Because people fear having their culture and race replaced by immigrants. Even if they're not overtly racist, few people wish to become a minority in "their own country."
The US is famously a melting pot, and yet we still have a bunch of descendants of white immigrants from Europe who fear that South Americans will take over; that Mexican culture will replace good old-fashioned hodge-podge Western European culture. That their language will become less dominant. That they'll find themselves strangers in their own country.
It's usually an indistinct fear. It seems obvious from the verbiage in the dog-whistles, but white European immigrant descendants don't want to become second-class.
Now, if we treated our own minorities well, they wouldn't be so afraid. They wouldn't be afraid that they'd be the ones with Hispanic cops kneeling on their necks; or that Hispanic immigrants would be living in giant homes and they'd themselves be the ones having to eak out a living as seasonal workers.
I think it's not despicable to want to preserve your cultural heritage, your cultural language, and to have your country legislated with the values you grew up with; but people react poorly when they think it's happening.
What I most despise in the Republicans in the US is that they're advocating for preserving cultural values that never existed broadly in the US. The closest subculture to what they're pushing is a return to the Confederate South: religion, and white supremacy. The Confederates got their asses handed to them, but the racist fuckers never gave up their values, most most Americans are blind to what their real agenda is. And they've been good insurgents, cleverly taking advantage of weak areas in our democracy to return power to a minority: themselves. It's been said and it's true: if America was a true democracy and we selected leaders by popular vote, no Republican under their current platform would ever be president again.
Anyway, getting back to your question: immigrants bring their own culture with them, and very few completely abandon it and adopt the culture and language of their new country. This dilutes the host country's native culture, and people are afraid of that. In the US, it's the highest form of hypocrisy, because our native culture displaced the indigenous culture, and now we're afraid of someone else doing the same to us.
I agree with everything up until you said “dilutes”. I would argue that immigrant cultures don’t dilute the host country’s culture, they add to it. In other words, the culture that was there still exists in the same amount and in the same “concentration”, and immigrants bring their culture to newly developing areas of the country/state.
framing is important though. Nobody considers a cocktail 'diluted' even if that's technically applicable, the resultant mixture usually improves the beverage.
But the fear isn't so rational. It's like a fear that the cocktail in your example will replace the original vodka whether they want the cocktail or not, or that the vodka will be so diluted by seltzer that it will functionally cease to exist.
It's like a fear of gentrification of the country as a whole.
It's also important to remember that the US is a huge exception in this regard as well. Most other countries are like 90%+ native population, and immigrant populations tend to be sort of isolated from the wider national culture due to things like language barriers, and they often set up little "bastions" of their native culture locally wherever they live. We even see plenty of that in the US as well. While there are many distinctly US cultures across the country that are derived from a variety of backgrounds, there are tons of "enclaves" of European culture that make it blatantly clear where immigrants from certain countries settled. In Boston, the culture of Chinatown is distinctly unique and separate from the wider culture of the city, which largely has ties back to Ireland (and is very proud of it). And both of those are distinctly different from where the Italian immigrants settled, who effectively have their own districts of cultures descended from Italy regardless of where they immigrated to.
The word has negative connotations, but I stand by it. I an not saying there result isn't stronger, but if you extend cultural mixing out to the maximum - say humans and the planet survives another thousand years, and global travel is no harder than traveling to the next town over - what you end up with is homogeneity, and this would be sad, I think. Imagine it: the entire world speaking some pidgin derivative mashup of Mandarin, English, and Hindi, with essentially the same culture everywhere on the planet. Just as has already happened, languages are lost, because nobody speaks them natively anymore. All that's left of the original cultures are some UNESCO sites and preserved old movies. I can't say the world wouldn't be stronger for it, but in the process, something irrecoverable is lost.
Definitely agree with your points but maybe “dilutes”. Isn’t the right term. I don’t think they’re worried about their culture being “watered down” or “thinner”, but replaced.
I had a recent conversation with my brother that fits here. We grew up the same, but he became more conservative and moved to a conservative area, or maybe I became more liberal and moved to a liberal area. I’ve been exploring cooking, and actually this has been several conversations where I’m excited over learning about preparing a different cuisine, being able to appreciate what that brings, and he responds with “why can’t you make regular American food?” “Diluting” the cuisine we grew up with would be to use salsa instead of ketchup or mayo. But I have entire meals replaced with new and different. I have a much bigger spice cupboard full of new and different. I make meals that he doesn’t understand, doesn’t know how to prepare, so he gets defensive about what he is comfortable with being replaced
The difference is US culture is bland and stupid. Its con artists, police and shitty corporate bullshit. In fact the last time the US lost a major cultural element it was slavery. I think its about time ditch some more bullshit. The con artists need to be tried for fraud, the police need to be disarmed, the supreme court dismantled and the corporations razed.
Because salad is boring and fat-shaming is the last kind of bullying still considered acceptable.
I was out on my bike the other day and someone yelled "YOU FAT BASTARD". Fortunately I'm pretty thick skinned and have lined up a few choice remarks for next time.
Imagine if fat had been replaced with black, or Chinese, or gay, etc. They'd be in jail for committing a hate crime quicker than I could get to the nearest Greggs.
But being fat is not the same as being black. People do not get sick and die 30 years earlier because they are black, for instance. People are black not because they ignore physical exercises and eat too much. I don't support bullying, but acting like this is a normal condition that we should cherish is wrong.
People do die 30 years earlier because they're black - thats often how racism works...
Imo how do we know what "normal" is and has that been the case for the last 1000 years? The Japanese have employed sumo wrestlers to serve in a sport, for instance. I think its fair to say fat shaming is a more modern phenomena that's occurred more recently as high calorie low nutrition food became mass produced and microplastics have accumulated in all our bodies.
Did you equate health issues caused by lack of physical activity and excessive eating to racism? I can't even... Okay, if you want to ignore all the medical and scientific evidence, ignore them. It is your body and you are the one to face the consequences.
This was in a conversation about what kind of abusive behavior is acceptable. Do you think it's also acceptable to be mean to athletes because they too cause damage to their own bodies?
look you guys gotta understand that women's orgasm is a bit different. We can have amazing sex and not orgasm and it's ok. A woman can orgasm without even touching herself, that's how "in the head" we are. Its good either way. If you really want to make her cum try oral.
I've had a penis since birth and I can still have amazing sex without orgasming. For me it's more a matter of habit. When I started having sex, I wanted to orgasm every time. As I got more experienced, I started enjoying all the other stuff in sex more, and I regularly have sex with my partner without orgasming - most of my orgasms now come from masturbation.
Philanthropy is just the wealthy justifying their tax avoidance by wanking publically about how giving they are. If they were genuine about their concerns for giving back, they would pay their fucking taxes and at a higher rate.
Tax avoidance and financial shit fuckery like corporate bailouts, share buy backs and COVID payments accelerate wealth acruell and drive up inflation and wage stagnation.
Fuck. Them. All.
To decide if the list of trumps illegal actions are considered official like social media posts. Now that the rule is set to protect anything official Biden only has to put it on white house stationary to make any action legal.
Okay so in that case what Biden could do is go ahead and execute all of his political opponents and then if the lower court returns that the ruling of the supreme Court is unconstitutional than the new supreme Court can decide whether or not to uphold that.
I would have agreed once; but I know about the SCP Wiki. Literally a creative hive mind. If you don't know what it is: It's a collection of fiction that is derived from an entire community writing, editing, and voting for things into and out of the overall lore.
Xenophobia and racism, mostly. And yes, it's a solution to the aging demographic crisis many countries face (at least in the medium-term).
I remember seeing a video of a presentation back in the Bush years by some neo-con group that advocated for immigration to Pentagon or DoD officials or something. The argument for immigration was mostly the same: we have an aging population, so we could integrate immigrants (who are statistically younger) to solve this issue. I didn't agree much with the broader idea of the presentation though. The broader idea was that there were still some parts of the world not a part of the global U.S.-led hegemony (mostly the middle-east and Africa), and we must spread democracy and capitalism to them. The argument was that globalism/capitalism ensures peace, and that both WWI and WWII happened because globalism was falling apart shortly before those wars. So, to ensure world peace, we need to globalize the entire earth and bring all countries into the the U.S.-led hegemony, even if that means starting wars to spread democracy, lol.
not every country can encourage significant immigration
even developing countries have a rapidly dropping birth rate
Some countries, maybe like Japan and South Korea, have low birth rates and a history of discouraging immigration. I’d argue it’s too late for them: you can’t suddenly develop and support a large wave of immigration, especially when most developing populations are doing better, most are seeing lower birth rates. They have a lot of work to do and little chance of succeeding
Other countries, notably China, have a rapidly declining birth and already see the impact, so are just going to discourage emigration. The supply of immigrants will quickly dry up (except refugees)
So for example, the US has a history of significant immigration. We’re already in the scenario of insufficient birth rate to sustain our population but sufficient immigration to keep growing. Maybe I don’t know enough about other countries or I’m falling to some sort of exceptionalism, but to me this boils down to why doesn’t US encourage immigration. We have the easy case: if we can’t figure it out, how can we expect anyone else to.
Showerthoughts
Active
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).