DrMatt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,414
Darat said:
Specifically, the cultures of Germany, France, England, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands--and a few others to far lesser extents--were spread throughout the world by worldwide empires in the 18th and 19th centuries; the wars of the 20th century brought about the breaking up of those empires, to some extent.
Meanwhile, Russian and Chinese empires have continued to exist, and unofficial American transnational business empires have emerged as new players in cultural homogenization (e.g. Muzak), but how these will play out remains to be seen.
Re: Re: Question about racial purity
That may apply to illegal aliens, but by and large legal aliens are here because they have skills that are in short supply or take jobs that native born Americans consider beneath them. They take an active part in 'maintaining the infrastructure', rather than being a burden on it. Indeed, it may not be possible to maintain our current standard of living without imported workers.
Outcast said:
That may apply to illegal aliens, but by and large legal aliens are here because they have skills that are in short supply or take jobs that native born Americans consider beneath them. They take an active part in 'maintaining the infrastructure', rather than being a burden on it. Indeed, it may not be possible to maintain our current standard of living without imported workers.
Re: Re: Re: Question about racial purity
I agree that the illegals are a major problem. 1/3 of the federal prisoners are illegals their for violence crimes. One of the problems with the 3rd world is the have lower constructions standards and their societies are more prone to corruption than ours is. I would hate to see some of their building standards come here.Flatworm said:
Darat said:
Darat I find your views impossible to follow. How can you possibly say that Europe has no common ancestral culture.
For a start the entire geographical area was unified for 400 years under the Roman Empire and elements of Graeco-Roman culture have influenced us ever since. Where do you think the US got the idea for a "republic" a "constitution" and a "senate" from. Have you noticed these buildings with columns and suchlike littering our cities? There is a history behind them you know.
Most of Northern, Western and Cenral Europe shared a common religion centered on Rome for 1200 years until the reformation and to a large extent the area shared common political structures and social customs. There was of course a considerable amount of trade and the political, religious and social elites were in constant contact.
All of this area was transformed intellectually, politically and artistically by the renaissance, (drawing on that Graeco- Roman well again) the discovery of the Americas and the voyages of discovery. Accompanying this were dramatic dicoveries in the sciences and indeed the creation of the concept of scientific enquiry. In other words Europe shared and continues to share a common culture in politics, religion, literature, theatre, painting, architecture, history and the sciences.
How you can, as you claimed, have visited 20 or so European countries and not noticed this baffles me.
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about racial purity
Edited to add: I notice you mention 'federal prisons' only. What about the percentage of the total number of people in prison?
I'm curious about the percentage. Where did you get the numbers from? And where did you find that they are convicted of 'violence crimes'?Outcast said:
Edited to add: I notice you mention 'federal prisons' only. What about the percentage of the total number of people in prison?
Nikk said:
I'm sorry but your facts are incorrect, Roman or Greek does not count as a common "ancestral" culture for all the countries in Europe.
Look at this map:
http://www.dalton.org/groups/Rome/romemap5.GIF
and then compare it to:
http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/Europe.htm
As you can see there are many, many current and ancient countries which do not overlap.
What I believe is quite often the case is that "Europe" is used synonymously to mean "the European colonial powers of 1500-1950" and in that case there is a sense in that those cultures shared some common ancestral "cultural" roots. However they are not all of Europe.
Nikk said:
Please provide support for this assertion. (I take it you are ignoring the fact of the Orthodox church?)
Nikk said:
Take law for example, some have trails by juries, some have trails by judges, some have the concept of innocent until proven guilty some have the concept of innocence must be proven. Even England and Scotland, two countries united as one under the designation of "UK" have different (and considerable different) legal systems.
The differences between European countries and cultures are very distinct and very significant. To say that Europe has a common culture is to not understand today’s Europe or the history of Europe.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,363
Not sure I'm ready for Critical Thinking and this probably breaks ALL the rules, but here goes -
I've been having some interesting (more sickening, really) debates with a (suspected) member of the British National Party recently (See here for previous thread of mine ) and I must say there is a great similarity between the BNP members' statements and some of the statements in this thread.
As an example, the BNP apologist says that 1945 was the mythical date when the "homogeneity" of the "Saxon" peoples began to be lost due to waves of immigration; above, 1965 is given as the date of the end of "white America."
No one on the Notts County board has cited sub-standard building controls as a reason for keeping immigrants out, though.
Details of the other place for reference - it's a football (soccer) board, so don't expect much crtical thinking
I've been having some interesting (more sickening, really) debates with a (suspected) member of the British National Party recently (See here for previous thread of mine ) and I must say there is a great similarity between the BNP members' statements and some of the statements in this thread.
As an example, the BNP apologist says that 1945 was the mythical date when the "homogeneity" of the "Saxon" peoples began to be lost due to waves of immigration; above, 1965 is given as the date of the end of "white America."
No one on the Notts County board has cited sub-standard building controls as a reason for keeping immigrants out, though.
Details of the other place for reference - it's a football (soccer) board, so don't expect much crtical thinking
Tanja
Comfortably Numb
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,339
Blue Monk said:
That is a very beautiful thought, Blue Monk.
And by the way, Europe is also a melting pot, and I am personally contributing to "melting" it a bit further. Look at me - I am Croatian, but when I look several generations back, my ancestors were Croatian, Austrian, Polish and Jewish. I have relatives living in Bosnia, Slovenia, even Argentina and United States.
To make it even more complicated: My husband is English, with some Irish ancestry. My late stepfather was half Dutch and half Indonesian. My good friend in London is Macedonian, dating an English guy of Indian origin. My husband's friends include an Irish guy dating a Zimbabwean girl, an Indian guy married to a New Zealand girl and a South African guy about to get married to a Spanish girl. On Saturday we went to a barbecue with a couple - he is Iranian, she is German of Kurdish origin. Isn't life wonderful? Wouldn't the world be such a boring place if we all did not have a chance to mix?
What will my child be in ethnic terms? I don't care, to be honest.
My two cousins were born in the United States. They are Americans, of Croatian origin. For those posters who are concerned about America becoming less white - so are my cousins, second generation immigrants, more American than American-born children of Chinese or Somali immigrants, just because they are light haired and blue-eyed? Ridiculous.
Wrong! Northern Europe, Sweden, Norway, Finland, was totally Pagan till 9:th century, and mostly pagan till the 12:th century. Sweden, and Finland (a part of Sweden till 19:th century), was catholic for about 300-400 years until the King Gustav Vasa reformed the country in the 16:the century.Nikk said:
Sweden and the other Nordic countries have never been under Rome rule. The social elite of 7:th till 11:the century Nordic countries were Vikings. What the Vikings brought back from the raids was not culture, it was loot.
Yes, and those people were famously invading scotland, northern england and ireland at the time.
Parts were heavily influenced by the invasions which were not just raping and pillaging exercises, but also part of a trading empire.
The area in northern england I grew up in had danish place names, parts of the language, measuring systems originating from this spell, but also subsequent interactions.
As well, of course, of the influence of invading waves of goths, vandals, visgoths from the east, the whole (debatable) thing about Hungarians, Finns, Estonians being descended from Atilla the Huns invading Hordes, Spain (and much of that area) being run by the Moors (from north Africa). Much of Eastern europe has Slavic origins, and was frequently invaded by Tatars, Turks and others. And no-one has mentioned the ever-present gypsies who, if not indian, certainly come from somewhere over to the east.
The idea of Racial Purity as a European 'property' is a complete myth. That there are a lot of people here trying to introduce it is a sad reality.
Parts were heavily influenced by the invasions which were not just raping and pillaging exercises, but also part of a trading empire.
The area in northern england I grew up in had danish place names, parts of the language, measuring systems originating from this spell, but also subsequent interactions.
As well, of course, of the influence of invading waves of goths, vandals, visgoths from the east, the whole (debatable) thing about Hungarians, Finns, Estonians being descended from Atilla the Huns invading Hordes, Spain (and much of that area) being run by the Moors (from north Africa). Much of Eastern europe has Slavic origins, and was frequently invaded by Tatars, Turks and others. And no-one has mentioned the ever-present gypsies who, if not indian, certainly come from somewhere over to the east.
The idea of Racial Purity as a European 'property' is a complete myth. That there are a lot of people here trying to introduce it is a sad reality.
Not according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. These are numbers from Feb. 2004. They can be found here http://www.bop.gov/
TOTAL INMATE POPULATION: 174,179
CITIZENSHIP
United States: 124,057 (71.2%)
Mexico: 28,698 (16.5%)
Colombia: 3,619 (2.1%)
Cuba: 2,382 (1.4%)
Dominican Republic: 3,500 (2.0%)
Other/Unknown: 11,923 (6.8%)
Taking into account that just having different citizenship does not make one an "illegal" (They could be legal permanent residents, etc.) it is impossible that 1/3 of the Federal Prison poulation is made up of illegals, let alone "violent" illegals." In fact, close to 3/4s of the federal prison population is composed of U.S. Citizens.
TYPES OF OFFENSES (calculated for those with offense-specific information available)
Drug Offenses: 86,165 (54.7%)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 18,280 (11.6%)
Immigration: 16,574 (10.5%)
Robbery: 10,150 (6.5%)
Burglary, Larceny, Property
Offenses: 7,087 (4.5%)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 7,017 (4.4%)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault,
and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,134 (3.3%)
Miscellaneous: 2,914 (1.8%)
Sex Offenses 1,621 (1.0%)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 1,056 (0.7%)
Courts or Corrections:
(e.g., Obstructing Justice) 728 (0.5%)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 617 (0.4%)
National Security: 90 (0.1%)
Perhaps 1/3 of the total federal prison population is in for violent crime, and I think it safe to assume that there may be a few U.S. citizens amongst them. (Especially since the ten percent in for immigration violations are likely to be taken from the non-U.S. citizen pool of inmates.)
seayakin
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2003
- Messages
- 1,437
First, for those who want to advance some idea of race as a physically distinct category, read the cover article in "Scientific American" article from December 2003. There is no major genetic difference in race. Therfore, the concept of race is purely superficial (skin color) and cultural.
Regarding the cultural question, the idea of a homogenous culture is a myth. Cultures are dynamic patterns of social customs, beliefs, and practices among a group of people. As Darat has pointed out with Europe, their is a myth about homogeneity. Look at France, their are significant differences in cultural practices and speech from the people in Alsace, to Brittany, to Paris, to Languedoc.
The fact of the matter is, cultural practices and language will converge and diverge based on communication patterns, conflict and a variety of other factors. I take this simply as a fact of life not as good or bad in and of itself similar to evolution. This is not to say I am a cultural relativist. I will argue that certain cultural practices are morally reprehensible such as female genital mutilation or blood vendetta.
Regarding the cultural question, the idea of a homogenous culture is a myth. Cultures are dynamic patterns of social customs, beliefs, and practices among a group of people. As Darat has pointed out with Europe, their is a myth about homogeneity. Look at France, their are significant differences in cultural practices and speech from the people in Alsace, to Brittany, to Paris, to Languedoc.
The fact of the matter is, cultural practices and language will converge and diverge based on communication patterns, conflict and a variety of other factors. I take this simply as a fact of life not as good or bad in and of itself similar to evolution. This is not to say I am a cultural relativist. I will argue that certain cultural practices are morally reprehensible such as female genital mutilation or blood vendetta.
<slightly off-topic>You are a cultural relativist, and there's nothing wrong with that. All it means is that you recognise the diversity, complexity and significance of culture(s)—as your excellent post illustrates—but it doesn't mean that, as any cultural practice can only be understood in terms of the culture that it exists within, that this automatically legitimates that practice or that we should be excluded from making a moral or ethical judgement about that practice.</slightly off-topic>seayakin said: