There's Something The Way an Englishman Says It

[orangeatheist]

"My freedom is more important than your faith."

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredema...etting=en_1618

[Rohirrim]

I know this is a mine field (which is why we are not allowed to discuss it), but is it politically incorrect to defend your culture? It comes up in the illegal immigration debate all the time. Well, it doesn't really "come up," it's an undercurrent. If a geographical region contains a certain culture group and another culture group begins to enter that region, overwhelming the existing culture (through sheer numbers) and supplanting the existing culture with their own, does the existing culture group have any right to defend itself, or is that just racism?

I know there was a case in Oregon (IIRC) where the members of some cult all moved to a specific area, buying up property and homes, establishing residence, and basically taking over the local government. They basically just took over the ballot box through sheer numbers and began to legislate for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who had lived there for generations. So, is that okay? Ho hum?

So, if the countries of Europe (England, France, Denmark, etc.) were to begin expelling muslims for the express purpose of defending their own culture, would that be racism, and therefore not allowed? In other words, should a culture group that has inhabited a region for generations just sit quietly by while another group moves in and tosses their cultural values aside, supplanting them with their own?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I know this is a mine field (which is why we are not allowed to discuss it), but is it politically incorrect to defend your culture? It comes up in the illegal immigration debate all the time. Well, it doesn't really "come up," it's an undercurrent. If a geographical region contains a certain culture group and another culture group begins to enter that region, overwhelming the existing culture (through sheer numbers) and supplanting the existing culture with their own, does the existing culture group have any right to defend itself, or is that just racism?

I know there was a case in Oregon (IIRC) where the members of some cult all moved to a specific area, buying up property and homes, establishing residence, and basically taking over the local government. They basically just took over the ballot box through sheer numbers and began to legislate for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who had lived there for generations. So, is that okay? Ho hum?

So, if the countries of Europe (England, France, Denmark, etc.) were to begin expelling muslims for the express purpose of defending their own culture, would that be racism, and therefore not allowed? In other words, should a culture group that has inhabited a region for generations just sit quietly by while another group moves in and tosses their cultural values aside, supplanting them with their own?

Hmmm, good and interesting post.

Let me ponder for a bit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I know this is a mine field (which is why we are not allowed to discuss it), but is it politically incorrect to defend your culture? It comes up in the illegal immigration debate all the time. Well, it doesn't really "come up," it's an undercurrent. If a geographical region contains a certain culture group and another culture group begins to enter that region, overwhelming the existing culture (through sheer numbers) and supplanting the existing culture with their own, does the existing culture group have any right to defend itself, or is that just racism?

I know there was a case in Oregon (IIRC) where the members of some cult all moved to a specific area, buying up property and homes, establishing residence, and basically taking over the local government. They basically just took over the ballot box through sheer numbers and began to legislate for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who had lived there for generations. So, is that okay? Ho hum?

So, if the countries of Europe (England, France, Denmark, etc.) were to begin expelling muslims for the express purpose of defending their own culture, would that be racism, and therefore not allowed? In other words, should a culture group that has inhabited a region for generations just sit quietly by while another group moves in and tosses their cultural values aside, supplanting them with their own?

Cuts both ways.

Should the Native Americans be able to vote European Americans, et al, off the island?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I know there was a case in Oregon (IIRC) where the members of some cult all moved to a specific area, buying up property and homes, establishing residence, and basically taking over the local government. They basically just took over the ballot box through sheer numbers and began to legislate for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who had lived there for generations. So, is that okay? Ho hum?

So far as I'm concerned, it's okay - unless there were laws broken in the process. Otherwise, if they followed the law, then I see nothing wrong with it.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I know this is a mine field (which is why we are not allowed to discuss it), but is it politically incorrect to defend your culture? It comes up in the illegal immigration debate all the time. Well, it doesn't really "come up," it's an undercurrent. If a geographical region contains a certain culture group and another culture group begins to enter that region, overwhelming the existing culture (through sheer numbers) and supplanting the existing culture with their own, does the existing culture group have any right to defend itself, or is that just racism?

I know there was a case in Oregon (IIRC) where the members of some cult all moved to a specific area, buying up property and homes, establishing residence, and basically taking over the local government. They basically just took over the ballot box through sheer numbers and began to legislate for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who had lived there for generations. So, is that okay? Ho hum?

So, if the countries of Europe (England, France, Denmark, etc.) were to begin expelling muslims for the express purpose of defending their own culture, would that be racism, and therefore not allowed? In other words, should a culture group that has inhabited a region for generations just sit quietly by while another group moves in and tosses their cultural values aside, supplanting them with their own?

So once a region has established its culture/identity and it's own accepted norms then any group that challenges or forms a separate identity or cultural norms must be repressed because it goes against what the current populace thinks or does? Or is that the demographic change has been so rapid, that you would prefer or allow it if instead it occurred over several generations instead of just a few years? In being for "your culture" are you sure you really are not against someone else from participating or being "for theirs." If I, and similar cultured people, moved to West Hollywood or Koreatown here in LA, I don't think the gay and Korean communities would protesting that their culture is being invaded/supplanted because they are not defined by my presence or culture but by their volition. And isn't that what it means to be an American, the freedom to be who we want to be, not defined or restricted by others.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Cuts both ways.

Should the Native Americans be able to vote European Americans, et al, off the island?

It's not really settled science that what we now call "native" Americans were here first, is it? The truth is that no human beings are indigenous to the Americas and, from what we now know, there were probably numerous migrations from different regions. Plus, so called "native" cultures were wiping each other out with pretty good regularity before the White Devils showed up. It might surprise you to know that the Apache once inhabited what is now Colorado, but once the Plains tribes (Arapahoe, Cheyenne, etc.) got wild horses (left behind by the Spaniards) they used this new technology to drive one culture group (the Apache & Comanche) to the south and take their lands. It's the human thing to do.

The idea of "native" Americans is more a political construction than a scientific one anyway. Besides, what's done is done. You don't go back and change things five hundred years later (unless your name is Mugabe). I'm talking more about what we're seeing in Europe right now. As we've seen in Denmark, there are muslims extremists who are using the openness of Danish society to attack the Danish concepts of democracy and alter the basic traditions of free speech and openness that Denmark was built on. This Englishman on the vid is right: They are using political correctness as a cover to attack the traditions of the host culture. In the past, that would be a casus belli.

What I wonder about is that in the past, one culture usually only subsumed another through a single means: Hostility. One culture would war on another, the winner would get the geography and supplant the other. Now, we have a new dynamic. One culture moves from one region to another, and instead of accepting the concept of assimilation, they simply numerically impose their culture upon the host culture. Anthropologically speaking, it's kind of a new twist on human behavior. I wouldn't argue against it. It's better than war, but can the situation devolve to the point that democracy is destroyed by its own fatal flaw; Its openness?

[Kaylore]

I'm a "native American" meanin I was born here and so were my parents and grandparents. Pretty much if you support fourth world rights you're racist because it ultimately comes down to treating a certain peoples based on their blood line and that's wrong. What happened to peoples in the past was wrong, but it's in the past and we're not responsible for what our ancestors did.

If you go to a new culture, you should adapt and absorb everything about that culture to allow you become a member of their society. That doesn't mean you have to abandon your own. The more multi-lingual people on the planet, the better. Just do your duty in the new place to be a part of and not apart from.

We need full and total assimilation.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by El Minion

So once a region has established its culture/identity and it's own accepted norms then any group that challenges or forms a separate identity or cultural norms must be repressed because it goes against what the current populace thinks or does? Or is that the demographic change has been so rapid, that you would prefer or allow it if instead it occurred over several generations instead of just a few years? In being for "your culture" are you sure you really are not against someone else from participating or being "for theirs." If I, and similar cultured people, moved to West Hollywood or Koreatown here in LA, I don't think the gay and Korean communities would protesting that their culture is being invaded/supplanted because they are not defined by my presence or culture but by their volition. And isn't that what it means to be an American, the freedom to be who we want to be, not defined or restricted by others.

I'm not "for" any culture, which is why I'm using anthropological terms. And I mean culture in the grand usage, to mean an entire society - it's politics, religion, traditions, etc. ie, "Danish" culture. Or "French" culture. Not sub-groups or cultures with a small "c" like "gay culture" which is made up of members of larger cultures. Look at NY City. What once was Chinatown becomes Italian town, to be replaced by Puerto Rican town, to be replaced by Haitian town, on ad infinitum. The difference being that all these various groups are moving under the umbrella of the greater culture, ie. the "American" culture and eventually toward assimilation. What we are seeing in Europe is the umbrella culture being confronted. We are seeing the incursion of an intractable muslim culture which refuses to acquiesce to the traditions of the umbrella culture but instead insists that the umbrella culture change its traditions and adapt to muslim culture. I can't remember such a thing happening unless it's attached to war. Isn't that tactic, in fact, an act of war?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

I'm a "native American" meanin I was born here and so were my parents and grandparents.

Um, no.

That would make you a native born American - not a Native American (unless you have Indian blood.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What I wonder about is that in the past, one culture usually only subsumed another through a single means: Hostility. One culture would war on another, the winner would get the geography and supplant the other. Now, we have a new dynamic. One culture moves from one region to another, and instead of accepting the concept of assimilation, they simply numerically impose their culture upon the host culture. Anthropologically speaking, it's kind of a new twist on human behavior. I wouldn't argue against it. It's better than war, but can the situation devolve to the point that democracy is destroyed by its own fatal flaw; Its openness?

I don't like what's happening in Denmark either, but if you're consistent, then you can only shrug and say "it's the human thing to do," I suppose.

Good question about whether or not democracy can be destroyed - this situation is just another reminder that, in its relatively brief history, democracy has always been a tentative and fragile experiment from the get-go: one step forward, ten steps back.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Um, no.

That would make you a native born American - not a Native American (unless you have Indian blood.)

So...What if my parents are from India, and i'm BORN in the US. Does that make me a Native American?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

So...What if my parents are from India, and i'm BORN in the US. Does that make me a Native American?

Very funny.