Where are they moving to?
But other than that, what have they ever done for us? Nothing!
Yes, but demographic shifts in the population of certain cities is not the same thing as “western civilization coming to an end”.
Yes, but large problems with immigration and immigrants are not the same thing as “western civilization coming to an end”.
Yes, but non-harmony between ethnic Dutch people and immigrants is not the same thing as “western civilization coming to an end”.
I’m certainly not trying to pretend that everything is peaches and cream when it comes to cultural adaptation and assimilation in Europe. I’m just protesting your extreme hyperbolic rhetoric as not being accurate to describe what’s going on.
Heck, I had some problems with my lower back last week. They were real, and they’re a sign of systemic issues that aren’t imaginary and that I’m going to have to work hard to improve. Yes, I should take that seriously. But according to your logic, I should start worrying that my spine is about to disappear entirely. :eek: I think that would be over-reacting.
well it was you that brought Holland into it and not me
On the other hand, I think there are people that sees dutch ethnic people moving out of their cities because of high number of immigrants, as a sign that the western civilization is coming to an end
I think that most people are afraid of the amount of immigrants that poor inn and not immigrants as such
Probably for the same reasons higher-income Americans have- they can get more house for less money further out.
As long as so many people immigrate, there’s no danger of the West running out of people; cultural change, yes, but we’re not going to turn into an empty wasteland.
The alternative to cultural change is to be like the Taliban-style Islamic fundies who want to drag everybody back to the Dark Ages. I’ll take change over that, thank you.
Actually, I’ve been reading history recently and 1500 years ago, raiders from Scandinavia were seen as destroying Western civilization, including overthrowing several British kings long before the invasion of William the Conqueror. Minotaurus’ ancestors once did a certain amount of damage; perhaps he’s concerned about being on the receiving end.
I think Minotaurus and I might disagree over what exactly the benefits of Western civilization entail. To me, two of the greatest benefits of living in the US in the 21st century is that I can support myself as a programmer without having to turn my paycheck over to my husband or father and that I am not required to consider myself the inferior of any man. Judging from his recent threads here and in IMHO, I gather Minotaurus might disagree with me about that.
Civilization and the world as we know it have changed rapidly during the past 200 years, in part due to technology. Just look at the social structure 100 years ago compared to what it is today. I expect that it will continue to change, although I’m not going to be foolish enough to predict how. I think these changes have been positive for the most part, and it seems to me people’s fears have been greatly exaggerated in light of what actually happens. Even the influx of Scandinavian immigrants to America was seen as a threat to America’s culture by some people. I’m nowhere near where the place where the bulk of them went to, but I gather the main effects have been an increase in the number of Lutherans and some curious substance called “lutefisk”. I assume Diogenes the Cynic can clarify.
the vikings was savages yes, but their tour around Europa gave them important impulses that finally made England what it is today (more or less). The Norman invasion in 1066 (from Normandy) connected Britain to Europe like never before. French became the official language in Britain and after that and only peasants spoke english.
No King of England spoke english for the next 300 years
Norman society had two tiers: the french speaking aristocracy and the english speaking peasantry.
By the way: I’m not so sure that “the west” looked up on them selves as the west back when the vikings plundered their neighbors in 800-1100
Well, this is the point really. The existing civilisation in England is no more, in a large part due to the Norman invasion. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a civilisation in England (quiet in the cheap seats!) - it just means that the old one changed, and now we can look back and say “yes, they were savages, but they made England what it is today”.
And here we are in the present day, in a dynamic world with cultures changing all the time (probably more quickly than they did in the past because of the speed of communication and transport), with a changing world civilisation. Will our part of that civilisation change over the next 50 years? Certainly. Will other people’s? Yep. Is this unusual? No.
As was said further up the thread, older people today compare current society with what they grew up with, and notice changes (and often complain about them), but others consider the changes to be a transition to something better. In 50 years time, exactly the same thing will happen. Shrug.
People keep saying this, but it isn’t always the case that things get better. Europe got much worse during the Dark Ages, and stayed that way for centuries, until the Renaissance.
Also, probably the Inkas came into contact with many peoples before the arrival of the Spanish. When the Spanish came, some Inkas might have said “Don’t worry, we have met other peoples before and we survived it, so we will survive this too”. But they didn’t.
Two points:
-
No matter whether the old civilization being wiped out is a good thing or not (e.g. the Inkas), for the people living in that civilization, they do consider the passing of their culture a sad event.
-
Culture & civilization don’t always get better as time goes by, as the Dark Ages example shows. Not that the changes happening now are comparable to the Dark Ages, but I just don’t agree with people who use the past to prove that people have always complained and yet things have always gotten better.
BTW, Latinos are “Western Civilization” – quite ethnoculturally distinct from the dominant Northern European/American branch of the civilization, but still within it. The dynamic in the North-South split in Western Civ, though, is that since the dominant North has been so much identified in common parlance as the archetype of “Western”, those playing to identity politics have sought to somehow claim for us something else. Now, sure, in many Latin American countries you have a dominant Western-(Hispanic)-identity population coexisting with a Native American or an African-displaced one, but the dominant common culture is still quite Western.
You’re right, and I didn’t mean to suggest that things always get better - I said “other people” think that it was an improvement, but not that the other people are right.
The end of a civilisation (or a noticeable change to one) is sad for the members of that civilisation, but perhaps the best course of action for someone in just such a situation is not to try to resist all changes, but to make the transition more seamless. By bringing the best parts of the old civilisation into the new one, while at the same time taking the best parts of the new, everyone benefits.
Of course, finding the best parts is tricky (or best parts that everyone agrees on).
the west is sure changes faster than ever before
i have no problems with my culture changing, but the speed
Sure, but in your example, you’re talking genocidal levels of slaughter and cultural eradication. Naturally, nobody wants to have that happen to their own culture, nor should they be encouraged to consider it a good thing.
But it’s absurd to argue that the demographic shifts of the sort we’re seeing in western countries now are necessarily going to produce that kind of cultural eradication in the next 50–60 years, which is what the OP was asking about.
I think we’re letting our hyperbole run away with us here. Perhaps we ought to clarify exactly how we would define “the end of western civilization”, as opposed to changes within western civilization.
In this environmetally challenged crisis we’re in the middle of not evidence enough that overpopulation is a bad thing?
Thankfully western culture had declining birth rates. That’s something to celebrate. Once the muslims are on board our planet won’t go to hell.
I’m not a racist or anything like that, but race means something to most people and for a few it means much.
And it’s a fact that the white race is decreasing. Only 17% of the world population today lives in the west. Perhaps some 70-75% of them are white
another problem (a bit of the topic) is that we “17%” in the west uses about 80% of the world resources
Is that any reason for the rest of us to take it seriously?
Not “decreasing,” really. There’s more and more interracial marriage nowadays (at least, in the U.S.). The races are blending. Of course, by traditional American “one-drop rule” thinking, the products of such unions are nonwhite – so when white marries black, the white race is diminished but the black race is not. But I would hope we’ve left all that in the past. If one of your children marries white and another marries black, all your grandchildren are equally your descendants, are they not? Your gene-code is perpetuated equally by both sets. Reproductive success does not depend on “racial purity.”
Changing our color would not change that.
A group of people I am glad to discomfort. If the thought of future humanity being darker bothers them, good.
As BrainGlutton said, only by America’s bizarre one-drop rule.
Not that it matters; in the long run genetic engineering will make far more profound alterations than a trival difference of skin color.
Thank Philo Farnsworth, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Alexander Graham Bell, among others (mostly Europeans or Americans of mostly European descent), for that. Improvements in communication and transportation technologies have made it possible for cultural changes to propagate much more quickly than they could long ago.
And the number 13 means something to most people and means much to a few. Does that mean we should take that and other silly superstitions seriously? Caring about “race” is just as silly and has historically done much more harm.
Oh really? I seem to recall you saying something else here in IMHO. In fact, here’s what you said:
You’ve also already admitted to lying to us once in IMHO, so I’m afraid I don’t have all that high an opinion of your credibility.
Your argument about the Norse seems to come down to “It’s all right and even a benefit when we do it, but a threat when they do it.” I disagree with that argument.
As for race, that strikes me as an artificial construct used to differentiate between “us” and “them”. For years, the English considered the Irish to be another race, and indeed, it was quite a scandal when my northern English grandfather married my grandmother, and she was only half-Irish. If, indeed, the mixing of the races bothers some people, then I heartily agree with Der Tris and say “Good for them!”