How would it invalidate any of my previous points about the U.S. taking on the characteristics of Hispanic civilization as it becomes majority Hispanic?
I never said it would not take on characteristics of other cultures (in fact I said that it would) - what I DID dispute was your assertion that this would result in "the death of freedom", and also your idea that these people would not simply take on the primary aspects of American culture - just as African-Americans and all other immigrants have. America changes over time. Many of those who founded this country were Puritans, for example - and this is not the prevailing view of the times. Likewise, most of those who came here in the past were leaving Monarchies - yet we are not a monarchy, and the government they established after the revolution was not a monarchy. Where you come from does not fully define who you are, or what your children will come to be.
The primary concepts of American life will prevail because those that come here to stay will become influenced by our ways, and their children will be brought up with those ways. This is how it has always been. Our culture is speading to other countries as it is, so the idea that this culture won't take hold amongst those who actually live here and are raised in it is not very believable. The same things were said about the large waves of Italian and Irish immigrants. Yet our country is still here, and freedom is not dead.
I fail to see how your term "subculture" adds anything to this discussion.
I simply stated that you can belong to a subculture within general American culture, as a response to your comment about black Americans having different cultural attributes. I took your comment to mean that you felt black Americans weren't really a part of the overall American culture, since they had their own cultural history as well. My view is that they are, and that, in fact, there are further break downs of culture in the Black community, or any other ethnic or regional group - all existing within the overall culture group of America. In fact, America is comprised of countless different communities that form a larger community, the country as a whole. As a Southerner, I feel culturally different from someone from Maine - but no less an American.
As far as scholarly discussion goes - this is not a scholarly website by _any_ means. This is slashdot, and the "Games" section at that. I feel no need to name check authors who I admire to discuss a topic. Instead, I choose to discuss based on my own views, in plain terms, based on established facts, plain statistics and my own observations.
People in labor unions also tend to vote democrat. This indicates there is a "labor union culture", sure, but it doesn't mean that those in labor unions don't also partake in American culture, and believe in the American way of life. This is why the term "subculture" was coined. I would say that black America is a subculture of America, just as there are countless other subcultures.
In fact, I am no big expert on Black culture, but I would assume there were lots of different subcultures within black America... Just as there are different subcultures among America in general. There are definitely different subcultures in white America. I would say that it's impossible not to notice the cultural difference between, say, the South and New England. Or Texas and California. But both Southerners and New Englanders are indeed Americans, are they not?
And if you agree that blacks who were raised in America are culturally American, why won't children descended immigrants from other countries also become cultural American? Personally, I go months without even considering the fact that my grand-parents came from somewhere else.
Anyway, this is pretty elementary, well-known stuff. I fail to see predictions of how it will lead to "the death of freedom" as anything but gloom and doom predictions with little factual evidence to back them up. I also fail to see how our culture will be somehow lost, or our country rendered "non-Western".
People have been saying the exact sort of things you are for my whole life, and indeed, much, much longer. The reality? America is the strongest and most powerful nation in the world, and far more stable than any other superpower in history. We are also, in almost every way, a better country than at any point in our history.
Also, a further clarification : how is hispanic culture "non-Western"? Last time I checked, Spain was in Western Europe. Mexico is in North America. South America is in the Western hemisphere.
America is part of the West, is it not? I stated somewhere above that while what you stated may be true about Europe, it's NOT true about America. And if it's not true about America, your statement was either incorrect or too broad.
Since I specifically stated that I was talking about America, if you agree that I'm correct about America's place in your theory, then why didn't you say so instead of stretching this out over several posts.
My point is this : in regards to America at least, you have made several unfounded (or at least highly exaggerated) comments and backed them up with numbers that seem to be very inaccurate.
I'd further like to state you make a large mistake assuming that people's cultures and beliefs are somehow hard-coded based on where they come from. Yes, much of Africa is a "hell-hole", but would you argue that people of African descent who have resided here their entire lives are not Americans? It seems to me they are just as much a part of the "people and beliefs" as I am. In fact, many African-Americans' families have probably been in the country longer than mine (or at least half of mine, my mother's parents were immigrants).
Someone who has grown up here from birth, gone to American schools, watched American TV, hung out with American kids - they are an American, with an appreciation and understanding of the American way of life. No matter where their parents or grandparents came from.
I work in a workplace that is probably 80% black (I work at a school that has traditionally been attended mostly by African-Americans). The people I work with are no different from me - middle class people who worry about car payments, their kids' braces and schools, and who argue politics along the standard Democratic/Republican lines (or talk about American Idol). It doesn't matter that their great-great-grandparents came here from countries without democracy. They are no different from me, an American who doesn't even consider the fact that half of my bloodline is only two steps away from another country & culture.
Obviously, if the American fertility rate is 2.08, then America has NOT stopped having children.
(Again, I've stated multiple times that I'm only talking about America.)
What does immigration and birth rates have to do with the "death of freedom"?
Once our civilization replaced by Hispanics is America, and Muslims in Europe, it will have many of the characteristics of those cultures. They do not seem to be very good at running free countires.
That's rubbish. The US was founded by people who came here from monarchies and/or non-Democratic countries. Yet, this country is not a monarchy.
Every single person here can trace their roots to a place with a different system of government, yet, here in America, they go by the American system. What evidence do you have that shows that American laws and politics will change?
Also, at times in the past there was greater immigration, and greater percentage of foreign-born citizens than now, and yet we still go by the Constitution and the same American values of freedom as we have since the inception of this country.
Thrasymachus: Now you accuse me of being negative towards Hispanic culture. Indead: Where do I do that?
Thrasymachus: Why should that make me eager to have Hispanic culture replace my own culture? I'm an atheist for God's sake.
Indead: My comment was that you shouldn't look negatively on Hispanic culture... I assummed you would react at least somewhat positively to a culture that also embraces the morality that you say you would fight for.
Actually, the quote you pulled was an explanation of a quote from a few posts UP, not exactly "now".
Furthermore, I did not say you were looking negatively, I stated that you should not view it negatively, SINCE it shares many of the views you had previously been espousing. Two very very different things. You can offer a persausive comment to someone (such as "you shouldn't drink milk") without actually accusing them of engaging in that behavior, after all.
Since it seems that you STILL don't understand the comment, I'll go over it again - higher up in this thread you bemoaned that you wished there was more Christian morality in our culture, and then you further explained that you would "fight for" Christian morality. My comment was this : given that you want more Christian morality, why do you express worry about Hispanic culture, which also shares this same morality which you seem to espouse and have stated you would fight for?
Indead (misquoting himself):
That line was actually what's known in some circles as an "explanation". Note that there were no quotation marks surrounding it, nor was it in italics (the standard way to indicate a quotation on/.)
This was before you declared that you don't care if a culture is Christian or not, since your an Atheist
When did I say this? Read carefully:
You said you would fight for Christian Morality, and that you wanted society to be limited by morality. You then pointed out how you feel more hispanic people is hurting, even destroying our culture, and destroying our freedom.
I pointed out that maybe this is a harsh view, since, after all, hispanic culture shares the exact same Christian morality that you espouse. You responded that you didn't care about that, since "I'm an atheist for God's sake."
Again, those views seem contradictory to me. Earlier you stated you supported America having Christian Morality. But then, when I said that the Christian aspect of Hispanic culture was something you might like, you declared that you didn't care about that, since you are an athiest.
Which is it? Do you want to fight for Christian Morality, or do you not ca
I'm referring to a wide-spread appropriation of drug imagery and fetishization of the drugged-out look.
Again, you can claim that it doesn't exist, but it most certainly does.
For example, I know of a LOT of women who make remarks about how hot Ewan McGregor was in Trainspotting, where he plays a messed-up, emaciated junkie.
Similarly, look at the cover of the recently-released "Spun", about crystal meth addicts.
Or "Another Day In Paradise", a crime movie that spends much of it's screen time on explicit sex scenes between rail-thin young actors who are portraying junkies.
No matter what you may think, there is a segment of the populace which, for whatever reason, fetishizes drug use. Parts of popular culture, in many ways, takes this and runs with it.
Again, topic creep, and little to no responses to my points.
We were talking about replacement because of population decline. I brought up Japan because it was an example of a population that will not be replaced despite declining birth rate.
Why did you bring it up? America has a birth rate that is higher than replacement level. If we are talking about America (which is, as I said, is all I'm talking about), what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
You claim that we "were not talking about 'cultural pressure'. We were talking about birth rate."
Yet in the quote that started this discussion:
"In a hundred years, our current free society will have been completely replaced in a way far more thorough than the Roman Empire was replaced. The current freedom is already dead on its feet.
Why? Give me facts, not hyperbole. "
Sounds to me like we are talking about cultural replacement. So I brought up Japan to buttress my other points.
Except Japan, again, has nothing to do with the situation in America.
You say "our current free society will have been completely replaced" then you back that up by giving figures related to Japan?
The two don't seem to have much to do with each other. Perhaps Japan's "freedom will be dead on it's feet" because of their birth rate. The same can't be said of here, because the #s do not add up. Actually, even with the numbers - you haven't explained why "freedom will be dead on it's feet" no matter WHAT the numbers say. What does immigration and birth rates have to do with the "death of freedom"?
Now you accuse me of being negative towards Hispanic culture.
Where do I do that?
In fact, I made quite the opposite assumption : that you would approve of hispanic culture since earlier in the thread you said you would fight for a culture that had Christian morality. I assummed that meant that you would look well on Hispanic culture since it shares those value that you would fight for.
I asked you to expound about your statement, but you did not.
Moreover, please note that Christian morality is part of culture, not the entire culture, as I hardly thought that I needed to point out.
Before, you pointed out : "Christianity is the morality of the culture I was born in, however, and that's the one I'll fight for here."
This was before you declared that you don't care if a culture is Christian or not, since your an Atheist : two statements that seem to conflict, by the way.
As for the melting pot, it no longer exists... What we've got now is a salad bowl where no assimilation takes place.
This is untrue, based simply on my personal experience. I live in a very multicultural neighborhood in suburban Maryland. There are people from at least half a dozen different countries living here, in harmony, all shopping at the same grocery store, living right next to each other. Everyone here tends to their lawn, washes their cars, sends their kids to ride on the orange school bus, has cook-outs - all the things you do when you live in suburban America. It doesn't matter that we are all from different countries, we all live like normal American suburbanites. The melting pot still exists. I see it's effects every day.
You say American culture doesn't exist.
When did I say this? In fact, I never did. I said that I feel that immigration has no negative effect on "American Culture". I used the quotes because I don't think american culture is as rigid as you seem to. It has changed over time. It will continue to change. That's part of the strength of this country - adaptability.
But we're not a nation based on ideology - that's what the Soviet Union was.
We are most definitely a nation built on ideology. That's my view of the nation, at least, and the view of many, many others. Including our President.
I worded it badly however, so let me put it this way: Without f
Point out where I said Japan was the West, please.
I originally responded to your comment about the West's birth rate, disputing it's veracity. I even further commented that I was only knowledgable (and interested in discussing) the US specifically.
Then you responded with unrelated facts - like the birth rate in Japan.
Are we talking about the West, or are we talking about Japan?
It's impossible to coherently discuss a topic with someone who brings in unrelated facts, or has "topic creep", where the one item of discussion suddenly becomes all-encompassing.
Why? Hispanic culture is more strongly rooted in devout Christianity than the average European culture.
Why should that make me eager to have Hispanic culture replace my own culture? I'm an atheist for God's sake.
My comment was that you shouldn't look negatively on Hispanic culture, since Christian morality is a big part of Hispanic culture. Considering that, just a few posts up, you said "Christianity is the morality of the culture I was born in, however, and that's the one I'll fight for here", it seemed to be a sensible comment. I assummed you would react at least somewhat positively to a culture that also embraces the morality that you say you would fight for.
So, _would_ you fight for Christian morality? If so, why doesn't it make sense to assume you would be at least partially positive to a culture that shares in that same morality? If not, why did you say you would?
Please re-read my comment. Notice the words "birth rate ratio." Yes I am aware that the direct population ratio was entirely different, which is why I didn't say it. Funny how that works, me not having said something but you still attacking me for it.
You said, originally "The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America". This is flatly wrong. The immigration to birth ratio has been higher in the past.
Your numbers just don't add up. The Census Bureau states that less than a million people immigrate here every year. Yet, significantly more than a million will be born here each year. AND, according to the census bureau, the birth rate has been rising since the 70s.
In simple terms : More people were born here last year than the year before, but approximately the same amount immigrated each year. The amount of people born here in 2000 was approximately 4 times the amount of people who immigrated.
So, if the birth rate is rising, yet immigration holds steady, how can the birth to immigration ratio possibly be higher now than ever before? If the census bureau is correct, the birth to immigration ratio is more skewed towards birth THIS year than last, so there is no way your comment can be correct.
But you make another mistake about immigration between 1900-1910. A far greater percentage of that immigration was from European cultures -- so there was very little pressure on American culture. That is entirely different from today.
No, I did not make that mistake as we were not talking about "cultural pressure". We were talking about birth rates.
Your comment:
"The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America (since Columbus, that is)."
My comment:
"This is false. If I recall, peak immigration years were in 1900-1910."
Neither of those statements involve cultural pressure. Topic creep kicking in?
However, now that you have brought it up, I _also_ don't feel that people immigrating from other countries has any negative effect or pressure on "American culture", as America is, after all, a melting pot.
Now, when you say that "you can be any ethnicity and be an American," I certainly agree. So long as you share American culture. What sort of migration would be necessary, do you think, to replace American culture? And what about European culture?
Dispute it if you must, but surely you remeber the 'heroin chic' fashion ads of the mid-to-late 90s? And countless drug movies that have come out? Drug use is definitely fetishized by some.
So how does that jibe with your comment that 'the west has stopped having babies'? Again, that's replacement level.
Japan has a worse rate than either.
Japan is the West all of the sudden? A minute ago you were talking about the west...
I don't have a problem with Hispanic culture. But I'm not eager to see it replace my own.
Why? Hispanic culture is more strongly rooted in devout Christianity than the average European culture.
The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America (since Columbus, that is). And we all know how much fun the natives had after Columbus.
This is false. If I recall, peak immigration years were in 1900-1910. During that decade, more than a million immigrants PER YEAR came into the country. Especially if you compare the lower population of the time, those numbers were FAR greater than now.
Also, during that period, appoximately 13% of the country was foreign born. Today, it's around 9%.
I've heard all this stuff before. In the 80s, they said that whites would be a minority by 2010. Didn't happen. And honestly, I don't care if it happens. American does NOT mean white, it means American. You can be any ethnicity and be an American. The same way you can have American morality (knowing the difference between right and wrong, loving freedom) and not be Christian.
That does not mean that I would like to live in a society where people are not limited by tradition and morality.
Insert "my" in front morality, right? You don't want to live in a society that is not limited by _your_ morality.
The West has stopped having children.
This is pure BS. I am 26. Of my friend group, I know of easily half a dozen people who have had kids in the last year. The American fertility rate is 2.08. That's slightly above replacement level. (It may be less in Europe, but I don't pretend to know much about Europe)
In a hundred years, our current free society will have been completely replaced in a way far more thorough than the Roman Empire was replaced. The current freedom is already dead on its feet.
The New York Times, who I would judge to be a better analyst than either of us summed up the situation as thus:
"Sony Corp, Japan's second-largest consumer electronics maker, says profits plunged 98 percent in April-to-June quarter because of sliding revenue from company's movies, games and television sets; earns just 1.1 billion yen ($9 million) in quarter;"
About the only place that the GameCube might be outselling the XBOX is Japan and this is due to jingoism more than anything else and I'm not sure even this is still true.
Jingoism and the fact that MS' idea of wooing Japanese gamers is to release un-adapted works of US games.
Slashdot Mirror
How would it invalidate any of my previous points about the U.S. taking on the characteristics of Hispanic civilization as it becomes majority Hispanic?
I never said it would not take on characteristics of other cultures (in fact I said that it would) - what I DID dispute was your assertion that this would result in "the death of freedom", and also your idea that these people would not simply take on the primary aspects of American culture - just as African-Americans and all other immigrants have. America changes over time. Many of those who founded this country were Puritans, for example - and this is not the prevailing view of the times. Likewise, most of those who came here in the past were leaving Monarchies - yet we are not a monarchy, and the government they established after the revolution was not a monarchy. Where you come from does not fully define who you are, or what your children will come to be.
The primary concepts of American life will prevail because those that come here to stay will become influenced by our ways, and their children will be brought up with those ways. This is how it has always been. Our culture is speading to other countries as it is, so the idea that this culture won't take hold amongst those who actually live here and are raised in it is not very believable. The same things were said about the large waves of Italian and Irish immigrants. Yet our country is still here, and freedom is not dead.
I fail to see how your term "subculture" adds anything to this discussion.
I simply stated that you can belong to a subculture within general American culture, as a response to your comment about black Americans having different cultural attributes. I took your comment to mean that you felt black Americans weren't really a part of the overall American culture, since they had their own cultural history as well. My view is that they are, and that, in fact, there are further break downs of culture in the Black community, or any other ethnic or regional group - all existing within the overall culture group of America. In fact, America is comprised of countless different communities that form a larger community, the country as a whole. As a Southerner, I feel culturally different from someone from Maine - but no less an American.
As far as scholarly discussion goes - this is not a scholarly website by _any_ means. This is slashdot, and the "Games" section at that. I feel no need to name check authors who I admire to discuss a topic. Instead, I choose to discuss based on my own views, in plain terms, based on established facts, plain statistics and my own observations.
People in labor unions also tend to vote democrat. This indicates there is a "labor union culture", sure, but it doesn't mean that those in labor unions don't also partake in American culture, and believe in the American way of life. This is why the term "subculture" was coined. I would say that black America is a subculture of America, just as there are countless other subcultures.
In fact, I am no big expert on Black culture, but I would assume there were lots of different subcultures within black America... Just as there are different subcultures among America in general. There are definitely different subcultures in white America. I would say that it's impossible not to notice the cultural difference between, say, the South and New England. Or Texas and California. But both Southerners and New Englanders are indeed Americans, are they not?
And if you agree that blacks who were raised in America are culturally American, why won't children descended immigrants from other countries also become cultural American? Personally, I go months without even considering the fact that my grand-parents came from somewhere else.
Anyway, this is pretty elementary, well-known stuff. I fail to see predictions of how it will lead to "the death of freedom" as anything but gloom and doom predictions with little factual evidence to back them up. I also fail to see how our culture will be somehow lost, or our country rendered "non-Western".
People have been saying the exact sort of things you are for my whole life, and indeed, much, much longer. The reality? America is the strongest and most powerful nation in the world, and far more stable than any other superpower in history. We are also, in almost every way, a better country than at any point in our history.
Also, a further clarification : how is hispanic culture "non-Western"? Last time I checked, Spain was in Western Europe. Mexico is in North America. South America is in the Western hemisphere.
Just because the articles were written a day apart doesn't mean the interviews were a day apart.
It's also a lot easier to talk to a reporter in your hotel room then go on stage and address a huge crowd.
America is part of the West, is it not? I stated somewhere above that while what you stated may be true about Europe, it's NOT true about America. And if it's not true about America, your statement was either incorrect or too broad.
Since I specifically stated that I was talking about America, if you agree that I'm correct about America's place in your theory, then why didn't you say so instead of stretching this out over several posts.
My point is this : in regards to America at least, you have made several unfounded (or at least highly exaggerated) comments and backed them up with numbers that seem to be very inaccurate.
I'd further like to state you make a large mistake assuming that people's cultures and beliefs are somehow hard-coded based on where they come from. Yes, much of Africa is a "hell-hole", but would you argue that people of African descent who have resided here their entire lives are not Americans? It seems to me they are just as much a part of the "people and beliefs" as I am. In fact, many African-Americans' families have probably been in the country longer than mine (or at least half of mine, my mother's parents were immigrants).
Someone who has grown up here from birth, gone to American schools, watched American TV, hung out with American kids - they are an American, with an appreciation and understanding of the American way of life. No matter where their parents or grandparents came from.
I work in a workplace that is probably 80% black (I work at a school that has traditionally been attended mostly by African-Americans). The people I work with are no different from me - middle class people who worry about car payments, their kids' braces and schools, and who argue politics along the standard Democratic/Republican lines (or talk about American Idol). It doesn't matter that their great-great-grandparents came here from countries without democracy. They are no different from me, an American who doesn't even consider the fact that half of my bloodline is only two steps away from another country & culture.
First off, you actually read this discussion? I thought that I was just trolling back a troll here.
So, you _are_ trolling? I thought maybe you were. I'm not.
You've proven yourself wrong with that quote.
:
:
/.)
Quote 1 of yours
"The West has stopped having children."
Quote 2 of yours
"The American fertility rate is 2.08."
Obviously, if the American fertility rate is 2.08, then America has NOT stopped having children.
(Again, I've stated multiple times that I'm only talking about America.)
What does immigration and birth rates have to do with the "death of freedom"?
Once our civilization replaced by Hispanics is America, and Muslims in Europe, it will have many of the characteristics of those cultures. They do not seem to be very good at running free countires.
That's rubbish. The US was founded by people who came here from monarchies and/or non-Democratic countries. Yet, this country is not a monarchy.
Every single person here can trace their roots to a place with a different system of government, yet, here in America, they go by the American system. What evidence do you have that shows that American laws and politics will change?
Also, at times in the past there was greater immigration, and greater percentage of foreign-born citizens than now, and yet we still go by the Constitution and the same American values of freedom as we have since the inception of this country.
Thrasymachus: Now you accuse me of being negative towards Hispanic culture.
Indead: Where do I do that?
Thrasymachus: Why should that make me eager to have Hispanic culture replace my own culture? I'm an atheist for God's sake.
Indead: My comment was that you shouldn't look negatively on Hispanic culture... I assummed you would react at least somewhat positively to a culture that also embraces the morality that you say you would fight for.
Actually, the quote you pulled was an explanation of a quote from a few posts UP, not exactly "now".
Furthermore, I did not say you were looking negatively, I stated that you should not view it negatively, SINCE it shares many of the views you had previously been espousing. Two very very different things. You can offer a persausive comment to someone (such as "you shouldn't drink milk") without actually accusing them of engaging in that behavior, after all.
Since it seems that you STILL don't understand the comment, I'll go over it again - higher up in this thread you bemoaned that you wished there was more Christian morality in our culture, and then you further explained that you would "fight for" Christian morality. My comment was this : given that you want more Christian morality, why do you express worry about Hispanic culture, which also shares this same morality which you seem to espouse and have stated you would fight for?
Indead (misquoting himself):
That line was actually what's known in some circles as an "explanation". Note that there were no quotation marks surrounding it, nor was it in italics (the standard way to indicate a quotation on
This was before you declared that you don't care if a culture is Christian or not, since your an Atheist
When did I say this? Read carefully:
You said you would fight for Christian Morality, and that you wanted society to be limited by morality. You then pointed out how you feel more hispanic people is hurting, even destroying our culture, and destroying our freedom.
I pointed out that maybe this is a harsh view, since, after all, hispanic culture shares the exact same Christian morality that you espouse. You responded that you didn't care about that, since "I'm an atheist for God's sake."
Again, those views seem contradictory to me. Earlier you stated you supported America having Christian Morality. But then, when I said that the Christian aspect of Hispanic culture was something you might like, you declared that you didn't care about that, since you are an athiest.
Which is it? Do you want to fight for Christian Morality, or do you not ca
I am an atheist and I say similar things all the time. Just part of the general vocabulary.
I'm referring to a wide-spread appropriation of drug imagery and fetishization of the drugged-out look.
Again, you can claim that it doesn't exist, but it most certainly does.
For example, I know of a LOT of women who make remarks about how hot Ewan McGregor was in Trainspotting, where he plays a messed-up, emaciated junkie.
Similarly, look at the cover of the recently-released "Spun", about crystal meth addicts.
Or "Another Day In Paradise", a crime movie that spends much of it's screen time on explicit sex scenes between rail-thin young actors who are portraying junkies.
No matter what you may think, there is a segment of the populace which, for whatever reason, fetishizes drug use. Parts of popular culture, in many ways, takes this and runs with it.
I doubt it's just one movie.
Again, topic creep, and little to no responses to my points.
We were talking about replacement because of population decline. I brought up Japan because it was an example of a population that will not be replaced despite declining birth rate.
Why did you bring it up? America has a birth rate that is higher than replacement level. If we are talking about America (which is, as I said, is all I'm talking about), what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
You claim that we "were not talking about 'cultural pressure'. We were talking about birth rate."
Yet in the quote that started this discussion:
"In a hundred years, our current free society will have been completely replaced in a way far more thorough than the Roman Empire was replaced. The current freedom is already dead on its feet.
Why? Give me facts, not hyperbole. "
Sounds to me like we are talking about cultural replacement. So I brought up Japan to buttress my other points.
Except Japan, again, has nothing to do with the situation in America.
You say "our current free society will have been completely replaced" then you back that up by giving figures related to Japan?
The two don't seem to have much to do with each other. Perhaps Japan's "freedom will be dead on it's feet" because of their birth rate. The same can't be said of here, because the #s do not add up. Actually, even with the numbers - you haven't explained why "freedom will be dead on it's feet" no matter WHAT the numbers say. What does immigration and birth rates have to do with the "death of freedom"?
Now you accuse me of being negative towards Hispanic culture.
Where do I do that?
In fact, I made quite the opposite assumption : that you would approve of hispanic culture since earlier in the thread you said you would fight for a culture that had Christian morality. I assummed that meant that you would look well on Hispanic culture since it shares those value that you would fight for.
I asked you to expound about your statement, but you did not.
Moreover, please note that Christian morality is part of culture, not the entire culture, as I hardly thought that I needed to point out.
Before, you pointed out : "Christianity is the morality of the culture I was born in, however, and that's the one I'll fight for here."
This was before you declared that you don't care if a culture is Christian or not, since your an Atheist : two statements that seem to conflict, by the way.
As for the melting pot, it no longer exists... What we've got now is a salad bowl where no assimilation takes place.
This is untrue, based simply on my personal experience. I live in a very multicultural neighborhood in suburban Maryland. There are people from at least half a dozen different countries living here, in harmony, all shopping at the same grocery store, living right next to each other. Everyone here tends to their lawn, washes their cars, sends their kids to ride on the orange school bus, has cook-outs - all the things you do when you live in suburban America. It doesn't matter that we are all from different countries, we all live like normal American suburbanites. The melting pot still exists. I see it's effects every day.
You say American culture doesn't exist.
When did I say this? In fact, I never did. I said that I feel that immigration has no negative effect on "American Culture". I used the quotes because I don't think american culture is as rigid as you seem to. It has changed over time. It will continue to change. That's part of the strength of this country - adaptability.
But we're not a nation based on ideology - that's what the Soviet Union was.
We are most definitely a nation built on ideology. That's my view of the nation, at least, and the view of many, many others. Including our President.
I worded it badly however, so let me put it this way: Without f
Point out where I said Japan was the West, please.
I originally responded to your comment about the West's birth rate, disputing it's veracity. I even further commented that I was only knowledgable (and interested in discussing) the US specifically.
Then you responded with unrelated facts - like the birth rate in Japan.
Are we talking about the West, or are we talking about Japan?
It's impossible to coherently discuss a topic with someone who brings in unrelated facts, or has "topic creep", where the one item of discussion suddenly becomes all-encompassing.
Why? Hispanic culture is more strongly rooted in devout Christianity than the average European culture.
Why should that make me eager to have Hispanic culture replace my own culture? I'm an atheist for God's sake.
My comment was that you shouldn't look negatively on Hispanic culture, since Christian morality is a big part of Hispanic culture. Considering that, just a few posts up, you said "Christianity is the morality of the culture I was born in, however, and that's the one I'll fight for here", it seemed to be a sensible comment. I assummed you would react at least somewhat positively to a culture that also embraces the morality that you say you would fight for.
So, _would_ you fight for Christian morality? If so, why doesn't it make sense to assume you would be at least partially positive to a culture that shares in that same morality? If not, why did you say you would?
Please re-read my comment. Notice the words "birth rate ratio." Yes I am aware that the direct population ratio was entirely different, which is why I didn't say it. Funny how that works, me not having said something but you still attacking me for it.
You said, originally "The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America". This is flatly wrong. The immigration to birth ratio has been higher in the past.
Your numbers just don't add up. The Census Bureau states that less than a million people immigrate here every year. Yet, significantly more than a million will be born here each year. AND, according to the census bureau, the birth rate has been rising since the 70s.
In simple terms : More people were born here last year than the year before, but approximately the same amount immigrated each year. The amount of people born here in 2000 was approximately 4 times the amount of people who immigrated.
So, if the birth rate is rising, yet immigration holds steady, how can the birth to immigration ratio possibly be higher now than ever before? If the census bureau is correct, the birth to immigration ratio is more skewed towards birth THIS year than last, so there is no way your comment can be correct.
But you make another mistake about immigration between 1900-1910. A far greater percentage of that immigration was from European cultures -- so there was very little pressure on American culture. That is entirely different from today.
No, I did not make that mistake as we were not talking about "cultural pressure". We were talking about birth rates.
Your comment:
"The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America (since Columbus, that is)."
My comment:
"This is false. If I recall, peak immigration years were in 1900-1910."
Neither of those statements involve cultural pressure. Topic creep kicking in?
However, now that you have brought it up, I _also_ don't feel that people immigrating from other countries has any negative effect or pressure on "American culture", as America is, after all, a melting pot.
Now, when you say that "you can be any ethnicity and be an American," I certainly agree. So long as you share American culture. What sort of migration would be necessary, do you think, to replace American culture? And what about European culture?
Well, I have no clue what you are ta
From what I have heard, BMX XXX was censored on the Xbox and PS2. Not on the Gamecube, though.
Can't verify, as haven't have never played the game.
Dispute it if you must, but surely you remeber the 'heroin chic' fashion ads of the mid-to-late 90s? And countless drug movies that have come out? Drug use is definitely fetishized by some.
The American fertility rate is 2.08.
So how does that jibe with your comment that 'the west has stopped having babies'? Again, that's replacement level.
Japan has a worse rate than either.
Japan is the West all of the sudden? A minute ago you were talking about the west...
I don't have a problem with Hispanic culture. But I'm not eager to see it replace my own.
Why? Hispanic culture is more strongly rooted in devout Christianity than the average European culture.
The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America (since Columbus, that is). And we all know how much fun the natives had after Columbus.
This is false. If I recall, peak immigration years were in 1900-1910. During that decade, more than a million immigrants PER YEAR came into the country. Especially if you compare the lower population of the time, those numbers were FAR greater than now.
Also, during that period, appoximately 13% of the country was foreign born. Today, it's around 9%.
I've heard all this stuff before. In the 80s, they said that whites would be a minority by 2010. Didn't happen. And honestly, I don't care if it happens. American does NOT mean white, it means American. You can be any ethnicity and be an American. The same way you can have American morality (knowing the difference between right and wrong, loving freedom) and not be Christian.
I know you were being sarcastics, but you're still wrong. That has nothing to do with inception.
That does not mean that I would like to live in a society where people are not limited by tradition and morality.
Insert "my" in front morality, right? You don't want to live in a society that is not limited by _your_ morality.
The West has stopped having children.
This is pure BS. I am 26. Of my friend group, I know of easily half a dozen people who have had kids in the last year. The American fertility rate is 2.08. That's slightly above replacement level. (It may be less in Europe, but I don't pretend to know much about Europe)
In a hundred years, our current free society will have been completely replaced in a way far more thorough than the Roman Empire was replaced. The current freedom is already dead on its feet.
Why? Give me facts, not hyperbole.
It was also a bootleg - not made by Atari.
What does money have to do with it? Perhaps some of us "free individuals" simply ENJOY games such as GTA.
If you believe, as you say, "a free society allows individuals to choose", why do you seem so down on the choices some of us make?
Drug use is definitely stylized by some. Ever hang out at a rock club? You'll see lots of heroin chic.
Yeah, probably true... I've always read in the news that SCE was the major profit maker.
The New York Times, who I would judge to be a better analyst than either of us summed up the situation as thus :
"Sony Corp, Japan's second-largest consumer electronics maker, says profits plunged 98 percent in April-to-June quarter because of sliding revenue from company's movies, games and television sets; earns just 1.1 billion yen ($9 million) in quarter;"
So? Nintendo made $95 million last quarter, in profit. They are doing fine even if they aren't Sony-sized.
You do know that if the PlayStation died tomorrow, Sony could still make a bunch of money off of their other hardware and software sales.
Actually, it's widely known that the PS is what saved Sony from bankruptcy in the 90s.
Also, considering the fact that they only made 9.5 million last quarter, I wonder how big that "bunch" of money really is.
You do know that Nintendo had TEN TIMES the profit of Sony's last quarter, right?
Nintendo profits of $95 million
Sony's profits of $9.4 million
Nintendo is doing fine.
About the only place that the GameCube might be outselling the XBOX is Japan and this is due to jingoism more than anything else and I'm not sure even this is still true.
Jingoism and the fact that MS' idea of wooing Japanese gamers is to release un-adapted works of US games.