Not when someone like Hitler is the logical endpoint of the beliefs being pushed. Are we supposed to pretend he didn’t exist, now?
It went up by 400% from the previous President, not surprisingly since the Right is composed of bigots and thugs.
However, the point Der Trihs made is actually supported by your knee-jerk reaction. Mao, significantly, and Stalin, to the point of excess, promoted monocultural societies just as Hitler did and just as Japan experienced historically. Jumping up and down and yelling “commies” every time the WWII Axis powers are mentioned does nothing except note that the world includes a lot of evil. In the context of this discussion, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are firmly on the same side with the suppression of anything that did not coincide with the particular culture that they espoused.
That’s due to several factors. Most importantly the largest minorities in Toronto (South Asians and Chinese) are materially wealthier and culturally more prone to working together and obeying the law as compared to the blacks and Puerto Ricans who were New York’s largest minorities. This is not saying that blacks or Puerto Ricans are racially inferior merely that their cultural practices and their economic conditions make them more likely to break the law such as in this case looting.
Leading into this, I will say that I am an unabashed *cultural *supremacist and for humanity to flourish and thrive we need Western civilization to triumph moderated by East Asian (especially Confucian) concepts.
Observations like this are interesting but, in the end, useless without specifics.
Who are you talking about?
And, more significantly, what language is spoken by their children and grandchildren?
CMC fnord!
How about Australia? Or Canada (not including Quebec)? Two huge countries where English is the main language and spoken by pretty much everyone, recent immigrants/temporary visitors notwithstanding.
I agree, but I think the doctrine is on the other side. Asians do quite well in school, despite coming from countries whose language, religion, and culture are quite different than the US.
This is pretty much irrelevant. New York, Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, and many other cities with many different ethnic groups were included in the same blackout without any 1970-like looting. Toronto was noted as a personal anecdote, but it was not the point being made.
Well several factors are involved such as the length and severity of the blackout and also when. For instance in the 2003 blackout, crime rates and other unsavoury aspects of inner cities had been “cleaned up” to a certain extent.
Many factors figured into the responses to each blackout. However, your simplistic “the Asians play nice together,” does not appear to have actually played a part in all the other locations, so there is no reason to believe that they, alone, saved Toronto from chaos.
This matches my anecdotal experience. However, I can’t control parents, much as I wish I had that mind-control-ray setting on my teacher ID tag. What I can control is my practices in the classroom. Assuming a level of parental involvement insufficient to overcome a language barrier, the doctrinaire solution is to blame the parents; the practical solution is to do the best job I can with the situation I’m in.
Something I saw pointed out on another board is the matter of coverage. When a bunch of black people go looking through the debris after a disaster, it’s looting. When other people do so, it’s scavenging. Even when it is the same disaster; after Katrina, the blacks of New Orleans were looting, the whites were scavenging.
There’s a difference between taking food and taking radio players and TVs.
I don’t believe the specifics are relevant to the general point that I was trying to make: That it’s even possible for people born in a country to not speak the language of the country after 60 years have passed – because of their isolation within their own distinct cultural group for that entire duration – is shocking to me. Either their resistance to my culture was extraordinarily great, or our attempts at reaching out to them failed terribly. This is merely a personal anecdote suggesting that something might be wrong with our extreme tolerance of other cultures by “just letting them be” and our restraint at actively finding ways to be inclusive with them.
I wasn’t attempting to make a specific factual point, but was merely contributing my observations and opinions to the discussion.
I have to admit I’m very surprised to hear about a third generation that doesn’t speak English. That’s a very unusual situatuation.
My understanding is that immigrants are asimilating faster than they did a hundred years ago. This is a reflection of the much wider communities than what existed back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It used to be people lived and worked in their neighbourhood and exposure to people from other areas was relatively rare. Nowadays, pretty much any immigrant is going to be have a radio, a television, a telephone, and an internet connection. These mean that modern immigrants learn English much quicker than past immigrants did.
Not in terms of education.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=
Surprise, surprise, that’s what happens when you deliberately marginalize a group of people and refuse to let them assimilate.
Do not [substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
[QUOTE]
tags](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048).
You know better. Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
While that’s true, I would be incredibly surprised if those taking food and those taking TVs were meaningfully split along racial lines.
Sorry.
I ran into this book–and, sorry, I don’t remember the name of it, or the author, or anything much except that it was published in the '70s and its ideas were counter to the prevailing ideas (I think).
The author had done studies on what cities/countries had the lowest level of violence, and what she (I think it was a woman, and for some reason I think she was Scandinavian) found was that the more diversity, the higher the level of violence. It didn’t matter if the city was large or small, or if it was in a rich country or a poor country, or a democracy or a dictatorship–the main thing was that there was less violence the more people were similar to each other in culture, race, income, etc.
Now as an American I think that would be kind of boring. But sometimes things can get too interesting, if you know what I mean.
It was done in the '70s as I said, and the world was different then. I googled and didn’t find it.