Political Crossfire Forums

[XiangYu]

Kumar wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: foadi wrote: this is the natural order. globalization has sparked the dawn of a new era. this era will be marked by crumbling empires and tribalization. the final result will be a shattered war-torn society composed of micronations plagued with massive wealth inequality. i for one look forward to this future. it cant come soon enough. the nation states of the world need to be destroyed. your time is running out.
Yes, globalization is making people cling onto their cultural and ethnic ties a lot more and they are now the most important part of their identity.
I think we are witnessing the tribalization in places like France with the 2005 riots. It is disconcerting to witness it to be honest.
However, unlike you I am not looking forward to this future.
The problem is that people have become afraid to speak out against multiculturalism for fear of being labelled racist. There are very real problems that exist due to large influxes of immigrants in various Western countries that must be solved. The present failure of mainstream parties in power is partly to blame for the rise of extremist groups vowing to deal with this neglected problem in their own way. Please elaborate, what extremist groups in Canada are you talking about??

[Kumar]

TwinkieDP wrote: Kumar wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: foadi wrote: this is the natural order. globalization has sparked the dawn of a new era. this era will be marked by crumbling empires and tribalization. the final result will be a shattered war-torn society composed of micronations plagued with massive wealth inequality. i for one look forward to this future. it cant come soon enough. the nation states of the world need to be destroyed. your time is running out.
Yes, globalization is making people cling onto their cultural and ethnic ties a lot more and they are now the most important part of their identity.
I think we are witnessing the tribalization in places like France with the 2005 riots. It is disconcerting to witness it to be honest.
However, unlike you I am not looking forward to this future.
The problem is that people have become afraid to speak out against multiculturalism for fear of being labelled racist. There are very real problems that exist due to large influxes of immigrants in various Western countries that must be solved. The present failure of mainstream parties in power is partly to blame for the rise of extremist groups vowing to deal with this neglected problem in their own way. Please elaborate, what extremist groups in Canada are you talking about??
I was referring mostly to Europe.

[LostSoul3412]

Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: What's wrong with people choosing to live where it is most comfortable for them?
They can live wherever they want. The problem arises when it leads to a refusal to integrate. I live in Toronto, where there is a very large immigrant population. Some groups of immigrants just don't adapt as well to their new country as others, and this is in part because they live in large neighbourhoods that have come to be thoroughly dominated by a particular ethnic group. They see themselves as separate from those around them and often even look down upon white Canadians and other ethnic groups. It's almost like tribalism.

So?

[patrickt]

New immigrants cluster together for comfort. Moving to a new country is a terrifying event. This situation exists for a generation. Then the kids start moving out just like kids everywhere.

It's not unlike people who are thrown into a big banquet hall with 500 strangers. They usually seek out people who look like them, are their age, or appear to have something in common with each other. If there are two people in the 500 with facial piercings I guarantee they'll find each other.

[ieatfood]

Kumar wrote: ieatfood wrote: I hate to break it to you, but Canada is a fairly boring country as it is. Ethnic diversity is one the elements that might help break the boredom. If you like boring places, just look at all the Canadian land around Toronto. It's all ethnically the same boring white culture. I guess that's how you like it.
That's nonsense. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with excitement and it creates more problems than it solves.

perhaps you are not excited by diversity, but i am
i live in new york--one of the most diverse cities in the world
it is a great place to live and i wouldnt want to live anywhere else

anytime i goto another city, i think--how boring
in new york, i can go out at 4am and get food from all over the world by walking just a couple of blocks. there aren't a lot of cities than can boast that kind of diversity. Immigrants are the reason why New York is the restaurant capital of the world. The cuisine alone is worth it.

and what are the "problems" with multiculturalism??? You have yet to mention even one. SOunds like you're just pissed because your culture is no longer as dominant as it once was.

[mendosan]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Mare Tranquillity wrote: It leads to Balkanization in many instances, which includes turf battles arising at the boundaries of these ethnic enclaves as they gradually expand and come into contact with other expanding enclaves. Just like the Balkans but on a somewhat smaller scale.

Kumar wrote: They can live wherever they want. The problem arises when it leads to a refusal to integrate. I live in Toronto, where there is a very large immigrant population. Some groups of immigrants just don't adapt as well to their new country as others, and this is in part because they live in large neighbourhoods that have come to be thoroughly dominated by a particular ethnic group. They see themselves as separate from those around them and often even look down upon white Canadians and other ethnic groups. It's almost like tribalism.

If I may add to these two posts, another problem that arises from this phenomenon is that politics will become an ethnic based politics, which will divide the country and make it dysfunctional at times.

Not only that but its harder to get a good education and good jobs if people cling to little territories in big metropolises.

[LostSoul3412]

If people choose to live in micro-communities, then what's the problem?

If they choose to cling to their culture, then what's the problem?

So long as there is choice, there is no problem.

If they are forced to integrate, then there is a problem.

[Kumar]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: What's wrong with people choosing to live where it is most comfortable for them?
They can live wherever they want. The problem arises when it leads to a refusal to integrate. I live in Toronto, where there is a very large immigrant population. Some groups of immigrants just don't adapt as well to their new country as others, and this is in part because they live in large neighbourhoods that have come to be thoroughly dominated by a particular ethnic group. They see themselves as separate from those around them and often even look down upon white Canadians and other ethnic groups. It's almost like tribalism.

So?
There's little I can do if you fail to see a problem with society dividing into factions that regard others with contempt and have nothing positive to say about the country they have immigrated to. I personally favour a more inclusive and stable society.

Some people are so obsessed with excessive idealism of "liberty" that they ignore very real consequences of allowing serious problems to fester.

[Babylon_Horuv]

foadi wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: foadi wrote: i fully support these communities and hope they break off into their own little micronations. Toronto needs to be broken up into 1,000+ city-state. How would u do that??
Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong will show the path.

From Snow Crash?

[Babylon_Horuv]

ieatfood wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: It always irritates me to see ethnic neighborhoods where the majority of the people in a neighborhood are from one part of the world or from one ethnicity. For example, I was in Toronto and there is the China town, little Tehran, little Italy, little Seoul, Greek Town, Jewish neighborhood, little somalia, etc etc ... When you walk in these places, I see people living as if they are in another country. They can't even speak English nor have any interest in interacting with "foreigners".

I don't understand to be honest. Why do people move to a new country if they just want to live as if they were living in their old country? Do you think there should be any laws about these places such as requiring these people to learn English?


I found an interesting site about the ethnic make up:

http://www.walkingaround.com/

are you kidding?
that's what makes a city cool--the fact that you have so many different places you can go and enjoy cultures from around the world

embrace the fact that you can get a little bit of china, of italy, of israel, of greece, without ever getting on a plane. Diversity makes a city worth living in. Who the hell wants to see the same culture everywhere?? Boring as hell.

I hate to break it to you, but Canada is a fairly boring country as it is. Ethnic diversity is one the elements that might help break the boredom. If you like boring places, just look at all the Canadian land around Toronto. It's all ethnically the same boring white culture. I guess that's how you like it.

I agree, being able to experience a diversity of cultures is one of my favorite things in a city. It has also been going on for a long time. Little Italy is an example, and yet Italian people have integrated as a very normal part of American Society.

[LostSoul3412]

Kumar wrote: There's little I can do if you fail to see a problem with society dividing into factions that regard others with contempt and have nothing positive to say about the country they have immigrated to. I personally favour a more inclusive and stable society.

If that's what people choose, that's what people choose. You cannot force someone to be inclusive, and you cannot force someone accept their country.

Kumar wrote: Some people are so obsessed with excessive idealism of "liberty" that they ignore very real consequences of allowing serious problems to fester.

Such as what?

The only consequence of society is crime.

[ieatfood]

Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: What's wrong with people choosing to live where it is most comfortable for them?
They can live wherever they want. The problem arises when it leads to a refusal to integrate. I live in Toronto, where there is a very large immigrant population. Some groups of immigrants just don't adapt as well to their new country as others, and this is in part because they live in large neighbourhoods that have come to be thoroughly dominated by a particular ethnic group. They see themselves as separate from those around them and often even look down upon white Canadians and other ethnic groups. It's almost like tribalism.

So?
There's little I can do if you fail to see a problem with society dividing into factions that regard others with contempt and have nothing positive to say about the country they have immigrated to. I personally favour a more inclusive and stable society.

Some people are so obsessed with excessive idealism of "liberty" that they ignore very real consequences of allowing serious problems to fester.

I don't see what your problem is. THe US has long been the world's leader in diversity and that has allowed the US to become the world's superpower. Countries that are less diverse are not doing as well when you look around the world. It looks like your "no diversity" theory is not supported by the available evidence.

Diversity is good for countries socially, economically, and politically. And what are the consequences of allowing diversity to "fester?" If you look in the US, the consequences seem to be economic wealth and political and military hegemony. I happen to like those consequences.

[Kumar]

ieatfood wrote:
I don't see what your problem is. THe US has long been the world's leader in diversity and that has allowed the US to become the world's superpower. Countries that are less diverse are not doing as well when you look around the world. It looks like your "no diversity" theory is not supported by the available evidence.
What is this evidence you speak of? You merely stated that the US is one of the world's most diverse nations and attribute that to success. You go on to state that a lack of diversity equates to a lack of success. Arbitrarily linking two things together without support does not make it evidence.

Quote: Diversity is good for countries socially, economically, and politically. And what are the consequences of allowing diversity to "fester?" If you look in the US, the consequences seem to be economic wealth and political and military hegemony. I happen to like those consequences.
It's rather silly and horribly simplistic to attribute a dominant position in the world to ethnic diversity. Reality also does not support your claims. Some of the most successful nations in the world are overwhelmingly homogeneous. I am referring to countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Not only are they culturally homogeneous, but there is a great deal of equality economically and socially. This makes for a very stable and secure population that can be easily (and efficiently) governed and minimizes internal strife. Compare this to, say, France, which has a large, isolated underclass due to the inability (for both personal and institutional reasons) of primarily North African and Middle Eastern immigrants to integrate into French society. This creates a combustible situation that can easily ignite, as it did in the French riots.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating elements of cultures that others bring to their new country. There is something very wrong with tolerating or even encouraging various forms of segregation and balkanization. It's just moronic.

[ieatfood]

Kumar wrote: ieatfood wrote:
I don't see what your problem is. THe US has long been the world's leader in diversity and that has allowed the US to become the world's superpower. Countries that are less diverse are not doing as well when you look around the world. It looks like your "no diversity" theory is not supported by the available evidence.
What is this evidence you speak of? You merely stated that the US is one of the world's most diverse nations and attribute that to success. You go on to state that a lack of diversity equates to a lack of success. Arbitrarily linking two things together without support does not make it evidence.

Quote: Diversity is good for countries socially, economically, and politically. And what are the consequences of allowing diversity to "fester?" If you look in the US, the consequences seem to be economic wealth and political and military hegemony. I happen to like those consequences.
It's rather silly and horribly simplistic to attribute a dominant position in the world to ethnic diversity. Reality also does not support your claims. Some of the most successful nations in the world are overwhelmingly homogeneous. I am referring to countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Not only are they culturally homogeneous, but there is a great deal of equality economically and socially. This makes for a very stable and secure population that can be easily (and efficiently) governed and minimizes internal strife. Compare this to, say, France, which has a large, isolated underclass due to the inability (for both personal and institutional reasons) of primarily North African and Middle Eastern immigrants to integrate into French society. This creates a combustible situation that can easily ignite, as it did in the French riots.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating elements of cultures that others bring to their new country. There is something very wrong with tolerating or even encouraging various forms of segregation and balkanization. It's just moronic.

well here, you are, saying that you cannot arbitrarily link diversity to success and then you go ahead and arbitrarily link a lack of diversity to success. Talk about hypocrisy. In any case, I would hardly consider sweden and finland even comparable to france and certainly not comparable to the US. Finland and sweden are small enough to be considered large cities. France is a city-state. THe US is an empire. Conditions that are attainable for a city are not necessarily attainable for a city-state and certainly not an empire.

As for France's failure, it has more to do with retarded socialist policies than anything else. Their slow economy and rocketing unemployment is largely due to bad economic policy and has nothing to do with immigration. For example, New York has tons more diversity than France and yet, we don't have record unemployment, or riots. In fact, New york is one of the safest large cities in the US. It seems your theory has been disproven.

[foadi]

ieatfood wrote: Finland and sweden are small enough to be considered large cities. France is a city-state. THe US is an empire. Conditions that are attainable for a city are not necessarily attainable for a city-state and certainly not an empire.
What in the hell? France is as big as Texas and has three times the population. Sweden and Finland are also big. Do you even know where France is, man?

ieatfood wrote: For example, New York has tons more diversity than France and yet, we don't have record unemployment, or riots. In fact, New york is one of the safest large cities in the US. It seems your theory has been disproven.
Stop using NYC as an example of diversity. NYC might seem diverse to you Americans, but cities like Toronto and Dubai are lightyears ahead of it. Further, NYC is not the restaurant capital of the world. Las Vegas has more restaurants per capita by a factor of two, whereas NYC is only slightly ahead of cities like San Francisco and London.

[foadi]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: foadi wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: foadi wrote: i fully support these communities and hope they break off into their own little micronations. Toronto needs to be broken up into 1,000+ city-state. How would u do that??
Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong will show the path.

From Snow Crash?
yes

[ieatfood]

foadi wrote: ieatfood wrote: Finland and sweden are small enough to be considered large cities. France is a city-state. THe US is an empire. Conditions that are attainable for a city are not necessarily attainable for a city-state and certainly not an empire.
What in the hell? France is as big as Texas and has three times the population. Sweden and Finland are also big. Do you even know where France is, man?

populationwise, sweden is about the size of new york city
finland, a lot smaller than new york city--maybe like one of the boroughs of new york

populationwise, france would be comparable to a state, albeit a very large state in the US, hence making it a city-STATE

the US is an empire, composed of multiple city-states. Did i not make myself clear?

foadi wrote:
Stop using NYC as an example of diversity. NYC might seem diverse to you Americans, but cities like Toronto and Dubai are lightyears ahead of it. Further, NYC is not the restaurant capital of the world. Las Vegas has more restaurants per capita by a factor of two, whereas NYC is only slightly ahead of cities like San Francisco and London.

Las Vegas does not have the diversity of restaurants that new york does. This is a thread about diversity after all. As for lack of new york diversity, i'd invite you to visit some time and see just how diverse it is. Despite your hatred of all things diverse, new york seems to be doing very well, thank you. You're just pissed that you've been proven wrong.

[XiangYu]

ieatfood wrote: foadi wrote: ieatfood wrote: Finland and sweden are small enough to be considered large cities. France is a city-state. THe US is an empire. Conditions that are attainable for a city are not necessarily attainable for a city-state and certainly not an empire.
What in the hell? France is as big as Texas and has three times the population. Sweden and Finland are also big. Do you even know where France is, man?

populationwise, sweden is about the size of new york city
finland, a lot smaller than new york city--maybe like one of the boroughs of new york

populationwise, france would be comparable to a state, albeit a very large state in the US, hence making it a city-STATE

the US is an empire, composed of multiple city-states. Did i not make myself clear? Hmm, you are right about those statistics. Sweden Population ~ 9 Mill, NYC Population ~ 8 Mill, Finland Population ~ 5 Mill.
About the USA being an empire of multiple city-states, if you multiply the population of the USA by 4 X, you have China... :shock:

[Kumar]

ieatfood wrote:
perhaps you are not excited by diversity, but i am
i live in new york--one of the most diverse cities in the world
it is a great place to live and i wouldnt want to live anywhere else

anytime i goto another city, i think--how boring
in new york, i can go out at 4am and get food from all over the world by walking just a couple of blocks. there aren't a lot of cities than can boast that kind of diversity. Immigrants are the reason why New York is the restaurant capital of the world. The cuisine alone is worth it.
You don't have to lecture me on the benefits of living in an area with many cultures. I live in one of the most diverse metropolises in the world. That being said, I fail to see why people seem to keep bringing it back to food. That has nothing to do with discouraging segregation.

Quote: and what are the "problems" with multiculturalism??? You have yet to mention even one.
I believe I have been more than clear.

Quote: SOunds like you're just pissed because your culture is no longer as dominant as it once was.
What is my culture?

[XiangYu]

Show of hands here, who thinks Kumar is a whitewashed Indian immigrant? :hi: