 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
The last time I checked, Slavs, Bulgars, and Magyars all have their own countries, speak their own languages, and believe in their brand of Chrisitianity. |
First of all, magyars are member of western churches. The Orthodox Church was not an invention of the Bukgars and lavs, they became part of the flock. Plus they are still seen as "Europeans" both by themselves and by other Europeans.
People here ignore tyhat those that go into the US do so volutarilly, and that they have done so under the guise of s strong central government. It is easier to assimilate folks who go somewhere knowing they need to assimiliate to a great degree than folks that come riding in waiting to kill you. People point to porblems European states have with their new immigrant populations: I don;t see the Arabs in France facing any worse things than the Irish did when they got to the uS. For decades the US was very resistant to certain immigrant groups, even fellow Chritstian ones like Catholic Irish and Italians. We were very intolerant for many decades of the Chinese and Japanese out west. The Europeans are having to face the same things but much faster, and most of their immigrants don;t share the religion.
If the history of the acceptance by the US of new immigrants into its own polity (and the US is not like Europe, as the US is a single political entity and sovereing state, not a continent with multiple sovereign states and independent political units) is what we are to go by, various European states, liek the UK and France are doing OK. |
Im not sure that comparing France 2003 to USA 1850 makes a whole lot of sense. USA 1850 still had slavery, didnt beleive in Darwinism, etc. Telegraphing from Maine to Georgia was still new, let along telephoning around the world. It was an entirely different cultural moment.
And its not correct that european countries never had immigrants. Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to English cities in the 19th C (er, has anybody heard of a minor cultural phenomenon called The Beatles?) East London historically had Jews, Germans, and Italians. France has absorbed Italians, Poles and Jews, though of course in small numbers relative to the US. Berlin aborbed Jews, Poles(?), and later Balts. Vienna was one of the most multicultural cities in the world, with Poles, Czechs, Jews, etc in large numbers.
So the current difference in aborption of 3rd world immigrants in the US vs europe is not just a matter of greater US experience - of the US being farther along a curve europe is also moving up. And even if it were, its STILL an advantage to the US. Both Europe and the US are NOW facing large 3rd world immigrations, probably inevitably given demography. And the US is doing better, perhaps partly due to its earlier history of absorption (as you say) and perhaps (as i think) also due to fundamental differences in the nature of its culture and identity.
You are correct to point out that some culural assimilation has taken place in europe, notably in the UK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
I just can't see China a super power in 30 years.
First, they are having a hard time finding enough water for all the people they have now. Things are only going to get worse for them as time goes on and resources dry up. And talking about resources... it's going to take more (of everything) to get the population of China to the living standard to that of the US than China will have available.
The population of China is growing older. In 30 years China is going to have a 'have grown old' population which will be very demanding on the limited resources they have.
I think the real question is what will be the power source of choice in 30 years and who will take the best advantage of it first. Oil and coal are not going to do it for China in 30 years.
It will be the mighty and powerful oz (i mean US) in 30 years... along with the US governed Iraq leading the way in the middle east. Following by the US governed Iran. NK will have been long since destroyed by the US and will have become part of Japan. China will split into several smaller parts. Tawain will control a good part of chinas eastern seaboard (of course with the help of US military might). Over half of Europe will have been wiped out because of some freaky new mad cow strain.
Africa will still be Africa - completely screwed.
you all would sh*t if things turn out this way. 30 years from now on apolyton (think it will still be here?!?) I'll say 'I told you so!!!!'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:30
|
|
I have no doubt at all about China becoming a Great or even Superpower - all I have to do is look out my window to see all the evidence I need. But 30 years? Thirty years is a little brisk, even for the Chinese. Yet, given what they've done in the last twenty, it is certainly possible.
Comments about China's military are irrelevant, it is not important to China's welfare or growth. In fact, investing a lot in the military would be a dumb idea, IMO. Space exploration is a better ticket (watch for China's first manned mission in a few months...)
I don't see Chinese culture as having an impact equal to that of their economy. Chinese are not particularly imaginative - just look at Chinese tv, film, music, advertising, software, etc. (or ask any foreigner teaching English here  ). Individualism, creativity, innovation and outside-the-box problem-solving are not stressed in their culture, nor in their education system. Chinese make better engineers than artists. There is a reason Chinese are great at copying DVDs and not so great at making them. 
The Japanese are far more creative, and Japanese culture (as well as that of South Korea) have a huge impact here, especially on the young. Manga, fashion, film, music, automobiles, gadgets, you name it. Japanese food is the only foreign food that most Chinese will even consider sampling - except for, incredibly, American fast food. 
Last edited by mindseye on 11-08-2003 at 21:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im not sure that comparing France 2003 to USA 1850 makes a whole lot of sense. USA 1850 still had slavery, didnt beleive in Darwinism, etc. Telegraphing from Maine to Georgia was still new, let along telephoning around the world. It was an entirely different cultural moment. |
The reality of a brand new group of people coming into a state, not sharing the culture and trying to become part of it is more of a universal thing. Yes, the culture today is far more accepting of differences, which is why Arab immigrants in France do far better than the Irish in the US did in 1860. By that token, are Arabs in France worse of than Black in the US in many areas?
quote:
And its not correct that european countries never had immigrants. Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to English cities in the 19th C (er, has anybody heard of a minor cultural phenomenon called The Beatles?) East London historically had Jews, Germans, and Italians. France has absorbed Italians, Poles and Jews, though of course in small numbers relative to the US. Berlin aborbed Jews, Poles(?), and later Balts. Vienna was one of the most multicultural cities in the world, with Poles, Czechs, Jews, etc in large numbers. |
And they did fine (as fine as one could) under those circumstances, no? So you would agree that the notion that Europeans can't handle new immigrants is wrong?
quote:
So the current difference in aborption of 3rd world immigrants in the US vs europe is not just a matter of greater US experience - of the US being farther along a curve europe is also moving up. And even if it were, its STILL an advantage to the US. Both Europe and the US are NOW facing large 3rd world immigrations, probably inevitably given demography. And the US is doing better, perhaps partly due to its earlier history of absorption (as you say) and perhaps (as i think) also due to fundamental differences in the nature of its culture and identity. |
The differences I see are purely economic. It is easy for a third world immigrant in the US to find illegal work and make money. It is not so easy for an immigrant in Europe to do so. The US has a high demand for cheap, expendable workers in the service sector, while many immigrants into Europe come into conomies where they are not wsanted, and thus linger in unemployment, which means they have nothing to do, and which means that their drawing of social benefits angers the locals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The reality of a brand new group of people coming into a state, not sharing the culture and trying to become part of it is more of a universal thing. Yes, the culture today is far more accepting of differences, which is why Arab immigrants in France do far better than the Irish in the US did in 1860. By that token, are Arabs in France worse of than Black in the US in many areas?
quote:
And its not correct that european countries never had immigrants. Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to English cities in the 19th C (er, has anybody heard of a minor cultural phenomenon called The Beatles?) East London historically had Jews, Germans, and Italians. France has absorbed Italians, Poles and Jews, though of course in small numbers relative to the US. Berlin aborbed Jews, Poles(?), and later Balts. Vienna was one of the most multicultural cities in the world, with Poles, Czechs, Jews, etc in large numbers. |
And they did fine (as fine as one could) under those circumstances, no? So you would agree that the notion that Europeans can't handle new immigrants is wrong?
quote:
So the current difference in aborption of 3rd world immigrants in the US vs europe is not just a matter of greater US experience - of the US being farther along a curve europe is also moving up. And even if it were, its STILL an advantage to the US. Both Europe and the US are NOW facing large 3rd world immigrations, probably inevitably given demography. And the US is doing better, perhaps partly due to its earlier history of absorption (as you say) and perhaps (as i think) also due to fundamental differences in the nature of its culture and identity. |
The differences I see are purely economic. It is easy for a third world immigrant in the US to find illegal work and make money. It is not so easy for an immigrant in Europe to do so. The US has a high demand for cheap, expendable workers in the service sector, while many immigrants into Europe come into conomies where they are not wsanted, and thus linger in unemployment, which means they have nothing to do, and which means that their drawing of social benefits angers the locals. |
ny general impression is that in the 19th c the US did a better job of absorbing new immigrants, which is one of the reasons the US had so many more than France, despite high French wage levels.
Could the disparities today all be do to economics. rather than culture? - quite possible, although i suspect that is still an advantage to the US at the grand strategic level - we create low wage opportunities for new immigrants, who then fit into the culture and rise, while europe has a harder time doing that. Im not sure its only low wage jobs though - we seem to get a higher number of highly skilled immigrants as well, though i dont have evidence that we do better assimilating them. One gets the impression (and thats all it is, an impression, that for any given level of economic hardship/dependence, immigrants assimilate better here, and that the locals react better to them, being more inclined to push for assimilation ("lets ban bilingualism") rather than exclusion. I wonder if its all a matter of social services either. How many immigrants in Europe are actually on social services? I suspect much anti-immigrant feeling is directed at employed immigrants, and has as much to do with cultural issues as economics. But no, I cant prove it.
WRT to arabs in France and blacks in america - there are of course tremendous socio-economic problems afflicting many poor and working class blacks in America. But can one imagine France today with an Arab Minister of Foreign Affairs? With as many prominent Arab officials, academics, lawyers, etc as the US has black ones? In fact i suspect the US has more such prominent Arabs than France has, despite a much smaller population of arab descent. And i certainly see no mass hatreds, expressed in politics and violence, aimed by blacks against any other group of americans, comparable to the problems facing France.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I also can't imagine France having an Arab as a theater military commander, like John Abizaid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
That's nice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
ny general impression is that in the 19th c the US did a better job of absorbing new immigrants, which is one of the reasons the US had so many more than France, despite high French wage levels. |
The US faced immense racial tensions with immigrants in the 1800's. Yes, those times were more backwards, but you can then compare the status of blacks in the US with those few in France. Josiphine Baker did better in Paris in 1920 than she would have in the south,no? As for immigranst going to Europe before: Why? Wage scales are not the only thing that mattered. Europe was a net exporter of human beings for almost 3 centuries, mainly to the new world. France was old, with a set social hiearchy, most bits of land already owned by someone, perhaps for centuries. If you are trying to create a whole new life, why go somewhere were life has been set for so long? Why not go somewhere empty enough to make something new? And since a great deal of the third world belonged to Europeans anyway, they controlled immigration into their shores at both ends, a luxury the US lacked. Why move subjects from one place to another? And would Germans allow a bunch of Russians into their land, given that a Russian empire with a great big army existed right next door? The only bit not owned by European powers (the Ottomans count there) was Latin America, and emmigration from there did not become significant until the second half of the 20th century, and it makes no sense to Cross an ocean back if you can get to the US.
quote:
WRT to arabs in France and blacks in america - there are of course tremendous socio-economic problems afflicting many poor and working class blacks in America. But can one imagine France today with an Arab Minister of Foreign Affairs? With as many prominent Arab officials, academics, lawyers, etc as the US has black ones? In fact i suspect the US has more such prominent Arabs than France has, despite a much smaller population of arab descent. And i certainly see no mass hatreds, expressed in politics and violence, aimed by blacks against any other group of americans, comparable to the problems facing France. |
Given that a significant Arab population is only 50 years old in most of the country, I would not expect Arabs to have reached the same point as a community that has been in the US amost since day one. As for your comment about mass hatred and political violence: I fail to see the great evidence for that comment. Certainly there is racial tension in France, but to classify them as mass hatred and politcal violence is hyperbole. I can very easily see an Arab minister in France within the next 20 years, as long as they got into the right beaurocrat training schools. After all, the French have had more Jewish leaders than the US, no?
But maybe a French poster can tell us more about Arabs in the French gov.and military.
quote:
actually, GePap, I think you're wrong on the lack of cheap jobs in europe. In London, for example, there are plenty of jobs, and most are done by immigrants. |
And you don;t see as much racial tension in London as you do in the older industrial cities further north were cheap service sector jobs might not be as plentifull, correct? If anything, I see this as evidence for my point. In those places in Europe were cheap labor that can be filled with immigrants, legally or illegaly, racial tensions are lower than in spots were immigrants may be seen as competing for the only jobs in the area with locals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Hey, you know the new superpower could be India. They're quiet, but that just means you have to watch them all that much more closely.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2003 00:50
Spoken Chinese is really much easier than you might guess (written Chinese is another story ...)
|