Re: Immigration issues (Re: Evolutionary ethics)


"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someonelse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:v5Nkf.596787$x96.86645@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dm32b8$2ki$00$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > Maybe it's easier to lead small sized societies to wealth than huge
> > countries. It's easier to gain control over a limited number of
citizens,
> > and press them for discipline. Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg or
Vatican
> > come to my mind. All tiny nations, all quite prosperous, like Singapore
> > or - at least until it was given back to China - Hong Kong.
> > But some of them have some favourable special status, so it might not
only
> > be size which matters.

> While it is easier to lead (or force) small societies, it is very
difficult
> to control (either by force or good leadership) a highly literate society.

You mean - because illiterates are GENERALLY easier to control?

> It should be noted, however, that most of these small states are
democracies
> of some form or another rather than outright tyrannies. Additionally, they
> all have rather high per capita incomes and a substantial middle class.
Hong
> Kong being the exception to all of that. There's always some fly in the
> ointment when we begin talking about socio-political issues.

Hehe. Yes, most of these states are wealthy, and often this is by their
position on the financial market - I consider them as cities with some hens
which are laying golden eggs.

> > Exactly. Maybe the North African immigrants' reluctance to assimilate
and
> > the misplanned housing projects of the French government are two
DISTINCT
> > problems. But together they are fatal.

> Now that you've put it that clearly, it seems you may have an excellent
> observation. Perhaps Machiavelli was correct -- disperse the conquered
> people throughout your domain, do not allow them to aggregate, force them
to
> accept your language and culture, and dissidence will subside to
manageable
> levels. Putting a whole lot of "others" into one pot together, deprive
them
> of opportunity, and they become a maddening crowd.

I wonder - was Machiavelli so much ahead of his time, or is it that nothing
much has changed about the ruling patterns of societies?

> > That's something to be learned by other nations which have to deal with
> > large numbers of immigrants. Alas, some nationalistic animosities stand
in
> > the way of learning from each other. Most sovereign states prefer to
> > invent the wheel anew on their own. :-))
> > And then, it might make a difference WHERE the immigrants are coming
from.
> > Asian immigrants seem to cause less troubles and adapt lightly
EVERYWHERE
> > they immigrate.

> Well, Sylvia, I would not go quite that far that quickly. Thousands of
> Chinese immigrated to the US in the mid-1800s but did not assimilate into
> the society for almost a hundred years. They gathered into tight little
> communities in a handful of cities and stayed within themselves throughout
> that whole time. They did not adapt or assimilate easily or readily,
partly
> by choice partly by exclusion. However, given their Confucian culture, one
> should not be surprised that they were not anywhere near so violent as
later
> groups of immigrants.

I probably didn't think of these early Chinese immigrants because they never
appeared as trouble-makers. Maybe it's their Confucian culture, but if I'm
not mistaken, the same happened with other Asian immigrants. Filipinos,
Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese etc. Although some of them gather in bigger
amounts, they don't pose a problem or a threat, although most of them are
NOT Confucians.

> > I think it makes a difference whether someone immigrates to the USA to
> > escape torture and suppression in his home country. Those immigrants
will
> > probably be grateful to live in a land where they are free from
> > persecution,
> > and they will gratefully take the opportunity which a tolerant
democratic
> > country like the USA provides.
> > Those who immigrate only for economic reasons rather have a "bazaar
> > mentality" - they take whatever they can get without an obligation to
show
> > any gratefulness.

> That seems to be the case. It is, howver, making a mess of things here,
and
> I fear that some of my countrymen may decide that failure to assimilate
> should lead to expulsion. I fear that because the constant high level of
> immigration has kept our democracy from stultifying into dictatorship or
> decaying into chaos (as has happened to democracies since time immemorial;
> and as Plato pointed out they would). If we cut off the influx of
motivated
> immigrants, we may grow our own doom as a unique society and culture.

An interesting thought - I admit that I never considered the ADVANTAGES of
high levels of immigration in other but economical terms. Thanks for leading
me to this more socio-political aspect of it!

> > Those who were born into a world of wealth and freedom will take it for
> > granted, because they never felt the hardships of a life under worse
> > conditions.
> > In Germany, it's the same. Many Germans of my (post-war) generation
often
> > complain about the most tiny kind of hardship, as if wealth and pleasure
> > were God-given rights. The older generation who sufferd hunger and loss
of
> > all their properties during WW2 often are more in agreement with what
they
> > have.
> > Again, a two weeks stay in a Third World country could sometimes make
> > those prosperity kids get aware that they should better appreciate what
they
> > have.

> And it is for just that reason that I have advocated mandatory national
> service. All the young people should have the opportunity either to work
> amongst the poorest, within the third world countries, or AS the poorest
in
> order to understand the blessings they have received from their forebears.

Right, if not living abroad, it could as well be service in a different
social class to make young people aware of the blessings of their status
quo.

> Given your observation, let me note that amongst the Germans I came to
know:
> those who were adults during WWII, most of them bore ill feelings towards
> Americans; their children, however, were (with some exceptions) welcoming
> of and friendly towards Americans; the grandchildren, on the other hand,
> tended to be seriously anti-American.

This comes as no surprise - those who were adults during WWII had been
indoctrinated with nationalistic (and therefore anti-american etc) ideas in
their formative years. For them it was very difficult to change their
attitude, because this would have meant giving up almost EVERYTHING they had
believed in until then.
For the younger ones it was easier to re-write their consciousness and their
attitude towards foreign nations. They often linked Americans with POSITIVE
things - the post-war care packages, the chocolate given to the kids, the
end of the war.
Then those post-war kids (like me) grew up while Americans were seen as the
occupying power and imposing culture, whether it was rightful or not.

> I am reminded of a sign seen in Manila harbor as the last American troops
> were pulling out. As the boat left the dock, there were throngs of
> Phillippinos demonstrating against America. Among the many signs was one
> that a young man was holding, "Yankee go home! and take me with you!"

LOL, this is so specifically Filipino! Their ambivalence between admiration
and aversion towards Americans is probably even bigger than the German
ambivalence.
BTW - have you been in the Philippines back then? Tell me ALL about it! The
Filipinos are my favorite ethnicity, I *LOVE* them!! :-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Brink has thick nippled tits!
    ... Americans have been complaining about the current wave of immigrants ... I'm not advocating driving illegals anywhere; ... How is this different from forcing them from the country at gunpoint? ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: Welcome, welcome, emigrante,
    ... To my country, welcome home. ... Which would have implied some kind of undocumented immigrants. ... Why do you limit this to white Americans? ... I wouldn't fly the US flag in another country. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: OT| Rush Limbaugh BREAKING NEWS/mexican content
    ... He damn sure meant all americans. ... immigrants to work legally and at a fair wage - like everyone else. ... This isn't their country. ... It has been all over the news about the cost of treating illegal's. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • I fear for my country and my people.
    ... We have a new fear that I don't believe many AMERICANS realize. ... The 20 MILLION illegal's in our country will quickly rise to ... Hispanic immigrants in America by 2050. ... numbers due to new laws that are about to be passed. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • I fear for my country and my people.
    ... We have a new fear that I don't believe many AMERICANS realize. ... The 20 MILLION illegal's in our country will quickly rise to ... Hispanic immigrants in America by 2050. ... numbers due to new laws that are about to be passed. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)