A Study In Welfare,Liberal Ideology, Racism & Diversity

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I beg to differ. Here in the UK we are seeing an upsurge in the younger generation of Pakistanis NOT integrating not assimilating and certainly not adopting the culture of the UK. It is mainly the younger males that are calling for Sharia Law, not the older generations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Took place? Multiculturalism hasn't ended and is still going on today. You just said a load of nonsense.

Maybe you need to read my reply to you again. What took place then is completely different from what is happening in the modern era for the reasons I outlined. The nonsense in this thread so far has come from you.

Similar Anti-immigrant Rhetoric Used Throughout U.S. History

One historical example is the Nativist Movement of the 19th century, which gained popularity at the time of the mass migration of Irish Catholics to the U.S., who came to escape the Potato Famine. The Nativist Movement that arose utilized its anti-foreign and anti-Catholic mission to promote platforms ranging from extending the length of the naturalization process to protecting American Protestant values. Nativist writers and politicians of the mid-1800s claimed that the founding Protestant values of the United States were under attack from “foreign influence” and advocated against the naturalization of Irish Catholic “paupers” and “wretches,” as they called them.

Racist Anti-Immigrant Cartoons From the Turn of the 20th Century

But it is safe to say there was a more sinister attitude toward immigrants in the country at the turn of the 20th century. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 made it government policy to restrict an ethnic group's ability to enter the country. In 1896, an Atlantic author called immigrants "a hopeless burden" that would dilute the industriousness of the nation. In 1917, the Immigration Act barred a whole range of individuals -- including the illiterate, the "feeble minded," and homosexuals -- from entering the country. Many of the images in this gallery echo these fears and portray immigrants, particularly the Chinese and the Irish, as parasites devouring what Americans hold dear.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Took place? Multiculturalism hasn't ended and is still going on today. You just said a load of nonsense.

Maybe you need to read my reply to you again. What took place then is completely different from what is happening in the modern era for the reasons I outlined. The nonsense in this thread so far has come from you.

I know what you wrote. It's a bunch of partisan nonsense.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I beg to differ. Here in the UK we are seeing an upsurge in the younger generation of Pakistanis NOT integrating not assimilating and certainly not adopting the culture of the UK. It is mainly the younger males that are calling for Sharia Law, not the older generations.

And I say give it time. They'll come around. Or their kids will at least.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No what you just said was a bunch of bull.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

And anti-immigrant sentiment like yours isn't new. Ever see Gangs of New York? That is about anti-immigrant gangs fighting immigrant gangs in turn of the century NYC.[/].



This is the result of a society that gets its truths from Hollywood.

edit on 1-3-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

a reply to: CulturalResilience

So you are saying that there was no anti-immigrant rhetoric at the turn of the century and that movie was a bunch of lies in that regard then?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Took place? Multiculturalism hasn't ended and is still going on today. You just said a load of nonsense.

Maybe you need to read my reply to you again. What took place then is completely different from what is happening in the modern era for the reasons I outlined. The nonsense in this thread so far has come from you.

I know what you wrote. It's a bunch of partisan nonsense.

Did you get this reply from a film as well?

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
That "Multiculturalism" you are referring to took place when there was no welfare state and those that came to the fledgling US had the will and intention to become productive members of the society. Their expectations were completely different to the Culturally Marxist entitlement complex of today's US.
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I could star your post a million times, I would do it.
I know there are immigrants and refugees that come here that want to contribute and be productive but I think the percentage is fairly small...20-25% maybe.
I saw a post in a thread in the last few days here that said they wanted to immigrate to Canada (not sure it it was from the USA) but they were denied because the line of work they were in was not in great demand in Canada. So apparently Canada felt they could not live the way they were accustomed to and denied the application.
I will try to find the post.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CulturalResilience

So you are saying that there was no anti-immigrant rhetoric at the turn of the century and that movie was a bunch of lies in that regard then?

I made no such claim. This reply is a textbook example of the liberal tactic of Reduction Ad Absurdum. Its so predictable its laughable.

I think our approach to multiculturalism is a holdover from less technologically advanced times. Taken as a whole system, the world is already multicultural.

Why force fit things according to locale? In some areas, with some people, it will work wonderfully but I'm not convinced that is some universal truth. And in my opinion, it doesnt need to be.

We can connect vastly different cultures through technology and essentially get the best of both worlds. The logical end result of global multiculturalism is a world where somehow groups retain their cultural identity while they integrate together to create a new one isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is more feasible through technology.

Approaching it entirely through location seems to not only be forced, but over generations, a significant amount is lost.

As for items like welfare, I strongly believe we can create systems that teach people to fish. Currently though, they tend to enable extensive dependency. While this maintains ye olde royalty and serfs paradigm (that we like to think we've moved beyond), I really don't think it is the best system for either kings/queens or the plebs.

Overall I think these are issues we will be forced to face as technology and culture collide. Might as all well get to it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

...they weren't wrong. That said, the differences today are even more striking and make for an even greater incompatibility.

Oh, and the plaque on the Statue of Liberty? Poetry, not anything bearing legalistic significance. The statue wasn't initially wanted, the woman who wrote the poem didn't initially want anything to do with it, and it only became a viable exercise when the US war Department convinced Congress that the statue could be used as a propaganda mechanism.

Try again...

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CulturalResilience

So you are saying that there was no anti-immigrant rhetoric at the turn of the century and that movie was a bunch of lies in that regard then?

I made no such claim. This reply is a textbook example of the liberal tactic of Reduction Ad Absurdum. Its so predictable its laughable.

No that was an example of asking a question to get you to further elucidate on your point.

While I respect the time you spent writing the post and gathering some correlating information to back it up, I can't help but feel we're constantly 'dressing down' the political talking points of this and missing the overall intention.

Wellfare is designed to help those who need help. Do you believe we should make it a national point of pride to not help those who need help? Is the fact that any system can/will be abused by unscrupulous individuals a valid reason for dismantling the systems, even if the ratio of actual help/malfeasance is relatively low? At what point in your mind is a system designed to help people no longer 'worth it'?

Regarding nationalism vs multi-culturalism; it sounds like your very much for nationalism. Since this can be distilled down to its baser elements of 'my group vs your group' mentalities that, although evolutionary advantageous, now seem to be working against the cohesiveness of the species in achieving greater heights in all areas, do you believe we should strive to re-enforce the 'America as a singular standalone nation' idea? What is the end goal in all of this, ie. do all those supporters in Nationalism believe that for now until the end of time we will exist as American's? Is it the destiny of the human race to be forever tethered to landmass 'teams' for the purposes of fighting each other instead of spending our time/energy on more worthwhile endeavors?

As a globalist liberal my intentions are to give the benefit of the doubt to those in need, with the understanding that although I can try and root out corruption and malfeasance in social programs, the good far outweighs the bad. As a globalist liberal my hope is that we cast off the competitive mentality that has molded us into creatures locked in a p[perpetual cycle of fear and war. I don't believe that isolating ourselves from everyone else, hammering home the notion that its us or the highway, or quadrupling down on military spending/buildup will do anything than the opposite of what I hope everyone wants, Peace and Prosperity and cooperation among all the people of this planet. Although I am not religious I find ironic solace in the words of Jesus Christ and his mentality for many of these quandaries you've posed. They seem eerily aligned with those that the right calls 'godless liberals'.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

...they weren't wrong

You've said all I need to hear from you on this. I cannot argue with blind ignorance.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The keyword is assimilation. Immigrants in the past were Americans first, immigrants second. They were expected to assimilate to American culture, language, and ideals.

There are still lots of American who describe themselves as Irish American, Italian American etc. It is perfectly possible to identify with more than one culture and identity.

The American culture, language and ideals was defined by those immigrants. Cultures and society develop continually, at least partly due to immigration . You can choose to view these changes as negative if you wish, but personally I find that changes I have seen as result of immigration overwhelming positive.

There are undoubtedly short term problems that can and do result from immigration, particularly when badly handled by government. However the idea that society benefits from being closed off from external influences is, in my view, fundamently wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And how much time is enough time? These are 4th and 5th generation kids who are now as far from integration as they ever were. They don't want it and are not scared of saying so. Do such incidences not give rise to the theory that some migrants are not in fact migrants but colonists? The situation here is not specifically race but ideology and belief. Fifty years ago the Pakistani migrants that were here were the backbone of the textile industry. They worked long hours, suffered industrial deafness and other diseases, but they remained learned the language and to all intents and purposes integrated just like the Ukranians Poles and Latvians. They made no demands, for the most part they kept their culture to themselves as they did with their religion. However, once the numbers rose, they then felt compelled to integrate back into the Pakistani communities and subsequent generations especially the women, had little or no need to learn the language etc. The work ethic was diluted to almost zero and those that did work usually worked cash in hand (tax free) or for family, thereby giving back little or nothing to the country as a whole. As the number rose significantly higher, they discovered that liberalism was their friend and they became the special and the victims, and those that did manage to rise up and become achievers were ostracised and considered traitors.

What we are seeing are countries within countries which cannot possibly be called multiculturalism or diversity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CulturalResilience

So you are saying that there was no anti-immigrant rhetoric at the turn of the century and that movie was a bunch of lies in that regard then?

a reply to: RazorV66

That was me when I applied years ago
I was refused as the line of work I was in (law) was not needed in Canada as there were more than enough Canadians able to fill those jobs and without £500000 I would be a burden on the state.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I beg to differ. Here in the UK we are seeing an upsurge in the younger generation of Pakistanis NOT integrating not assimilating and certainly not adopting the culture of the UK. It is mainly the younger males that are calling for Sharia Law, not the older generations.

And I say give it time. They'll come around. Or their kids will at least.

Give it time? Nonsense.
It should be a prerequisite when someone immigrates into a country, that their ideals should closely align to where they are going. For example, not call for Sharia Law to be the law of the land in a country that is primarily Christian.
The country should not change for their benefit, they need to change for the country's benefit. Period.
That is where all the Leftists get it wrong, they want the country to just accept these people when many do not follow the rule of law here.