Well, then what makes you think everyone else can’t figure out how to do it?
Please give me the name of one of the 9/11 hijackers who came from an impoverished background.
What do they have to do with this argument?
You claimed that terroristed did so because they were “impoverished”.
So, please give me the names of one of the hijackers who came from an impoverished background?
There were 19 of them so it shouldn’t be difficult if your claim is true.
Where did I mention terrorism? We are talking about banning such terrible evils as speaking Spanish or building a minaret or having non-Christian holidays. Not terrorism.
As has been pointed out those borders are quite porous. People could get in there if they wanted to. Yet people do not try to emmigrate legally or illegally to those countries in huge numbers; they do not want to. People move out. In fact they try to move to America … and Canada and Australia. Why? Why aren’t the best minds moving to China or Mexico or even France (way down there in net migration rates)? Why do we attract many of the world’s best minds from all cultures? And where would our United States be without these minds, without the contributions made by all these “alien races and cultures”?
I have news for you. If the United States was not a place that was known for given all the freedom to be both a valued member of the culture of the United States and a member of a culture of heritage, then we’d not have attracted these minds and in every sense of the word we’d be a much poorer place for it.
Oh really? Then answer me this: if a country simply decides to conduct all government business in the host language only, say, English, who is getting beat up? Where is this force you speak of? Never mind “lots of it”, any of it?
Say what? I’ve heard of Mexico’s problems with large numbers of illegal immigrants.
A good higher education system. That doesn’t mean they stay here, not anymore. They just get a good college education and leave for some country that isn’t full of people that hate them.
None, of course. The force will come when that doesn’t work. People will suffer because of it, the government will be less capable, but those evil foreigners will keep using their evil foreign tongue.
“Hypothetical” insults that are directly pointed at other posters are not permitted.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Why would the force come from simply has an official state religion? How? We’re NOT talking about outlawing any language from being spoken or any signs being put up in businesses. We’re not even talking about translations of government documents being created by private individuals or groups. So where is this “force” you speak of?
Or are you backpedaling form your “force” claim and now moving to “they will suffer”?
No, you are just ignoring what I’m actually saying in favor of your own strawman. The goal of this is to “protect our culture” by crushing any and all differences, to force everyone to conform with an officially mandated, state defined “real” American culture. Because apparently American culture is so weak and undesirable that merely speaking a different language than English or wearing “foreign” clothing will destroy it.
If your little fantasy of having the government function in English only was implemented, it wouldn’t do anything about that. People would still speak other languages than English, wear funny clothing, follow other religions than Christianity. The only method that can “protect” American culture by stamping out all differences like you want is large amounts of force; anything else will just be ignored or worked around. Besides, we know from history that’s what people with your attitude eventually resort to if they can; I expect you’d like to bring back the old days where children were kidnapped from families that spoke the “wrong language” or practiced the “wrong religion”, so they could be properly beaten into speaking only English, terrorized into worshiping the “right way”, and told how their parents are evil. Not that you’d ever admit it.
Wah wah wah wah those girls in their niqabs should be forced to show more skin because right now it really kind of hurts my feelings that they don’t want me staring at their breasts.
I think mentally ill people get a pass when they can’t fit in.
Regardless of whether or not she “rejects all aspects” of being part of the society she’s living in, wearing a burqa in the United States certainly flouts cultural traditions. Unless you’re the Lone Ranger, Batman or Zorro obscuring your face as a matter of general policy is generally frowned upon as its something that bandits or criminals do. Secondly it is a barrier to communication. We rely on facial expressions as part of the overall communication experience with other human beings which is difficult to do when someone is wearing a mask. A buqa is not compatible with the culture I grew up in. (Not that I want to pass laws against it.)
Figures for net migration rates. Note that Mexico is a large negative number - many more moving out than in.
The United States has been the beneficiary of a brain drain from the rest of the world. See here and here.
When I was a teenager, I flouted social tradition by wearing combat boots, spiky jewelry, and bright blue hair dye- a look designed to show my contempt for American consumerism and gender norms. A scowling teenage punk rocker is just as distant, inscrutable and vaguely menacing as a niqab. Indeed, I took special pride in making people uncomfortable with my appearance…especially since even then I was a generally nice person.
Obnoxious? Yeah, sure.
Dangerous or worth worrying about at all? No, of course not. It’s a big world and it takes all kinds to keep it turning.
Oh this to add -
If our country’s post 9-11 xenophobia, coupled with a perception that this country’s best days are past, do make it less likely that we attract and keep these minds, minds of alien races and cultures, (as this article expresses concern about) then we are in trouble indeed. But they certainly won’t be going to countries that are less accepting of the diversity they represent than we are. Their home countries, maybe.
People don’t dislike the burqa because it looks different they dislike it because they view it as a symbol of oppression. I agree, it’s not anything to really worry about. I’ve only seen one woman in the U.S. wearing a burqa and if I ever see another I’ll be surprised. I suppose it does take all kinds to keep the world turning but I don’t think all cultural traditions are of equal value.
HA! The only one ignoring what you’ve been saying is you. Read over our exchange. I presented the scenario of a country taking the one (and sensible) and only step of declaring an official language. You claimed some nonsense that that would require, or lead to, the use of force. And now you backpedal, but try to cover yourself by using the word here in a more benign manner.
:rolleyes:
Basically, the Baltic states went back to jus sanguinis citizenship, which is not an unusual thing as far as countries go. But that’s not the same thing as imposing ethnic purity. Their residents, including the ethnic Russians, can acquire citizenship provided they fulfill a few conditions, which (if I look at Estonian nationality law for an example) includes showing some knowledge of civics and of the national language. In other words, they have to take a few steps to fulfill their side of the social contract, and if they do so they can become citizens equal to all others.
I cannot view this as unreasonable. Russians have nearly a whole continent in which they can live with full citizenship rights if they’re not interested in knowing any language other than Russian. Even in the Russian Federation’s national republics, use of Russian is prevalent and the nominal national language is in many cases endangered. If Estonians and Latvians want to feel at home in their country, instead of feeling they are somewhere in the middle of Russia, they have the right and the ability to do something about it.
I don’t scorn people with disabilities. But as I’ve said, I wouldn’t favour banning the burqa both because it wouldn’t be productive and because it’d violate values of free speech and equality before the law in which I believe. I’m more likely to view women in burqas as victims, and support societal efforts to provide them with information about their rights. The right not to tolerate abuse from their spouse, for example.
This said, I still think the idea behind the wearing of a burqa is incompatible with Western liberal values, especially that of gender equality, and isn’t something we should encourage. This is why I don’t think we should go out of our way to accommodate this practice. It’s not a great demonstration of cultural diversity, it’s a problem we have to deal with as a society in the fairest way possible.
Being a punk girl doesn’t require any special accommodation, and if it did I’d probably say you’re on your own about it. Philosophically it doesn’t seem to be based in any way on values of inequality. I suppose some might say it’s a rejection of American culture, but dominant cultures often attract opposition, for more or less valid reasons. It’s not comparable.
I suppose you can find burqa-wearing women who are active community leaders, and maybe you do know some of them, but I don’t think they’re very common though. And it doesn’t change my view of the practice.
I can get behind that. I don’t think a society should have to go out of its way to accommodate cultural or religious practices when it is too much of an imposition, but if it isn’t, we may find it to be a good idea. The idea is weighing the good and the bad, not giving some kind of special reverence to practices because they are mandated by specific cultural or religious backgrounds.
This said, what causes harm can be a matter of debate. As an American, you’re probably more on the individualist side of things, as evidenced by your toleration of Nazi or anti-gay speech as harmless. To Americans, the individual freedom of expression is paramount. But even in the US, some kinds of speech are not tolerated, threats for example. Members of less individualistic cultures may view speech that would be tolerable to Americans as inacceptable.
And even when we don’t want to make something illegal, it doesn’t mean we have to actively encourage it. I think you should learn to communicate in the national language when moving into a new society. This doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal not to, just that I won’t shed any tears if you’re having trouble communicating with your neighbours or with the government, or if you’re ever told that you cannot become a citizen unless you do learn it.
Well frankly, if you’re failing to learn the language of your community, it’s because you’re not really trying. You figure you can get by without the effort and maybe you’re right. But if you put yourself into a situation where you had to learn it, you would. Of course it may take some time, so I’d agree that there is a societal benefit to accommodating you (by providing translators, for example) while you’re still learning. And I’d even say that the society has a duty towards you, and should provide you with the opportunity to learn. But you on the other hand have a duty (maybe not a legal one, but I’d say a moral one) to take this opportunity.
Nonsense, it’s always been quite common for first generation immigrants to learn little to none of the local language. It’s a difficult task, however easily it is dismissed by the people who don’t expect to be the ones doing it.