protests and the like --- yet here above you're noting that here in the US where large numbers of immigrants do ingress, such strife isn't happening. That would seem to disprove your prior theory.


* Governments don't have the power to bring about multiculturalism, as that is a voluntary evolution on the part of those cultures. Clearly however we can point to myriad cases something of an opposite, where governments as well as unorganized forces, in the quest for monoculturalism, have incited just such strife. We could even start that list right here at home with our own extermination of approximately twelve million Native Americans (and later, with segregation) so clearly, the opposite case can be made.

 

[Jughead]

We're actually number 26 in the world.

Looks like Jughead shot down his own point there anyway.

I said that the US accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world, and I was right....

List of countries by foreign-born population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes you did, as an absolute number. Which means countries with higher populations (e.g. China, India) don't get as many proportionally as we do. Not even close in those cases in fact. But your prior point was that "multiculturalism" (a term that grows increasingly ambiguous as we go, especially with the suggestion that government has some kind of control of it*) engenders violent protests and the like --- yet here above you're noting that here in the US where large numbers of immigrants do ingress, such strife isn't happening. That would seem to disprove your prior theory.


* Governments don't have the power to bring about multiculturalism, as that is a voluntary evolution on the part of those cultures. Clearly however we can point to myriad cases something of an opposite, where governments as well as unorganized forces, in the quest for monoculturalism, have incited just such strife. We could even start that list right here at home with our own extermination of approximately twelve million Native Americans (and later, with segregation) so clearly, the opposite case can be made.

What baffles me is if the governments don't control multiculturalism, then why do immigrants voluntarily assimilate in larger numbers in the US, but not in other countries where the violent clashes are occurring? This is considering that the US has the largest number of immigrants (not per capita) as compared to the other countries. There has to be a formula somewhere, and I believe that the other countries governments must be embracing (or at least were) multiculturalism, and perhaps even spending money on it. The US has for the longest time had a melting pot approach where it's understood that once newcomers become Americans, they assimilate into American culture.

 

[Pogo]

I said that the US accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world, and I was right....

List of countries by foreign-born population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes you did, as an absolute number. Which means countries with higher populations (e.g. China, India) don't get as many proportionally as we do. Not even close in those cases in fact. But your prior point was that "multiculturalism" (a term that grows increasingly ambiguous as we go, especially with the suggestion that government has some kind of control of it*) engenders violent protests and the like --- yet here above you're noting that here in the US where large numbers of immigrants do ingress, such strife isn't happening. That would seem to disprove your prior theory.


* Governments don't have the power to bring about multiculturalism, as that is a voluntary evolution on the part of those cultures. Clearly however we can point to myriad cases something of an opposite, where governments as well as unorganized forces, in the quest for monoculturalism, have incited just such strife. We could even start that list right here at home with our own extermination of approximately twelve million Native Americans (and later, with segregation) so clearly, the opposite case can be made.

What baffles me is if the governments don't control multiculturalism, then why do immigrants voluntarily assimilate in larger numbers in the US, but not in other countries where the violent clashes are occurring? This is considering that the US has the largest number of immigrants (not per capita) as compared to the other countries. There has to be a formula somewhere, and I believe that the other countries governments must be embracing (or at least were) multiculturalism, and perhaps even spending money on it. The US has for the longest time had a melting pot approach where it's understood that once newcomers become Americans, they assimilate into American culture.

How are you measuring and quantifying "assimilation"? How do you define "understood"?

why do immigrants voluntarily assimilate in larger numbers in the US, but not in other countries where the violent clashes are occurring?

Have we not cited, right in this thread, communities in our own country where the lingua franca is Chinese or Spanish? Have we not also cited cases here and elsewhere (e.g. Europe) where dissimilar cultures and languages intermix daily? I don't see where the pattern is. Check out that per capita list linked earlier; the top countries in terms of immigrant population, mostly in the Caribbean and Middle East, are not those experiencing violent clashes.

In short I think you've associated two aspects that are unrelated to each other and assumed a causal relationship, yet the evidence is contradicting that theory.

How does a government "embrace" multiculturalism, or spend money on it? Clearly a government or a social construct can act against it (e.g. children in Québec and Acadiana disciplined for speaking French), we know that. But how is it going to do the opposite? You might point to Canada's legislating that all signs must be in both English and French, but does that force an Anglophone to learn French? Not at all.

Insert comic relief:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5l0PD80u9k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5l0PD80u9k[/ame]

 

[Jughead]

Yes you did, as an absolute number. Which means countries with higher populations (e.g. China, India) don't get as many proportionally as we do. Not even close in those cases in fact. But your prior point was that "multiculturalism" (a term that grows increasingly ambiguous as we go, especially with the suggestion that government has some kind of control of it*) engenders violent protests and the like --- yet here above you're noting that here in the US where large numbers of immigrants do ingress, such strife isn't happening. That would seem to disprove your prior theory.


* Governments don't have the power to bring about multiculturalism, as that is a voluntary evolution on the part of those cultures. Clearly however we can point to myriad cases something of an opposite, where governments as well as unorganized forces, in the quest for monoculturalism, have incited just such strife. We could even start that list right here at home with our own extermination of approximately twelve million Native Americans (and later, with segregation) so clearly, the opposite case can be made.

What baffles me is if the governments don't control multiculturalism, then why do immigrants voluntarily assimilate in larger numbers in the US, but not in other countries where the violent clashes are occurring? This is considering that the US has the largest number of immigrants (not per capita) as compared to the other countries. There has to be a formula somewhere, and I believe that the other countries governments must be embracing (or at least were) multiculturalism, and perhaps even spending money on it. The US has for the longest time had a melting pot approach where it's understood that once newcomers become Americans, they assimilate into American culture.

How are you measuring and quantifying "assimilation"? How do you define "understood"?

why do immigrants voluntarily assimilate in larger numbers in the US, but not in other countries where the violent clashes are occurring?

Have we not cited, right in this thread, communities in our own country where the lingua franca is Chinese or Spanish? Have we not also cited cases here and elsewhere (e.g. Europe) where dissimilar cultures and languages intermix daily? I don't see where the pattern is. Check out that per capita list linked earlier; the top countries in terms of immigrant population, mostly in the Caribbean and Middle East, are not those experiencing violent clashes.

In short I think you've associated two aspects that are unrelated to each other and assumed a causal relationship, yet the evidence is contradicting that theory.

How does a government "embrace" multiculturalism, or spend money on it? Clearly a government or a social construct can act against it (e.g. children in Québec and Acadiana disciplined for speaking French), we know that. But how is it going to do the opposite? You might point to Canada's legislating that all signs must be in both English and French, but does that force an Anglophone to learn French? Not at all.

Insert comic relief:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5l0PD80u9k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5l0PD80u9k[/ame]

Here is a good article which may shed some light ...

Large enclaves of immigrants are present in virtually every large European city. These ethnic neighborhoods have their own culture, language, and often their own set of rules. This is the case in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Brussels and Oslo—where immigrants are a substantial part of populations.

For a long time, their presence was tolerated, even welcomed, adhering to the “melting pot” standard favored by democratic societies. This gave way to the concept of multiculturalism—or two distinct cultures living side-by-side within a nation.

Time has shown, however, that many immigrants have not assimilated into European cultures, thus threatening the unity EU member-states have worked hard to cultivate.

What has blocked the concept of multiculturalism from being successful?

Division from Within

The growing number of immigrants, combined with religious and cultural tensions, concerns about crime, slowing economies, and even the threat of terrorism, have worried natural-born EU citizens, and strained relations between countries that believe the problem should be addressed by the entirety of Europe.

Europe - The Failure of Multiculturalism