How are you forced to change? Your example was government forms in languages other than English. Those don’t force you to do anything; they allow someone else to do something without learning English.
Why is it one or the other?
Again, telling wording: this isn’t about “dominance” and it’s not about “survival.”
Doesn’t living in the same society, under the same laws, already bind people together? Yes, the savings from eliminating Spanish and Chinese-language forms would be fantastic, :rolleyes: but I don’t think a making it harder for people to participate in society binds society together.
To my mind at least, “multiculturalism” just seems the default state you get when you don’t do anything special - just let folks do what they want, within the rule of law of course. Gradually, you will get a certain melding of cultures, whether your model is “cultural mosaic” or “melting pot” - because people, being people, will eventually insist on intermarrying, going to each other’s restaurants, and joining high-paying professions, unless there is some sort of coersion applied to prevent them.
I’ve not yet seen any real cause to interfere with this process.
All a stupid single language rule for a government will do is make it less capable of doing it’s job, it won’t stamp out the other cultures you are so terrified of. You’ll need to get much more intrusive and use much more force to do that. And you aren’t talking about allowing people to “craft their own society”; you are talking about using force to prevent people from doing so.
Again, you aren’t talking about letting anyone “craft their own future”, you are talking about using force to “craft” other people’s future for them against their will.
This isn’t about preference. This is about force. You want to force others to act and think according to your plan for them.
I am “assuming” malice because there’s no other reason for it; there’s no benefit to be gained not even a selfish one.
I am “assuming” harm because there’s no other way to achieve what you say you want.
I am “assuming” hatred because that is exactly what this sort of thing has always been about.
Anyone who knows squat about Texas history realizes that we got most of the cowboy culture from Spain/Mexico. Those people contributed a lot of good recipes–along with the African-Americans, Central Europeans, Cajuns/Creoles & a flood of newcomers. Multicultural tourism in Houston?
Before WWI, San Antonio street signs came in English, German & Spanish; anti-German hysteria ended that, but Spanish will never go away. If you visit, drop by the Institute of Texas Cultures.
Yeah, I know that Deep East Texas has some communities founded by folks kicked out of Arkansas for being too inbred. And they don’t hold with furriners! As far as I’m concerned, those folks can continue marrying first cousins & finding new ways to cook possum. Any smart kids born there will leave at the first opportunity…
No, it’s not a “lucky break,” it’s commen sense. If someone tried to convince you that you should not care for you own family than for any other family, you would see right away that he was quite mad.
You, on the other hand, talk in terms of a simple-minded moral imperative of absolute tolerance and acceptance. Whether or not such an impossible moral standard can be made to work in the real world is a question you would just rather not ask.
People and cultures have gone extinct all over the world throughout history. There is no reason it could not happen to us.
I’d think he was wrong, but not mad. And a culture is not a family. A culture can include millions of people who’ve never met. Why do I need to prize its survival?
You haven’t discussed whether or not it would work. So far all I’m hearing is that the survival of your preferred culture is threatened when you’re in proximity to people who are not part of the same culture.
Why should I care if it does? Cultures change and evolve, and yes, sometimes they die out. I do think humanity is diminished a bit when a culture goes extinct. But it happens. The culture I live in is going to be around for generations and perhaps for many centuries. Why do I care what cultures exist in the distant future? It’s all well and good to try to preserve the things you like, but I don’t go for the school of thought that would have us pretend our preferences are objectively the best and that they must exist forever.
I have news for you. That “exception” is going to become the “rule” more and more if you want to live anywhere besides the most backward rural communities. So that means you are going to have to get used to working with people from all sorts of backgrounds and “it’s human nature” is not going to be an acceptible excuse for acting like a xenophobic jerk.
IMHO, it’s a mistake to focus on who started what race riot or the like. Makes no difference. Bottom line is that there’s animosity. You claiming it’s mostly the fault of whites won’t change that. Human nature and weaknesses apply to whites too.
From my experience, a lot of people mean different things when they answer questions like the ones in that poll. It’s difficult to do a poll that makes comparisons across culture divides on the basis of simple questions.
As above I don’t think this is relevant. But FWIW, I’m also skeptical. Radical Islam has been gaining strength all over the world in recent decades, and as such it tends to be stronger amont the young than the old. Ascribing a British result along these lines to the specific situation in England is a mistake, IMHO.
It’s not “I” but the culture that I am a part of. And no one is forcing any prospective newcomer to do anything. You can come and participate by learning the language (even before you come, if you’d like), come and feel like you’re living on the margin of a society or not come at all. Hundreds of millions of people have chosen to come and assimilate in countless cultures. If I want to move to Moscow, Rome, Helsinki, Sao Paolo, Seoul, etc. I would expect that I’d become part of their culture, not the other way around.
It doesn’t have to be. But if there is a preference, the host culture should win out. Both common sense, a sense of democracy and common courtesy make this so.
Oh, please. You laser in on the word “dominate” as if it’s some bugaboo. Try answering the question: “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?”
Obviously, we are talking about degrees here. No one is implying that without X (an official language, in this case), that the society will automatically fall apart. The question is that do a people want one of those ties that bind them to be language. I don’t think the answer will always be the same, but IF the current inhabitants want it to be, why don’t they have the right to do so? Please answer that.
Nope. I’m talking about the right of a people to craft their own society.
Nope. I’m talking about the right of a people to craft their own society. Newcomers can choose to some or not.
Nope. Is is clearly about preference. Saying otherwise indicates poor reading on your part. I’m talking about the right of a people to craft their own society.
:rolleyes: Please. You’re assuming malice because you always assume malice when it comes to any majority or people in position of power. If not, I might be inclined to take your position a half a tad more seriously.
The distinction isn’t relevant here, since the preference isn’t any less arbitrary just because a bunch of people share it. Anyway I’m talking to you, not the whole culture.
Except learn English or fall further behind.
I’m not sure speaking the language is the sole determining factor in whether or not you are part of a culture. When you emigrate, you can conduct yourself as you see fit and your expectation isn’t unreasonable. The question is why we’re supposed to prefer one over the other.
I don’t have a problem with the word. I think reflects the fearful mindset we’re discussing.
I never said anybody should dominate, and I don’t think the behavior you’re describing can reasonably be described as dominating a culture.
Why don’t they have the right? It’s unnecessary, helps no one, and it’s intended to be punitive. I think encouraging immigrants to assimilate is important (and by and large Europe has failed horribly at this). I think that should be done through active encouragement, not by penalizing people for not fitting in to a sufficient degree or blocking people from undesirable cultures.
What do you even mean by “right”? Are you asking whether such a law would violate the natural rights of other people? Not directly, but indirectly it would. The action that others must take to work around such a law is tremendous, and for many folks impossible: learning a new language as an adult is extraordinarily difficult for a lot of people, and you give them three choices:
Leave the country and their community;
Undertake a task that’s nearly impossible for them; or
Give up certain rights and protections of citizenship.
These are very large burdens to place on people for very small gains. So yes, I’d see it as forcing people to give up fundamental rights.
Are you asking if it’s constitutional? The answer there is complicated. In some cases it’s constitutional, and in others it seems to violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.
Ultimately, such proposals serve very little good. If we’re trying to prevent women from being abused by patriarchal cultures, we already have laws against that; we don’t need additional laws. If we’re trying to prevent people from speaking Spanish in their community, we don’t need laws against that; we need to mind our own damn business and let others mind theirs.
It’s the new form of American exceptionalism, we saw the same sort of arguments against universal health care. The claim that America is just plain less competent, just plain dumber than the rest of the world and we can’t do what they do.
False dilemma and a straw man. The tyranny of the majority is about a majority oppressing a smaller group because it can, it has nothing to do with some wholly imaginary us-or-them situation. Why should either group dominate?
Nonsense. You are talking about forcing other people to do what you want.
More nonsense. I’m assuming malice because there’s no other possible motivation for this. No one is profiting, no one is being protected; this is just about sending stormtroopers to kick down doors and force people to do what you want just because you have more numbers and can’t stand the thought of someone, somewhere not being an identical copy of yourself.
Yup. And best left to organization that are quite skilled at it like Gallup, rather than conservative thinktanks. Yet which one gets the press and the links? The small conservative thinktank effort or the Gallup one of 50,000 that showed a great commonality in values?
I can entertain an argument for encouraging a common language - communication across groups is part of social cohesiveness. But those who have no problem with tyranny of the majority (as long as they are part of the majority, anyway), those who think that tolerating minority cultures is allowing them to “dominate” and a “threat to the survival” of the majority culture, or other such hyperbole - meh - why bother?
The world is a diverse place and few countries thrive trying to keep their cultures pure. Even homogenous Japan has begun to understand the importance of diversity. Even Israel has laws on its books to protect the rights of its minority citizens (and of course its Jewish population is hardly a homogenous culture). Democracy means nothing without protection of minority views, beliefs, and practices. Magellan01, to be consistent, would endorse an Egypt that elected in an Islamist regime that executed apostates. (And from his Pit thread history, I know he would not be so consistent.) Freedom for those who think believe and act like most of the rest of us but not for those who think believe or act differently is faux freedom at best.
