No, not so obvious. It only begs the question. Which citizens? And I suspect that your answer is the majority of them according to democratic principles. Good ole tyranny of the majority.
Every group, majority or minority, has a right to protect their culture; none of those groups have a right to impose their culture upon the others, outside of those core values that I have mentioned previously, the core values that allow the different cultures to coexist as part of one society and create a greater culture that includes diversity and pluralism. It is ironic in fact that while it is that belief in that right that most of us Westerners in fact find most objectionable about Islamic countries many desire to impose their individual Western cultures upon Muslims who are where they live.
It’s called “survival,” and it’s entirely natural and normal for one to want his own people to survive and prosper. It’s not something that needs explanation or justification.
It is nothing short of insane to expect any country not to prefer one culture over another.
And then we whine about how the people we are exploiting for cheap, easily abused labor are a burden on poor innocent us.
:rolleyes: Please. Cultures aren’t alive, nor are they people, so protecting them isn’t a matter of “survival”. Nor is stomping on weaker subcultures a matter of “defending your culture” in the first place; it’s an act of aggression.
They shouldn’t—if I’m the only one who feels that way. But if and a large majority feel the same way, why shouldn’t we have the right to craft our own society. It seems insane to expect that a people wouldn’t want to and have the right to do so.
And here you, like others, exclude the middle. Let’s assume that no ones’s civil rights are violated. Because no one is suggesting otherwise. For instance, why couldn’t the U.S. pass a law that all English is the official language and that all government business be done in it and only it? MInd you, I’m not asking whether they should or not, but why couldn’t they.
You take an exception and insist that it should be the rule. Expecting every community in America to be as cosmopolitan as New York City ignores the unique factors that made New York a cosmopolis and shows a very poor understanding–or perhaps outright denial–of human nature.
I read your post as “this is why I think it’s cool to despise my own nation and people.”
Not following you here. You seem to agree that people have the right to craft their own society, but think that being a citizen is immaterial to having that right. Is that correct? If so, why? And who is to decide which way to go when the citizens want one direction and others prefer another?
Here’s the thing. If a people are living a certain way and a new culture comes in, and the majority does not want certain aspects of that culture, the new culture isn’t just “protecting” it, their imposing it on others against their will. Why should they have to subject themselves to that. If I like Culture X, why should I expect that if I move to a place that practices Culture Y they they should have to conform to me, and not me to them.
Because it would be foolish and have no useful effects. It would make the government less effective, indulge the bigots and hurt innocents.
And your distinction between “could” and “should” is pointless. In this situation the question of “should” is really all that matters; of course they “could” do that, but so what? They “could” also require that all government business be done in Urdu by officials wearing Groucho Marx glasses.
That’s a lucky break: you don’t have to justify it, so it doesn’t matter if you can’t justify it.
So you don’t have to justify it and disagreeing is insane. This sounds more like bluster than an actual argument. In any case I think it’s telling that you insist on discussing this in terms of survival, as if a people and a culture are going to be killed off.
So, then, there’s no big deal about not allowing a foreign culture to be prevented fropm taking hold in a new place and die. Right?
This is ridiculous. The aggression is on behalf of the new culture that insists that it exist and displace some aspect of the host culture into which it is introduced.
Wrong, because that can only be accomplished by oppression.
:rolleyes: That isn’t “aggression”, or even an accurate description. You remind me of a guy I used to know who hated it when his employees spoke Spanish because he thought it meant they were plotting against him.
Because it’s foolish and self destructive and unjust. The only people it would make happy are the bigots, who are exactly the people who should be made unhappy.
What about the case of Switzerland? The Swiss passed a law that prohibits the construction of minarets. Why shouldn’t the Swiss be allowed to dictate what they want their country to look like?
Personally, I would not want minarets in my town-with a muezzin screaming at prayer times. Immigrants often have to make choices-they should be prepared to surrender their culture when it clashes with the local culture. If you belive that adulterers should be stoned to death, stay in Saudi Arabia.
It was actually one question at the end of an explanation: “What makes this a worthwhile judgment, let alone the basis of things like immigration policy?” That is, why are the criteria you or I use to determine the goodness of a culture valuable in some kind of objective sense, and why should they be the basis of some kind of preferential policy?
This is getting close to what DSeid described as the tyranny of the majority. If you’re part of a majority (or a significant electoral block), you have the ability to influence the law and craft the society you want that way. I don’t see the justification for using that power to keep out undesirables or coercing people to conform to your culture.
Good idea.
This would make it very difficult or impossible for non-English speakers to vote or get, say, Medicare benefits. Weren’t you just saying we’ll assume no one’s civil rights are violated? And anyway, how does making it difficult or impossible for someone else to do fill out government forms “protect” your culture?
You are the one who introduced the concept of aggression, not me. I don’t hold that either party is necessarily guilty of aggression. But how the hell is it aggression to want to keep living as you have and pass lows accordingly to prevent change? That’s a defensive move, not an offensive one.
If it’s foolish and self-destructive to the culture, they wouldn’t do it. That leaves “unjust”. And that’s what I’m asking you: why isn’t it just for a people to want to want government to use one official language. I’m not asking about the pros and cons of doing so right now, just whether they have the right to do so. I say “yes”. You seem so say “no”. Why?
It’s an offensive move when you impose your culture on other people by force. Something that cannot be done without violating civil rights.
Don’t be silly, cultures do foolish and self destructive things all the time.
You are being ridiculous. The question of justice can’t begin to be addressed if you leave out the pros and cons out of it. “Will it help or hurt” is central to the question of justice.
And they don’t have the moral right to do so, because it is an act of unmitigated malice. It will cause nothing but harm, and has no motives besides hatred.
Simple. Because people should be able to decide what kind of culture they want to live in. I can’t believe that you or anyone would argue otherwise. And why shouldn’t that decision belong to the people who have lived in a particular place? Why should they be forced to change because outsiders prefer it. Why isn’t it incumbent on the outsiders to adapt to the culture into which they’ve moved?
The “tyranny of the majority” is thrown around as if it is so bad. But if push comes to shove over an issue, why should the fewer number dominate. It seems that as bad as tyranny of the majority might be, tyranny of the minority is much worse. Not only do you have one group imposing their p[references onto another, but you have a greater number of people happy. How is that a good thing? Wise? Sensible? Fair?
Well, truth be told, all my ideas are good ones.
Well, first of all, if they know it’s the law before hand, they could learn the language before they arrive. Second, there is nothing preventing private organizations from offering services, either for free or for a fee. It helps society by having a tie that binds it. It also reduces the cost of administering government, not having to create documents in any number of languages. It also ensures that each person can participate more fully in that society and do things like serve on a jury. When I was being selected to serve on a jury, two other people who were selected were excused. One was a Hispanic woman who had been here for like 11 years. The other was a Chinese man who has lived in SF for 17 years. Both could barely converse with the judge. (Which points to the downside of having large enclaves where people can exist as thought they live in another country.)
If by “force” you mean crafting laws, you’re wrong. You’re allowing the will of the people to craft their own society. How the hall can anyone be against that? As far as civil rights, where is that is right that says that if I move to Aberfuckistan, that unless the government prints all their documents in the native tongue of every foreigner, they their civil rights are bight violated?
Yes. Decisions can have consequences, some unforeseeable twenty or forty years down the road. And and direction they head in might have pitfalls. But why shouldn’t they be able to vote on the direction they’d like to take? Why must the mistakes be on a road they they don’t which to travel.
You’re conflating two different things: the right that people have to craft their own futures and the pros and cons if each decision they make. You can have the right, and still then debate the respective pros and cons of a particular issue.
This is a statement of zero value other than it advertises your own biases. Your assuming malice. Your’e assuming harm. You’re assuming hatred. You’re assuming they are necessary components to preferring one aspect of a culture over another. THAT is ridiculous.
