Let's get this thing sorted
Filed Under zjbr.com |
I am not particularly a Japanophile. I am more a militant multiculturalist :p
Here is my suggestion. Take it or leave it.
I suggest that a discussion is set up for each nation represented in this forum.
Then, members (natives) of each forum post comments describing the negative aspects of their culture. Then non-natives are invited to contradict (i.e. defend the culture in question)/
E.G.
Japanese Native: Japanese are so timid
British Native: But that is because they want to give space to other and not appear arrogant.
Hope this is clear.
Comments and responses do not have to be accurate or 'intelligent'. This is just an exercise in consciousness raising.
I dare you!
What video did you watch? I watched this one: Stupid in America (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA) (that's the 20/20 video with John Stossel)
By the way, GodEmperorLeto, the link you posted sent me to an IT梡岅帿揟 (http://e-words.jp/).
You can't compare the state system in America to Countries in the UK. The UK exists to represent all 5 peoples as a whole, for on their own they seem small and pointless. The UK is not a country in itself; it is the group of Islands, which in turn contain countries.
Purely because I have no idea I am asking this question;
Is it necessary to have a passport to travel between Scotland, Ireland and England?
and I am responsible (at least in part, at least)
The following was at the end of one of my posts,
but i expanded upon it.
A negative aspect of my "culture", (even though the US is not and never has been just one culture), is that we are argumentative and arrogant and paranoid.
This paranoia also is reflected into or from the political realm:
Where there is a terrorist under every bed,
just like there really was (wink, wink) a communist under every bed from 1945-1991. Yup, sure... there was. Er, make that, we lie a lot.
US "culture" also has a culture that seems more stuck in tv land with American Idle or some such cheeseball sitcom that makes fun of the viewers, than with participating in running their own lives and which results in the robber barrons, war mongerers, and those with arrogant (us is the greatest) god delusions to wreak havoc on the planet.
That's some negative stuff i see about present day US culture.
Is that too much?
I'm not insisting, I'm trying to clarify my thoughts. If you chose to be offended, well, that's your business.
to use the terms england and UK interchangeably is incorrect.
Reread:
but I often refer to the U.K. as England (admittedly erroneously) as do many of my fellow "Yanks".
to ignore what the people who live there think (know!) is arrogance in the extreme.
Plenty of people know things that are wrong, but they are so certain of them because of political or ethnological reasons.
Besides, you completely ignored everything else I said in my post. Read it again. By the way, I think the Scots having their own Parliament is a good thing.
They didn't expect anyone to learn there first language. They understood that to be American was to fit in, not to fit America to them!
and
My conclusion is that there is nothing "wrong" or "racist" about forcing people to learn the language and local cultural customs in a nation. Don't you think that this will actually lead to a better communcation and understanding between these peoples? Or would you rather let them live in their slumps and keep them alienated without prospect of earning a piece of the pie that we call "standard of living"?
AMEN!!!
First of all, I'll refer to the film Man of the Year with Robin Williams. Why are our security measures at our airports and seaports so vigorous that we are giving old ladies body-cavity-searches while our southern border is wide open?
Secondy, if other countries have every right to expel illegal immigrants that sneak in, as well as demand that any legals learn their languages and customs, why shouldn't America? Granted, we should adapt new traditions and customs, which is why St. Patty's Day in the U.S. is a holiday (even though it really isn't in Ireland), but immigrants (especially illegals) have no right to demand us to change to suit them. That's like me going to Japan and expecting them to learn English and then walk around calling them "Nips", "Japs", and "Slopes" whenever they aren't listening. People want to talk about arrogance? Whatever happened to "when in Rome"?
Finally, I have a bunch of complaints about U.S. culture, just to contribute to the overly pessimistic trend of this thread.
1) Our TV sucks. Reality TV is insidiously brain-damaging and stultifying.
2) Our education system stinks to high-heaven. Stupid in America (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA)
3) The severe polarization of the political spectrum.
4) Lack of real patriotism. (But not a lack of nationalism).
5) A public largely ignorant of its own history, as well as unaware of political truths or realities, because they are spoon-fed slanted information by a politically-influenced media.
I've written about this before, and by and large, I've found that most Asians bring their customs with them, not leave them behind, while the opposite is expected to those immigrants to Asian countries.
*I mention those two demographics because they make up about 70% of the foreign exchange students of all of the many colleges in my area...
I'm used to going to another country and trying to assimilate myself to the customs and the mores, manners, and expectations of those nations, I've been to several different countries and have done so in each... Most foreign students that I've met, be they Russian, Korean, Chinese, tend not to bother to do anything other than use the ample funding provided to them by the United States college systems, and show general disdain for their host country's residents....
Nobody needs to kiss my ass, but, I always tried to be nice and polite to those people I interacted with at the damn 99en shop!
Oh yes, I work in retail---- should that explain anything, where the disdain is heaped upon you....
ed: Oh, I might add, I didn't want to make this sound like a rant bout them furrners... It's just that, though I do frequent quite a lot of Asian businesses here where I live, I seem to experience the same amount of awkward disdain (or at least apathy) that I received while in Asia... it simply seems a little rude to me. I'm very happy that my country has a policy that allows people to come and live, I'm a supporter of a multi-cultural society--- but not a multi-cultural society that seeks only to use that society at the behest of being apart of it--- how does that strengthen a nation.
That's one thing that Japan has going for it in patriotism, that lockstep mindset.
I couldn't have said it better!
well, the name for that (this!) language is quite misleading... this language didn't originate in england... mainly because "England" as we know it now, didn't exist at the time... what is now England used to be various warring kingdoms, such as northumbria (which actually included parts of scotland, up the east coast to edinburgh) and wessex, down in the home counties.
so the country England actually post-dates the embrionic stages of the english language.
ok, so the angles, a north german/danish tribe, travelled over the the British Isles (I use this term geographically, not politically) and displaced the Celts who were native to the isles, pushing them north, west and south west.
the angles not only took over via war, but also through marriage, and thats why much of scotland and wales (i dont know about ireland) also have angle as well as celtic heritage.
now, where the angles went, their language, a kind of proto-english, went with them.
this includes areas of what is now scotland and wales.
now, the normans (northern french descended form Vikings or norsemen=norman) invaded england and became the upper class, the political and military class of england... and they also settled in parts of scotland and wales... so it was that the educated language was, for a long time, french, and the common language was english. as the english language became more and more popular with the nobles, so we notice more and more french coming into english, and the language changed... so much so, that the way lowland and border scots pronounce their vowels, and many of the old scots-english dialectic words are more similar to "Old English" than BBC English is ("received pronounciation") as these parts were far less infuenced over the years by the norman ruling class.
so, the fact that scots for the most part speak english is not a sign that they were conquered by england, but rather that both the geographic areas of england and scotand were subject to massive immigration by the Angles... and once these angles came here the "English" language actually developed across the the whole of the island of Great Britain simultaneously, but with regional differences... neither region (london, south wales, yorkshire, aberdeenshire, etc) can claim to be the "true home" of the english language, for it evolved in all places. "english" is merely named as such because the area settled by Angles, and their progeny that was largest and had the greatest political and military power was the area that became "England".
now, onto the more general discussion as to what makes a country...
well, many International Relations theories don't use the term country precisely because it is so vague... they prefer "state" when refering to a unified geopolitical unit such as Japan, the UK or the USA. obviously this can seem odd to someone from the USA, who is used to the use of the word "state" to mean one geopolitical subunit of the USA.
however IR theory, much if not most of which is from the USA prefers the use of the term "state" to mean what most of us mean when we say country in order to avoid such arguments as we have on here about what is and is not a country.
now, many mistakenly think that all countries are not merely states, but nation-states... but in a world where borders are becoming more and more permeable what is a nation? a nation is supposed to be a culturally homogenous group of people... but these are becoming fewer and fewer.
a good example, again from the British Isles, is comparing Scotland and England, just before the english line ended, and the scots took the english crown and the countries shared the same monarch (though not the same parliament, yet)... the mother of the man who would become the first king of both scotland AND england was Mary Queen of Scots... whereas the English monarchs were referred to as Kings and Queens of England... the vital difference is that the scottish monarch was the head of the nation (the people, and their culture), whereas the monarch of england was the ruler of the very LAND itself! they were the head of state, not a nation-state, unlike Mary who was head of a nation-state.
now, when scotland and england warred, it was back in the good old days of keeping what land you won... so areas of scotland captured by the english were considered part of england, and areas the scots won were considered scotland... it was not until the Westphallia treaty that the idea that each state was sovereign and the concept of "immutable borders" were first agreed to.
this is why countries much older than the likes of the USA, though they may have renounced some of their powers, or unionised, etc. still refer to themselves as countries... because they tend to be a geographic location associated witha particular culture that also pre-dates the concept of immutable borders.
in short, defining a country by its ability to influence others (its ability to have a foreign policy) is a very modern concept, most old countries define themselves by their history... its continuous, traceable link to a particular geographic are and or cultural group, and in order to clarify the study of global politics a politcal unit with its own unified foreign policy is called a "state"...
there are of course non-state actors such as NGOs, but that's, perhaps, for another thread!
OK, now I'll try...
From a different perspective, I wsay:
1. Being argumentative
It is important to question the things. Being oblivious and accept everything just as it is could lead us into a dangerous situation and it will be too late when they realize where they're going...
2. Being arrogant
Some people may call it arrogance, but it shows that American people are very confident about themselves. So they are positive in many aspects. That should be a good attitude in life.
3. Being paranoid
It is far better than being indifferent, especially when it comes to politics.
In other words, Americans are politically very active.
4. Lieing a lot
Telling truth is not always the best choice. If one tries to be diplomatic, one need to tell a lie at times...
5. TV
At least American people know what the entertainment is. Otherwise why so many American TV programmes become so popular in so many other countries?
I know I'm supposed to make some negative statement about Japan, but alas, my brain got dried up as I had to work until 23:30...
:p
But I do believe studying other languages & cultures and not looking down on others because they choose to speak a different language anywhere they choose in the so-called "land of the free" are good things.
I did not know there was a field of "multiculturalism", with an exact set of rules and things to teach, but maybe someone has made such a text book?
I do not know.
As for
"They are creating a permanent under-class "
One of Bush's proposals would have done that for sure.
Was it his 'guest worker program', that would have given people less rights than people inalienable have no matter where they came from (that US gov'ts are constitutionally bound to recognize.). I don't remember all the details, but there was one of those "immigration reform bill" proposals that would have given the "permanent under-class" thing its legal definition.
----Oh, I think it might have prevented people from acting on their right to collectively bargin. If So, THERE'S YOUR UNDERCLASS.
Another right we seem to still be working on. Sure the founders of the US (some 25% of the population making up the "free" folk) would not have cared too much for it, but these things evolve, just as women and people with more melanin in their skin have stood up and taken their rights over the years, so too are us working shlumps who actually create the wealth of the world working for our rights. It's a constant struggle.
A negative aspect of my "culture", is that we are argumentative and arrogant and paranoid (which is why you get so many people complaining about people speaking Spanish around them, or other languages. I've heard it with my own two ears, people talking about local Hmong population: "you know they're talking about you." GAAAAAAAAAAAD, Whatever!!! Like someone's got nothing better to do than to talk about you, someone they don't even know, behind their back right in front of you. Talk about paranoid)
Oh, and there is a terrorist under every bed,
just like there really was a communist under every bed from 1945-1991. Yup, sure was. The paranoia is present in the political rhetoric. Er, make that, we lie a lot.
Thanks:-) ...........
I hate Bed & Breakfasts because after a while during the day, you start to get hungry. I have to ask, "Can you direct me to a Chair-Lunch-Dinner?" I want to open a chain of Chair-Lunch-Dinners across the street from Bed & Breakfasts, and say, "Come on over, around... 1:00."
The late, great Mitch Hedberg was hilarious.
What video did you watch? I watched this one: Stupid in America (that's the 20/20 video with John Stossel)
By the way, GodEmperorLeto, the link you posted sent me to an IT梡岅帿揟.
I have no clue how that happened. I must have copied the wrong URL, but I've never seen that site before in my life. Wierd.
As for England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales, I think we need a ruling on what exactly a country consists of. Because if a country is a nation-state, then they don't count. They are not sovereign independent states, because the last time Scotland had a seat in the U.N. was...never. Nor are they nations, since, as humbleservant said:
"you are also mistaken in calling the the scots and welsh non-anglo-saxon... the scots, welsh and irish may feel that they are celtic, but its a myth really, all the natives of the UK, even the british isles, to include southern ireland, are a hodgepodge of viking, angle, pict, celt and saxon."
So nation, as according to the post-WWI definition, is almost analogous to ethnicity, but if everyone on the Islands is a hodgepodge of the same bloodlines, then there is no real ethnic separation between them.
If you are going to use language as the determinant, then maybe Wales is a separate country, but I'm pretty sure the Scottish speak English. Accent doesn't count, I'm sorry, because in that case you'd be able to divide London alone up into separate countries.
So what exactly determines these territories as "countries"?
#1 - Quit watching prime time programming. It is made for idiots. Stick to Animal planet, Discovery channel, History channel, etc...
These are the only reasons I have TV. In addition, I have found that there are excellent dramas on HBO, especially The Sopranos and Rome, which I especially like because a) I'm half-Italian, and b) I'm getting my advanced degrees in Graeco-Roman civ. The History channel has to be taken with a grain of salt, though. TV lends legitimacy to ideas that would, otherwise, never pass muster in the academic community. Guys like Graham Hancock seem like insightful, intelligent people, and while some of his ideas are worth investigating (such as re-evaluating the age of the Sphinx), his conclusions (i.e. aliens) are absurd and groundless.
Nevertheless, for every single good hour of programming on American TV, there are ten hours of refuse. But I figure it is like that in any country, to varying degrees.
#2 - Not completely, but there are shortfalls. And if you believe the stupid in America stuff completely...then you are stupid yourself. Many of those people are paid, and believe me, they cut out clips of people who actually know the answers to their questions.
You either don't remember high school, or you went to a relatively nice school with very good teachers. I've done my research into the education system, and I also consider myself an education survivor. I've dated a girl that got indoctrinated into the ranks of "educrats" at my college, and saw first-hand the crap they are teaching our teachers. The country that put men on the Moon now can't even get their middle-schoolers to do long division. The average American cannot, in fact, pass a test that kids in other countries can ace. In addition, I've taught myself in a private Orthodox Jewish high school (so we had Fridays off, and twice the holidays), and in only 250 days (over two years) I taught those kids 500 years of N. American history (from Columbus & Cortes to Clinton), plus modern Russian/Soviet, modern German, and modern Japanese history. Most American high school history teachers can only get up to World War II's ending in two years, and NEVER teach Germany, the Soviets, or Japan.
#3 - no comment...the political system in the US has major flaws.
The system isn't flawed, it's the people.
#4 - Talk to many US Servicemembers and you may change your mind.
So one dead cousin in Iraq, one alive in Iraq, and dozens of uncles and great uncles in Vietnam, Korea, Europe & the Pacific wouldn't count?
I have talked to servicemen. Some of them are the only patriots I've met. Many other people are simply flag-waving reactionary nationalists who want to shove their religion down your throat or participating in the general defenestration of American cultural mores and values and replacing them with sterile postmodern mores dictated by the intelligencia. Both say they are patriotic, but they really aren't. Oddly enough, though, both are statist.
#5 - This is pretty much true. People just don't seem to care much about such things.
All these things are tied together.
But, I believe it to be true elsewhere too. Here in Japan last week, there was an interview of college students about issues with American military bases. Many of them didn't see a problem with the bases, as they have always been here (in their lifetime). The bases were/are a part of their life and they don't see a problem with them...this was a shock to many of the older generation.
I want us out of there. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. Unless we are going to start bombing North Korea anytime soon, we don't need 'em, and they are just a big opportunity for those few American soldiers who like to misbehave to make the entire U.S. look bad.
See: Mexico.
Forgetting of course that for decades middle-aged and retired (therefore not fit to work) Brits have been occupying the Spanish and Mediterranean shores with no attempt to assimilate.
See: British Empire
My grumble about the Brits is:
failure to recognise and appreciate the value of their own multiculturalism.
Bad food culture.
Declining education
Dependency on the State
Firstly, the English are multicultural in that they have Welsh and Scots as the largest non-Anglo-Saxon/Norman ethnicities in the country. However, the cultural gap between these groups is much more narrow than between the English and, say, those Poles.
By the way, "multiculturalism" is a crappy word and I hate the concept. But more on that later.
The English don't have to be multicultural anyway, because they are a nation, not an empire. The U.S. had darn-well better be multicultural (to a certain degree, that is), because, although we are transplanted Englishmen with English laws and institutions (minus the king, see Ernst Breisach's Historiography page 224-5), we are also a multicultural, multiethnic empire due to our continental conquests and the massive influx of immigrants. But there's no reason for England to be that way. I think she should preserve her culture and continue as she is.
Secondly, bad food is relative. Yeah, sheep-bladders and goat-intestines don't sound appetizing, but Bismarck said that the public shouldn't know what goes into sausagemaking (and politics), and I damn-well like my bratwurst. In other words, don't tell me what it is until after I've decided it tastes good or bad.
Lastly, declining education and dependency on the State is something I can heartily sympathize with. The United States is being wracked by both. Liberalism, under the guise of "democratic ideals" and the "protection of rights" is making people more dependent on the state for aid, while conservativism is making people dependent by tightening security at our borders (except for Mexico, ironically enough).
Multiculturalism is a popular buzzword and a pox on society. People not intending to assimilate ought to stay where they are.
Epic win.
Multiculturalism, like most -isms, is taken to an extreme. When I say the U.S. is multicultural, I mean it because I eat Indian, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Italian, and German food on a regular basis. However, that's co-assimilation. All these people (well, not all of the Mexicans, though) speak English, like American TV and music, and are a contributing part of American society. In otherwords, being an Italian American, or Irish American, or German American, is pretty much the same anymore as being a born-and-bred Anglo-Saxon American (regardless of what the KKK says). These people have assimilated into American society, and American society has changed because of their influence, at least in regards to cuisine and entertainment (like mobster movies and stuff).
all scots, english, welsh and most northern irish have "British" passports... the term British in this context refers to the fact that we are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. you do need a passport to get a flight within the UK, but all British citizens have the same passport, and it is need only as a form of ID, not because you are crossing a border between two states (see previous post for "state")...
also, someone mentioned that the "main" parliament was the English one... not so! there is NO English parliament... the Parliament in London, in England, is the parliament for the whole of the UK... there are representatives from all areas of the UK... the fact the english don't have their own regional governmantal parliaments and assemblies the way that scotland, wales and NI do, is, im my opinion, absoutely ridiculous, and one of the main causes of tension between the different parts of the UK (the other cause is London-centric news coverage and media)
As for Japan, I like it, a lot. I am told though that I shouldn't try and fit in, to just be my self, to be American. I am learning the language and such. If I end up living here, I will try harder as it will be my home. As for the moment I can relax and enjoy the latitude that is offered to me. I do apprecitate that my sins on Japanese culture are over looked or forgiven. I don't get the feeling that most Japanese want foreigners to assimilate, I am not certain of why, but it's something that I sense.
90% of my Navy pay went to off base spending, it was money well spent.
Uncle Frank
:-)
You know that is a crock of BS, just because you think it doesn't make it so.
For the past 6 or so years, we've been royally f***d, and nobody, not even the democrats have been able to do much about it, until they regained control of congress.
The dem's were and are no better. If and when the democrats win back the White House the US will return to the days of being a welfare state. You come across as a bleeding heart liberal. Neither party is the solution, and both are the probllem.
It is a U.S. base. We pay to fly troops there. We pay to fly them back. We pay to maintain the base. If the Japanese government is paying the U.S. to essentially "loan" them the troops, it is news to me, I'll admit that. But so far as I am aware, we pay for our own military being there.
Google is our friend. From the United States Forces Japan (http://www.usfj.mil/) homepage:USFJ Facts
USFJ represents U.S. security interests in Japan through a broad array of bilateral consultations, exercises, and contingency/ operational planning.
Annual cost of stationing U.S. Forces in 1999 was approximately $7B. Of this, the Government of Japan paid approximately $3 billion -- 43%.
USFJ and the Japan Self Defense Forces plan and conduct a rigorous and realistic program of joint/ bilateral exercises to increase the credibility of the U.S.-Japan security commitments and maintain their readiness.
The figures are from 1999, and I couldn't find any newer figures. But I guess you both pay for their presence through tax.. :relief:
Freedom of speech, freedom of thought etc...
I don't believe anyone HAS to speak in any way.
If someone wants to "get ahead" or a better paying job or whatever, then they are going to have to figure out how to do that, namely probably speak the language predominantly spoken in the area they wish to get a lot of money from. But that is different from mandating someone speak using XX these words. I know, let's out law 99% of English adjectives. How about only the adjectives "good" and "bad" can be used. No other ones.
See not only how utterly dull and boring that would be,
but also how limited one's scope of THINKING would be.
It's about thought control.
Do you think all those people who settled on the eastern seaboard of north america from europe spoke one language? Did George Washington mandate one language?
Hasn't there been China towns, and German towns or Polish neighborhoods when groups of people came to the US? Look at Milwaukee.
There was actually some schools that taught in German in Wisconsin back in the day.
If I had the skills and my friends wanted to do it too, I'd suggest we all speak Japanese all the time every where we go, just to tick certain people off. (honestly no one here I know).
the children chose anime, and multi-culturalism won.
i honestly don't see what the big deal is,
why should we bash any culture?
ethnocentrism sucks.
cultures and societies change.
they always have.
who wants murky stagnation?
cultures and socities ebb and flow, this has always happened.
i don't care if the US has two major languages.
even small religious schools near where I live are teaching Spanish
in the early grades. At least they're being realistic.
The vasts majority of the Western Hemisphere speaks Spanish.
And as much as some don't like to hear it, the US isn't going to be
the dominant world power for ever. Better get used to living with our neighbors.
as long as migration does not bring what was brought to what would become
the US state of Kansas in the 1800s just before the US civil war:
Kansas would become a "slave state" or a "free state" depending on how the residents of the new state voted. people moved there in flocks and started killing each other so they could get the most votes. political violence. let's hope the US gov't doesn't to re-import that from what they've done to the hemisphere in decades past.
and the kkk is a terrorist group.
Does anyone know of any other locations in the world that could be even remotely considered the same?
I know there was a time here in Okinawa, during the Ryukyu Administration Period after WWII until May 15th of 1972 that Okinawan's needed a passport to travel from Okinawa to mainland Japan. Even though the Okinawan's were considered to be Japanese, they were under a different government at the time, similar to a protectorate, hence the need for the passports. However it and the people were still considered to be a part of Japan.
Stupid in America (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA) (that's the 20/20 video with John Stossel)
Frightening! Especially those union representatives!
:souka:
But reading the posts that follow, I'm beginning to feel "lost".
Isn't the purpose of this thread is:
- one states something negative about his/her own country
- members from other countries are invited to contradict (which I thought should be something positive??) as a kind of defender.
and see how the discussion will be going???
I'm a bit getting tired of seeing people bashing each other's culture/country or whatsoever... I thought this thread will be a nice change of the scene.
why are you insisting on offending me?
i live in scotland. in fact i am there right now! the UK is a united kingdom of 3 countries and a province. those three countries are scotland, england, wales and the province is northern ireland.
to use the terms england and UK interchangeably is incorrect.
annexed provinces? what makes you think that? scotland and england remained separate countries when they decided to share a monarch, then a parliament... no-body "annexed" scotland... both scot and eng joined willingly!
you can sit over whereever you live and pontifficate about whether you believe scotland is a country, or england is, but to ignore what the people who live there think (know!) is arrogance in the extreme.
finally: you should checkthe scottish parliament on google. hopefully you will view this site with as much openmindedness as you have shown on here (ha!)
WOW! You should have been here for all last year, we had bashing & smashing to the point of civil war. Sometimes the replys may seem negative, but many of the old timers have seen the same material 10 times and get a bit testy in their answers. Now days the negative things are usually in answer to people who have never been to Japan and have beliefs of life in Japan based on books, games, and movies that are maybe a bit too positive & perfect. Most of the "negative" replys are aimed at bringing the person down to earth so to speak. Although not stated, many members living in Japan , are happier there then in their own countries. I also believe most members saying negative things about Japan would gladly point out many things wrong back in their home countries, but the forum here is about Japan. Over the past few years, many members here have shot down their own countries in flames(Bush,Congress,taxes,wars for example) , but it is considered off topic. Sure Japan has negative things about it, but doesn't everywhere. I think if you took a poll of members here, you would find overall, most of us here really love Japan. Just my feelings, can't really speak for others.
Uncle Frank
:souka:
PS - I think some members feel by talking about the problems in Japan and having many Japanese people read comments here, maybe positive changes will come about.
See: British Empire
Firstly, the English are multicultural in that they have Welsh and Scots as the largest non-Anglo-Saxon/Norman ethnicities in the country. However, the cultural gap between these groups is much more narrow than between the English and, say, those Poles.
actually. I find these comments quite ignorant and extremely offensive.
fortunately for you, its pretty obvious you don't mean to be offensive! :relief:
so, please allow me to first explain why you are wrong...
you imply that the english having welsh and scots in the country is a sign of multiculturalism... this is not a valid point because scotland, england and wales are separate countries! they share a politcal union throught the UK parliament, but they are separate countries. the UK is not a sign of multiculturalism, but of co-operation between countries.
you are also mistaken in calling the the scots and welsh non-anglo-saxon... the scots, welsh and irish may feel that they are celtic, but its a myth really, all the natives of the UK, even the british isles, to include southern ireland, are a hodgepodge of viking, angle, pict, celt and saxon.
now, mulitculturalism does exist within scotland, england and wales, but that is a separate point.
We're paying for it because the money that could be use to fund public works is going to grease the palms of the ENTIRE administration...
For the past 6 or so years, we've been royally f***d, and nobody, not even the democrats have been able to do much about it, until they regained control of congress.
We are, in effect, at the mercy of carpetbaggers... grifting the world for oil profits, at the expense of the living poor, at the expense of the lives of people dying for WHAT? A failed despot whom we used to befriend until he thought he could do things his way...
And how did we get there, by wrapping up the whole package in a lie about Al'Quaeda connections & weapons of mass destruction.... And WHAT have we accomplished? Nothing, absolutely nothing.... oh a school went up in Faluhja... maybe... we created a civil war, we've actually created more instances of terrorism, and no I don't belive we are innocent victims of simple terrorists--- I don't agree witht any agenda they have, but by and large, the'res more violence in Iraq now, than there ever was under Saddams regime, and Saddam, WAS a bad man, no doubt about it... and further, we have made the world LESS safe than it's ever been, specifically in that theatre of war we are in.
We failed, they failed, they need to fix it, or just cut their losses, leave the people more wrecked than they were before and just leave, period.
Could you share the article or tv station that ran this interview. I would be interested in hearing what they had to say.
How do you figure?
It is a U.S. base. We pay to fly troops there. We pay to fly them back. We pay to maintain the base. If the Japanese government is paying the U.S. to essentially "loan" them the troops, it is news to me, I'll admit that. But so far as I am aware, we pay for our own military being there.
It would be terribly naive to say that multi-culturalism is all about learning about the minorities' cultures, dating their women and eating their food. I can't believe the naivity in your argument which you, Sukotto, start with the fact kids wanted to learn about Anime "and [thus]" multi-culturalism won.
I have no clue to your living environment, but I live in a city of which 45% is of foreign descent, in the sense that at least one of the parents was born outside Holland. Does that sound like heaven to you? Would you want to live here? In the south-side of the city (where I live) there are parts with 80% people of foreign descent. If you want to come here and learn their language, be my guest.
Well what if I told you that a report released a few years ago stated that 90% of the street robberies were comitted by these people of foreign descent? The report was hushed up pretty quickly, but we may expect a report of the Dutch police itself may be a credible source.
Am I saying that these people are intrinsically bad? No. I am saying that multiculturalism has its problems. As I stated in another thread, these newcomers to Holland are of lower classes. That is the main reason that they commit crime, not their etnicity. But without a drop of racism, I am reasonably rational when I say that their being "foreign" causes some problems.
You see, when there is no need to, people often will not mingle. You may want to, and I like learning about other cultures too, but when you can survive in some form of ghetto relying on your friends and families who are also from your country, would you learn about the local language and customs? Well, many people don't. There are a lot of foreigners here that don't speak Dutch at all. And language is just a tip of the ice-berg.
People tend to stick to their own culture. And this leads to tensions. The high criminality rates amongst youngsters of foreigen descent have created a negative stereotype, leading to a vicious circle; the self-fulfilling prophecy is perpetual. The government has had a policy of simply ignoring the problem, hoping it will solve itself. They might have even contributed to the cultural gap by providing services in foreign languages at municipal buildings and national institutions. Well, the problem is still there, and it will not be solved for the coming couple of years.
Good things about multi-culturalism? Lots! I have friends in Holland from all over the world, and I yes, I like to learn new things and have a broad view on life. However, these friends of mine are almost without exception students here for studying. I have never had a friendly relationship with a Maroccan or Turk outside my university life. People stay within their cultures. Oh, I have had some interaction: I have been beaten up three times in the meantime by people clearly non-Dutch.
Also, even though you and I are eager to broaden our views, that doesn't solve the problem. As is said earlier in this thread, laws and regulations are written in a certain language. By forcing newcomers to learn this language, simply by denying state services in other languages, you not only learn them a new set of words, but you also give them a tool of empowerment; if everyone can communicate through an agreed upon language, this will give them the opportunity to optimally "pursue happiness" independently as worthy citizens.
My conclusion is that there is nothing "wrong" or "racist" about forcing people to learn the language and local cultural customs in a nation. Don't you think that this will actually lead to a better communcation and understanding between these peoples? Or would you rather let them live in their slumps and keep them alienated without prospect of earning a piece of the pie that we call "standard of living"?
Forgetting of course that for decades middle-aged and retired (therefore not fit to work) Brits have been occupying the Spanish and Mediterranean shores with no attempt to assimilate.
My grumble about the Brits is:
failure to recognise and appreciate the value of their own multiculturalism.
Bad food culture.
Declining education
Dependency on the State
No, I'm not ignorant. No, they are not separate countries. They are, if anything, annexed provinces. Texas and the southern U.S. are not separate countries, although they were independent. Same with California. And Quebec is Canada, not a separate country. Louisiana isn't a different country, either, although it is home to the only French population in the world that doesn't hate not being separate (and they cook awesome, too).
My Welsh friend and I always get into arguments about this, but it's okay, because we also argue about the American Revolution constantly. On this regard, I'll agree to disagree, but Scotland was its own country for a while, but now, in my opinion, it is part of the U.K., and the U.K. is the country. Hence, England isn't a country either, in my opinion, but I often refer to the U.K. as England (admittedly erroneously) as do many of my fellow "Yanks".
you are also mistaken in calling the the scots and welsh non-anglo-saxon... the scots, welsh and irish may feel that they are celtic, but its a myth really, all the natives of the UK, even the british isles, to include southern ireland, are a hodgepodge of viking, angle, pict, celt and saxon.
I've never heard a my Welsh friend admit that, and I've never heard an Irishman admit it either. But I don't know any Scots. Anyway, I am aware of this. My point is, though, the cultural gaps between Scots, Welsh, and even Irish, with the English are so narrow as to damn-near be nonexistant. In fact, you are probably closer to one another, culturally speaking, than you are to Americans at this point.
Spend a week in a college town full of Korean & Chinese* exchange students blithely walking around as if the world were their own theme park and you'll find out what mulit-culturalism really means.
...
I've written about this before, and by and large, I've found that most Asians bring their customs with them, not leave them behind, while the opposite is expected to those immigrants to Asian countries.
I know precisely what you are talking about. Most of the students where I tutor are from Korea, but some are from Japan and Taiwan (very few are from elsewhere, but runners-up are Columbia, Chile, and Turkey). And, generally, the Asians seem more interested in amassing a slew of photos to show to their friends back home than actually experiencing American culture.
In addition, every single time they run into a drunken fratboy, dumb redneck with the Stars-and-Bars on his pickup truck, annoyed sales-clerk, or stuck-up snot-nosed glitter-girl who was the prom-queen of their high-school and would never deign to speak to a plebian such as they, they automatically assume that they are being discriminated against. And I have such a hard time biting back the obligatory, "No, my friend who is living in Kyoto knows what discrimination is/try visiting parts of Mississippi/talk to a black person who lived through Civil Rights" remarks.
The vasts majority of the Western Hemisphere speaks Spanish.
That's not why they are learning Spanish. If it was, I'd be all for it.
Those Columbians and Chileans I mentioned above? Yeah, they don't like the Mexicans. Why? Because they realize very quickly when talking with them that the Mexicans don't like the Hispanic students because they are actively learning English. They call them gringos, just like they call us Americans. And they sneer at the South American students, because they don't want to learn English themselves. They take pride in their avoidance of the language. They are proud of segregating themselves from mainstream American society. They don't very well like us, and they have an attitude of entitlement, like all Americans just owe them something.
Granted, there are many exceptions to this rule. And I have a great deal of respect for the Hispanic students that come to learn English where I work. But that's the big difference--they are coming to learn English. They are part of a cultural exchange.
Teaching Spanish so kids can talk to Mexicans isn't about multiculturalism. It's about making the Mexicans feel like victims that are owed something. They are creating a permanent under-class predecated not on race or color, but on language, by refusing to learn English. The language of the Constitution is in English. John Locke is in English. The Bill of Rights is in English. Laws are in English. Unless they learn English, they are damning themselves to servitude. And that is quite possibly the absolute worst thing they can do for themselves, and for a country that is having a rough time reconciling democratic ideals with a republic-style government.
My ancestors came here and learned the damn language. They assimilated into society. They got past the language barrier, and they had to deal with more racism than the Mexicans have to deal with now.
"Multiculturalism" is, like previously mentioned, a buzzword, and a leftist, postmodern, relativistic buzzword at that, designed to add legitimacy to groundless claims defending resistance to assimilation. It has a rather ambiguous definition, as most postmodern buzzwords do, which is perfect for politicians and demagoguic rhetoriticians to work their verbal chicanery on an unsuspecting populace that is just miseducated enough to be sufficiently hoodwinked. The ancients had a word for this sort of crap: sophistry (i.e. the art of telling fancy lies). It promotes segregation, something hundreds of protesters died to end back in the 1960s, but most insidiously of all, it justifies self-segregation and the identification of all majority-groups as "other", a distinct reversal of state-enforced segregation. Rather than celebrating diversity, it is used to paint a shiny veneer of justification and positiveness on otherwise insidious, subversive and oppressive practices, and paints the minority-groups that are being "protected" through their self-imposed alienation from the majority of society, by generating a victim mentality, thereby demanding that the majority be responsible for maintaining their voluntary and willfully enforced ostracism whilst denying any benefits to the overall culture. Such benefits as "cheap labor" are distorted by the near-Marxist language, portraying the poor minority-groups that multiculturalism is "protecting" as a source of unending guilt and shame for the massed majority culture-group. Regardless, leftist political pundits latch onto the concept to garner votes to the "oppressed" minorities under the guise of "fighting for their rights", furthering the victim-image, and increasing the level of dependence these groups have for the leftist political faction while simultaneously increasing the alienation between them and the mainstream culture, which has, by now, been firmly established as decadent, oppressive, and overall bad. What results is a sinister feedback-cycle that sinks these minority-culture-groups into a mire of poverty and dependence, a self-selected form of slavery and servitude. Add to this morass, the language barrier, and you have the sort of proletarian nightmare that Karl Marx himself would be baffled by.
In other words, "multiculturalism" is bullsh#t in its application by the majority of those who use it.
Which taxpayers? You are not paying for it!
Is it necessary to have a passport to travel between Scotland, Ireland and England?
If you are travelling within EU countries by car, you don't have a chance to show your passport, either.
When I was travelling in UK and stayed at a small places where guests were requested to write name, address, nationality, etc. in a note. I often found people write "Scotland" "England" as nationality.
I'm sorry but that is the biggest pile of bullsh*t I have ever heard. I admit that the lines between countries in the UK have been smudged and blurred slightly, but Scotland, Ireland (north and south) and Wales are countries in there own right. They have Flags, There own governments (well government buildings at least, though the main government I admit is the English one), National Football teams, their own languages, and their own customs. You need a passport to fly to Scotland from England, if they weren乫t countries why would I need that?
You can't compare the state system in America to Countries in the UK. The UK exists to represent all 5 peoples as a whole, for on their own they seem small and pointless. The UK is not a country in itself; it is the group of Islands, which in turn contain countries.
Hell yeah, pretty racist I must say, these immigrants not only help themselves and family but also the economy of the U.S., but, hey, Mr. Bush should build that great wall if he would like to see his country going down.
Mauricio
Actually the southern borders are not wide open, there are many security measures in place to stop illegals and terrorists...but honestly Mexico is not deemed a threat to us at the moment and the worst thing that comes across that border is drugs.
Secondy, if other countries have every right to expel illegal immigrants that sneak in, as well as demand that any legals learn their languages and customs, why shouldn't America?
I actually agree with you here...but funny how some people find that an infringement on the very rights that we grant people upon coming to the US. Kind of a catch 22 isn't it?
Granted, we should adapt new traditions and customs, which is why St. Patty's Day in the U.S. is a holiday (even though it really isn't in Ireland),
St. Patricks Day is not a holiday in the US. It is merely an excuse to get fall down drunk! It is a crutch used by weak minded people to make them feel better about their weakness to alcohol.
Finally, I have a bunch of complaints about U.S. culture, just to contribute to the overly pessimistic trend of this thread.
1) Our TV sucks. Reality TV is insidiously brain-damaging and stultifying.
2) Our education system stinks to high-heaven. Stupid in America (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA)
3) The severe polarization of the political spectrum.
4) Lack of real patriotism. (But not a lack of nationalism).
5) A public largely ignorant of its own history, as well as unaware of political truths or realities, because they are spoon-fed slanted information by a politically-influenced media.
#1 - Quit watching prime time programming. It is made for idiots. Stick to Animal planet, Discovery channel, History channel, etc...
#2 - Not completely, but there are shortfalls. And if you believe the stupid in America stuff completely...then you are stupid yourself. Many of those people are paid, and believe me, they cut out clips of people who actually know the answers to their questions.
#3 - no comment...the political system in the US has major flaws.
#4 - Talk to many US Servicemembers and you may change your mind.
#5 - This is pretty much true. People just don't seem to care much about such things. But, I believe it to be true elsewhere too. Here in Japan last week, there was an interview of college students about issues with American military bases. Many of them didn't see a problem with the bases, as they have always been here (in their lifetime). The bases were/are a part of their life and they don't see a problem with them...this was a shock to many of the older generation.
These are all US territories though and not individual countries...although many of them could indeed be stand alone countries by themselves in this day and age. I guess when I look at it, it really isn't much different than the current discussion.
I'm adding another off-topic post...:blush:
Yes, I do love B&B, too! Especially in the countryside, you can meet nice, friendly locals there, and oh yes, nothing can beat English breakfast!
(Or Scottish breakfast, Irish breakfast... depending on the place I visit.:p )
Is it necessary to have a passport to travel between Scotland, Ireland and England?
When I went to scotland by plane I did need one, but that was a while ago, you don't when going by car for some reason
(and of course I know it is not only the queen's land/country/whatever)
Then I think someone on jref corrected me as well.
on a DIFFERENT topic,
(replying to the "stupid america" [tv show? never heard of it])
Speaking of "STUPIDITY",
check out the first video on the top left on this myspace page.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=77290416
Someone made a documentary about the concept of "stupidity".
What exactly is it? Few investigations or scholarly works have been done about it.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |