Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:01 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I I think what we see with border communities being for walls.
Wut? Is this something of a Fox News talking point? I only ask because this is the first time ive ever heard it.
  #102  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:03 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,060
Yeah that's what I was asking about. I've heard the exact opposite, that the communites actually at the border are against the wall and know how dumb the idea is because they live there. I'm open to a cite to the contrary though.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #103  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:19 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Cite for border communities that are *for* the wall? My understanding is that the people actually near the border are against it because they know how stupid and pointless it would be. I was under the impression that most of the "build the wall" sentiment is from places nowhere near the actual border.
Ah, I misread the post I was replying to. That said, there are border people who are in favor of a larger enforcement effort, because their ranches and farms are where the immigrants often come through, and they have issues with robbery and threats from the immigrants.
  #104  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:23 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Ah, I misread the post I was replying to. That said, there are border people who are in favor of a larger enforcement effort, because their ranches and farms are where the immigrants often come through, and they have issues with robbery and threats from the immigrants.
I've heard there are border ranchers that are vehemently opposed because a wall will spoil their land and/or require the government seizing some of it.

Where are you hearing that? I'm interested in a cite if you have one.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-04-2019 at 12:24 PM.
  #105  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:34 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I've heard there are border ranchers that are vehemently opposed because a wall will spoil their land and/or require the government seizing some of it.

Where are you hearing that? I'm interested in a cite if you have one.
I don't have a cite, because it was some local news stories a while back prior to all this wall business- IIRC, it was in response to the Texas governor dispatching the National Guard to the border. Basically they interviewed some South Texas ranchers who were all for it, because they had big problems with immigrants coming through their land and doing some combination of trashing it out, messing up the fences/livestock, stealing shit from their barns and outbuildings, and in a few cases, threatening them. They were basically not against immigrants per-se, but against their effects on their land and livelihood.

I imagine they'd be against a wall for the reasons you mention, but they were definitely in favor of increased enforcement and presence.
  #106  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:56 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Again, this is just accepting the proposition, by racists, that homogeneity is a positive good, even if you narrowly define this "positive good" down to something relatively small like "consensus is easier".
Except no one said it was a 'positive good' (as opposed to what - a 'negative good'?). Just that an individual group of people would be easier to 'herd' together. Whether it's for 'positive good' or 'negative bad'
  #107  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:10 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
But did these genocides *succeed* in creating truly homogenous, working societies? Serbia seems like the only contender in that regard (that may be simply because i am least informed of their history). China's cultural revolution was *absolutely* not an example of a society murdering its way to homogeneity. It was more like a mixture of murder, persecution, propaganda and societal destruction that resulted in the most chaotic and least-functioning state the country had ever found itself in.

And how successful was the Nazi state after the holocaust? Yeah they committed genocide in an attempt to purify their state of jews but did it work? Did they ever exist as a Nazi State?

All your examples are what i would refer to as *attempted* societal homogenization. But they uniformly seem like disastrous failures.
Well, sure. I suppose my larger point was that cultural homogeneity is a myth, and that it's not something to be desired, since the only even semi-successful attempts at achieving it have been murderous attempts. Rather than try to achieve homogeneity, we're better off figuring out how to help heterogeneous cultures coexist harmoniously.
  #108  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:56 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Well, sure. I suppose my larger point was that cultural homogeneity is a myth, and that it's not something to be desired, since the only even semi-successful attempts at achieving it have been murderous attempts. Rather than try to achieve homogeneity, we're better off figuring out how to help heterogeneous cultures coexist harmoniously.
Yes, i agree total cultural homogeneity is not possible. I should have spoken more concisely when referring to "cultural homogeneity" and referred instead to degrees of homogeneity/heterogeneity. Societies don't really engineer the.degree of homogeneity that is present in their cultures. Not at least in successful societies (for the sake of this discussion lets just leave that potential beehive alone for now). But no one can argue that there are many countries more homogenous as a population that the U.S. This is neither a positive nor negative, it's just observing fact. Pure cultural homogeneity is a myth and has only ever been attempted thru means of murder, oppression, media manipulation and intellectual degradation.

But degrees of cultural homogeneity, from a dearth of such in a multicultural melting pot like the U.S. to a much higher level in certain European countries (which itself is changing fairly rapidly), exist mostly organically, I asked you for examples of cultural homogeneity being achieved thru murder because you stated that that was the only way it was achieved. But then you failed to give me a single example of cultural homogeneity ever being achieved thru murder.
  #109  
Old 12-05-2019, 05:39 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Yes, i agree total cultural homogeneity is not possible. I should have spoken more concisely when referring to "cultural homogeneity" and referred instead to degrees of homogeneity/heterogeneity. Societies don't really engineer the.degree of homogeneity that is present in their cultures. Not at least in successful societies (for the sake of this discussion lets just leave that potential beehive alone for now). But no one can argue that there are many countries more homogenous as a population that the U.S. This is neither a positive nor negative, it's just observing fact. Pure cultural homogeneity is a myth and has only ever been attempted thru means of murder, oppression, media manipulation and intellectual degradation.
I don't think that's correct (nor that cultural homogeneity can't be reached except via murder)

To give the example of my own country : in the early XXth century it became quite apparent that the country was very fragmented culturally - each corner of France spoke, not French, but its own patois. Which became a big problem in the wars, as soldiers didn't understand what their officers were saying and vice versa. There was also a notion that the Catholic church had too much influence over education and "kept people dumb" or told them how to vote and think, esp. when it came to worker's rights the curates were super anti-union.

And so, because we are a very centralized country, remedies were taken centrally. The Education Nationale was founded, non-religious teacher schools were built, and the "black Hussars of the Republic" (so called because of the black suits favoured by the newly minted school teachers) were dispatched throughout the country with a double focus of stamping down on religion, and teaching common values & language. Kids were harshly punished for speaking any patois in school whatsoever, for any reason. Other regional cultural expressions or practices were, likewise, looked down on and discouraged. In the space of three generations or so they had more or less ceased to be - there are still some minor differences between the French spoken in this or that region (i.e. stuff similar to the soda/pop/coke divide in the US) but regional languages have more or less disappeared, although they've become a sort of resistance in the more autonomist/separatist parts of the country (like Corsica or Brittany). And while private religious schools still exist, in public schools to this day religion is presented as a mere cultural/artistic/historical item - as a result we're a pretty secular country on the whole. A politician making arguments from religion would be laughed out the room.

Was that all a good thing, or a fair thing even ? Debatable, obviously. And equally obviously, while white folks stamping down the religious or ethnic culture of other white folks (often with the support of part of the stamped down community) is one thing, it becomes more problematic when those principles are used on non-white minorities, especially when the principles of secularity and Frenchness-homogeneity are used to mask garden variety xenophobia and racism. Which they absolutely are.
But the point is : no murder was necessary. Just a strong (if coercive) focus on education.

Last edited by Kobal2; 12-05-2019 at 05:41 AM.
  #110  
Old 12-05-2019, 07:40 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2
Just a strong (if coercive) focus on education.
I think it is rather telling that most Americans who point to the homogeneity of successful European countries also tend to not have a problem with the current decentralized education system we have here--wherein super great public schools can exist within a couple of miles of super bad public schools and the well-to-do can immerse their children in a little bubble of private institutions, from nursery school on up. We act like this is the best system we could ever hope for, so we don't even think about how it only entrenches the divisions we have in this country. We could promote more cultural homogeneity if we really wanted to, but we really don't because then we'd be required to embrace the commie-pinko concept of the "greater good". As in, the personal benefit of having your kid attend a super elite best-of-the-best school is outweighed by the social benefit of all kids attending "good enough" schools and sharing the same experiences. Maybe your kid won't be able to learn algebra and two foreign languages by the third grade, but at least he will be less likely to grow up totally detached and alienated from people who don't look exactly like him. And poor folks as well as racial/ethnic minorities will have a better chance of assimilating and having opportunity because they won't be segregated from everyone else like they have the cooties.

We could also promote togetherness through compulsory service. You graduate from high school and then devote two years to serving the country in some capacity. So if you don't want to be a soldier, that's fine. But you're still going to live communally with people from all over the country and do things that don't necessarily serve your personal interests or passions. The military seems to do a great job of breaking down cultural barriers among the ranks. There's no reason to think we couldn't get the same result using another system.
  #111  
Old 12-05-2019, 07:41 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I don't think that's correct (nor that cultural homogeneity can't be reached except via murder).
Im not sure why you're quoting my post as if I ever asserted such a claim. This notion above of cultural homogeneity only being attainable thru murder was put forward by LHOD. I subsequently questioned this assertion and asked for examples that supported it. He then gave a series of historical examples that did nothing to supportt his assertion but rather did quite the opposite and showed that the attempts at achieving homogeneity were all disastrous failures that never, ever worked.


I think where you may have gotten some wires crossed is when i said, not that cultural homogeneity is only achievable thru murder (i never said that and it's not that it's "not *only* achievable thru murder, it's that it's *not* achievable thru murder st all) but that true cultural homogeneity is not achievable at all, thru any means

Your examples in French history dont disprove any of that. They show more exsmples of differing.*degrees* of homogeneity and heterogeneity within a society over time. However at no time is any society truly pure, truly homogenous.
  #112  
Old 12-05-2019, 08:09 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Im not sure why you're quoting my post as if I ever asserted such a claim. This notion above of cultural homogeneity only being attainable thru murder was put forward by LHOD. I subsequently questioned this assertion and asked for examples that supported it. He then gave a series of historical examples that did nothing to supportt his assertion but rather did quite the opposite and showed that the attempts at achieving homogeneity were all disastrous failures that never, ever worked.


I think where you may have gotten some wires crossed is when i said, not that cultural homogeneity is only achievable thru murder (i never said that and it's not that it's "not *only* achievable thru murder, it's that it's *not* achievable thru murder st all) but that true cultural homogeneity is not achievable at all, thru any means
Wires crossed indeed. Here's my full quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LHOD
Homogeneity of culture tends to be achieved through murder. Absent murder of minority groups, you don't get cultural homogeneity.
Now, your claim that all my examples are irrelevant is a peculiar claim, but I'll let it go, because the key point is that cultural homogeneity is a myth. Given our agreement on that subject, I'm not sure how fruitful it'll be to argue over how successful Nazi Germany (for example) was in pursuing their goals: I disagree with your framing of that question, but going further in that direction seems to be a garden path.
  #113  
Old 12-05-2019, 08:19 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Wires crossed indeed. Here's my full quote:
Now, your claim that all my examples are irrelevant is a peculiar claim, but I'll let it go, because the key point is that cultural homogeneity is a myth. Given our agreement on that subject, I'm not sure how fruitful it'll be to argue over how successful Nazi Germany (for example) was in pursuing their goals: I disagree with your framing of that question, but going further in that direction seems to be a garden path.
Fair enough.
  #114  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:09 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Im not sure why you're quoting my post as if I ever asserted such a claim.
Apologies for being unclear, and yeah I was bouncing on you to reply to the whole thread, but you specifically were saying that national/cultural cohesion cannot be engineered (or, in my words, cultural gaps bridged). I think they can, but it does take dedicated, long term effort ; and support on both sides of the divide.
  #115  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:57 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
but you specifically were saying that national/cultural cohesion cannot be engineered
See, i tried to be very precise in my language in order to avoid confusion/conflation like this. I *never* said national cohesion or greater *degrees* of cultural homogeneity are not achievable thru social engineering and/or other means. What i specifically said was that a true, ethnically pure homogenous state was an impossibly.
  #116  
Old 12-05-2019, 12:23 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
See, i tried to be very precise in my language in order to avoid confusion/conflation like this. I *never* said national cohesion or greater *degrees* of cultural homogeneity are not achievable thru social engineering and/or other means. What i specifically said was that a true, ethnically pure homogenous state was an impossibly.
In which case, I mean... yeah ? Obviously there isn't going to be 50 (or 500) million ideological clones. Does that need saying ?

Last edited by Kobal2; 12-05-2019 at 12:23 PM.
  #117  
Old 12-05-2019, 12:59 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
In which case, I mean... yeah ? Obviously there isn't going to be 50 (or 500) million ideological clones. Does that need saying ?
Um, all of what i posted was in response to LHOD saying that homogeneity was only possible thru murder., and then, when i brought up the fact that even the examples he gave of ostensible instances of murder-induced homogeneity, murder didnt bring the desired homogeneity, he seemed to shift his position to one of "my larger point was that these attempts never really truly work, anf this is evidence of cultural homogeneity as myth" Yet in his original assertion, he left out any mention of this greater point, or even of the lack of success *ever* for murder induced homogeneity.

In an attempt to air out some of my confusion with the direction of his point, i saw i agreed that whether it be thru violence, social engineering, political propaganda or oppression, true cutural homogeneity simply did not ever and could not ever exist on a large scale.

And now im confused all over again by LHODs position. Based on this quote of his...

[QUOTE=Homogeneity of culture tends to be achieved through murder. Absent murder of minority groups, you don't get cultural homogeneity.[/QUOTE]

How can cultural homogeneity *both* be a myth *and* exist as a state only achievable thru murder? (Which, by the way, seems like a very simplified notion of the purification campaigns of various regimes seeking homogeneity, but thats another discussion). And on top of all this, you acknowledge that murder **cannot** actually succeed in this quest for homogeneity! I am not attacking an argument, i am trying to stop my head spinning. I'd appreciate some well spoken clarity on what you are trying to say as an entire well- framed idea. Because i am honestly struggling. And i freely admit, the weak link here very well be me.
  #118  
Old Yesterday, 12:58 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Observing the disparity isn't racist. It's some of the explanations for it that are racist.

Since you're discounting that racism in the criminal justice system as sufficient to explain the disparity (as I would, too, BTW), care to share with us what other causative factors you believe do explain it?
And yet I've seen the very statistic itself called "racist" countless times over the years, ever since the day an instructor brought it up in a Criminal Justice statistics class I was taking and a student immediately replied "that's racist!". The flinging of accusations of racism regarding the topic of this thread is more of the same.

To answer your question: the short answer is they seem to commit such crimes more often. Beyond that they may have a greater likelihood to encounter a police presence, they may engage in higher risk crimes that by their nature create an increased likelihood to get caught, they may also such commit crimes in a spontaneous or not well-planned manner that also increases the likelihood of being caught.

As to why they commit such crimes, there are probably a lot of factors. But generally, subculture is an important one (along with related psychosocial factors), plus poverty (economic need, plus more psychosocial elements and possibly biological elements as well that are specifically related to poverty), increased opportunities to commit such crimes, etc.

Like I said, it's complex and fascinating stuff. But trying to sum it up and dismiss it with knee-jerk claims of racism isn't going to help solve the issues and needlessly calling someone racist, even when raising the issues in a factual and objective manner, just adds to the general shittiness.
  #119  
Old Yesterday, 01:13 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
With respect, I've had conversations with you before.
Are you referring to the O'Rourke thread where your very first reply to me implied that my post was the result of bias on my part? Because you could have asked me to back up my position in a neutral manner but instead chose to imply I was biased and did so condescendingly. And then when I explained my position as you requested you dismissed it with the further condescending comment of "Okay buddy." You also seemed to take great offense by my observation that as a teacher with no general legal background, let alone one specifically in Constitutional Law, that maybe you were insufficiently knowledgeable to appreciate just how blatantly Constitutionally problematic some of the proposals being advanced by those candidates are/were. Not sure why that would be controversial or offensive on my part but here we are.
  #120  
Old Yesterday, 01:29 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I for one appreciate this contribution even if I have never agreed with a prior word this poster has posted.
I appreciate the sentiment of the first part of this reply but, c'mon, surely that second part has to be at least a bit of an overstatement doesn't it?

As to my prior posting history I don't think I've responded in a personal manner any more confrontationally or disrespectfully than what was first directed at me. As far as pointing where people are mistaken or flat-out wrong I also don't think I've done so in a belligerent way outside one thread in the Pit. And I don't think pointing out things like the extreme relevance of expertise and a sufficient knowledge base in a particular subject should be controversial. Let alone a reason to take offense or to respond accordingly.
  #121  
Old Yesterday, 02:07 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
Socialism is ownership of the means of production.

If I may refer to Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". In contrast, he believed that Capitalism meant the treatment of labour as a commodity.

So in one system, people get as many holidays as they need: in the other system, people get as many holidays as they can buy with their labour.

Which is why, 100 years ago, people thought that more holidays and shorter working weeks were the flower of Capitalism.

I'm a foreigner in my own country. I've had to live with linguistic discrimination my whole life. I respect your right to have the word 'socialism' mean whatever you, your family, your friends, and your political representatives agree it means. It also has a technical meaning, and I respect the right of other people to use the word in a technical sense.
I don't think it's a definition issue. The issue seems to be that you are talking in absolutes, while someone saying "more socialist" or "more capitalist" inherently can't be. They must be talking in a spectrum.

Sure, as many holidays as you need and working as you are able is more socialist (and less capitalist) than getting some additional holidays and a shorter work week. But then, getting some additional holidays and a shorter work week is more socialist (and less capitalist) than a longer work week with fewer holidays.

So, yes, if you are pushing for "as many holidays as you want" and "working when able," of course "shorter work week and some extra holidays" would come across as capitalism intruding on your socialism. But, if you come from the direction where work weeks are long and holidays sparse, then reducing the amount of work comes off as more socialist.

And no one is arguing that people should be able to earn more holidays than they currently get, or earn the right to work less. It's being argued that we should care about the workers more, and reduce the capitalistic argument that your value is directly proportional to how much money you have. It is introducing more socialist ideas into a currently more capitalist system.
  #122  
Old Yesterday, 06:57 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
How can cultural homogeneity *both* be a myth *and* exist as a state only achievable thru murder? (Which, by the way, seems like a very simplified notion of the purification campaigns of various regimes seeking homogeneity, but thats another discussion). And on top of all this, you acknowledge that murder **cannot** actually succeed in this quest for homogeneity! I am not attacking an argument, i am trying to stop my head spinning. I'd appreciate some well spoken clarity on what you are trying to say as an entire well- framed idea. Because i am honestly struggling. And i freely admit, the weak link here very well be me.
This is the garden path I was talking about, but okay, I can walk down it .

There seem to be two different definitions of "cultural homogeneity" that are at work here:

1) When there's not a strong difference between cultures relative to some other situation; and
2) When there's no differences whatsoever between cultures.

When DA was talking about how cultural homogeneity led to fewer problems, I assumed he meant the former one, and responded by saying that you can only achieve that sort of cultural homogeneity (i.e., a significant diminishment of local cultural heterogeneity) through violence. "Murder" was a slight exaggeration, perhaps, given Kobal2's example of how in France you could achieve it just through coercive and sometimes violent means. But the most sweeping efforts to diminish heterogeneity were enacted via genocide.

I think you're using the second definition. That's the one that's a myth: you can't get there.
  #123  
Old Yesterday, 09:41 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I think it is rather telling that most Americans who point to the homogeneity of successful European countries also tend to not have a problem with the current decentralized education system we have here--wherein super great public schools can exist within a couple of miles of super bad public schools and the well-to-do can immerse their children in a little bubble of private institutions, from nursery school on up. We act like this is the best system we could ever hope for, so we don't even think about how it only entrenches the divisions we have in this country. We could promote more cultural homogeneity if we really wanted to, but we really don't because then we'd be required to embrace the commie-pinko concept of the "greater good". As in, the personal benefit of having your kid attend a super elite best-of-the-best school is outweighed by the social benefit of all kids attending "good enough" schools and sharing the same experiences. Maybe your kid won't be able to learn algebra and two foreign languages by the third grade, but at least he will be less likely to grow up totally detached and alienated from people who don't look exactly like him. And poor folks as well as racial/ethnic minorities will have a better chance of assimilating and having opportunity because they won't be segregated from everyone else like they have the cooties.

We could also promote togetherness through compulsory service. You graduate from high school and then devote two years to serving the country in some capacity. So if you don't want to be a soldier, that's fine. But you're still going to live communally with people from all over the country and do things that don't necessarily serve your personal interests or passions. The military seems to do a great job of breaking down cultural barriers among the ranks. There's no reason to think we couldn't get the same result using another system.

I don't think it's so much that everyone thinks its the best system out there and that we can't change it, but rather that it's something that is a consequence of our Constitution. By that I mean that schooling falls under the Tenth Amendment, and since it's not called out in the Constitution as a Federal thing, it's something that is squarely the problem of the individual states. The Dept. of Education generally gets around this by doing various sorts of grants that come with various strings attached- none of it is mandated from on high- you can refuse that money from the Federal government if you can't accept the strings that come with it.

And presumably a majority of people, as represented by their various legislators, prefer an even more local administration of school systems, otherwise we'd see more state-level unitary systems rather than the patchwork system of local and municipal school districts that most places have.

I mean, I admit that I wouldn't be wild about the idea of all teachers and all the curricula and all that sort of thing being mandated from Austin, much less Washington DC. At least as it is, if I have a bone to pick with the school district, I can drive 3 miles up the road and let someone have it at a school board meeting. But if it's with a few morons on the State Board of Education(those clowns pushing intelligent design and other idiocies), I'm kind of out of luck, as I can only vote for my own board member, and I'd have to drive 4 hours just to get to the meeting. Washington would be even worse.

Beyond that, short of randomly assigning students to schools and busing nearly everyone, you're always going to have the problem of kids going to school close to home, with in many cases, kids just like them who also live nearby.
  #124  
Old Today, 08:48 AM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,869
As a first generation immigrant to the US and as a person of color, Iíve been reading this thread with mixed feelings.

First of all, racism and bigotry is not unique to whites, itís prevalent everywhere in the world. But the impact this has on humanity is certainly greater with white bigotry because white people have the most economic power.

If I were to choose between Europe and US, I would certainly choose the US many times over. I have been to Europe on business and vacation and their attitudes are far worse compared to US. The one biggest difference is openness : Europeans are extremely good at hiding their dirty laundry while Americans discuss everything out in the open.

Take for instance Florence (Firenze) in Italy. Right in the heart of the city, there are miles and miles of Chinese sweatshops. These are warehouses where a family of Chinese immigrants are given maybe a 10ftx10ft area and they live with children crawling around and produce leather goods (yeah those nice made in Italy leather handbags and shoes and jackets).

I have seen similar situations in France, Germany and Poland. You see very few immigrants or people of color in professional or leadership roles. Itís always germans or French or .....


I donít know much about the Scandinavian countries but I just checked the leadership at top 10 Norwegian companies and as I suspected they are all white Norwegians. In contrast many American companies have diverse leadership.

Sure America can improve but the Europeans need to learn from America and not the other way around. That is while Europe still has time, China is slowly buying Europe from the inside.

And America - thank you for the liberties and opportunities afforded to immigrants. I for one, am very grateful.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017