posted
So I've been re-reading the Shadow series in which Card seems to put forth the idea that, to one degree or another, our purpose is to have children in order to continue the species. In fact, I just finished the part in Shadow Puppets where Anton convinces Bean to have children.
I did agree with the ideas Anton put forth to a point. It does seem to be basic human nature to connect with humanity and invest in it. Hormones even ensure that most of us are interested in mating. But the idea that we need to seek out someone of the opposite gender and have babies with them, that this is somehow our purpose...not so much.
I couldn't help but notice that in the book they never even considered using birth control and adopting. This struck me as odd. For surely if the point of having children is to attend to the next generation, then there are a number of ways to do so by proxy.
So why do we have children? And is that our purpose in life or is there something else?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, having children is a central tenet in the LDS church. I am not a member so won't presume to go into the explanation of why that is such an important part of their faith, but it is much deeper than hormones, or out-producing those demonic Catholics.
In several of Mr. Card's books he promotes this LDS value, trying to wind it into a plot point. It comes off a lot less preachy than such philosophy handled by others. I want to call it an Apology for LDS family beliefs, but I don't want people to misconstrue the word Apology. I mean it in the technical term--a written defense of a philosophy, religious, or political position.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although that is the technical meaning, there's a reason "apologia" has a bad name. Historically it has been associated with the worst sort of bad logic, non sequiturs, cherry-picking, strawmanship, casuistry, and wilful ignoring of contrary arguments.
As for the purpose of life: If genes were conscious, they would indeed tell us that they created us to propagate them. Since they are not human, we are entirely at liberty to ignore them and find our own meaning.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In several of Mr. Card's books he promotes this LDS value, trying to wind it into a plot point. It comes off a lot less preachy than such philosophy handled by others. I want to call it an Apology for LDS family beliefs, but I don't want people to misconstrue the word Apology.
I don't know how purposeful it is. His actual Mormon allegories aside, I would say that OSC's books are based largely on a Mormon value system only because that's what OSC believes in himself. It's difficult to write a hero that you honestly believe in without having him behave in a manner consistent with what you consider to be moral truth. And it's harder to have a character in your novel spouting wisdom that flies in the face of what you believe is wise.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: In several of Mr. Card's books he promotes this LDS value, trying to wind it into a plot point. It comes off a lot less preachy than such philosophy handled by others. I want to call it an Apology for LDS family beliefs, but I don't want people to misconstrue the word Apology.
I don't know how purposeful it is. His actual Mormon allegories aside, I would say that OSC's books are based largely on a Mormon value system only because that's what OSC believes in himself. It's difficult to write a hero that you honestly believe in without having him behave in a manner consistent with what you consider to be moral truth. And it's harder to have a character in your novel spouting wisdom that flies in the face of what you believe is wise.
Hes also very good at depicting sympathetic villains to who don't nessasarily agree with Card's beliefs.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's what annoyed me about those books so much. I can't help thinking that just having babies to have babies without thinking about it is part of some of the worse problems in the world! It's the main cause! Folks have kids and pass this abusive nonsense that is ingrained in our culture down to them without thinking about why they want kids or figuring out how to avoid doing that... That has a worse impact on society than anything else. If kids are abused, neglected or even don't get enough of the compassion and care they need as kids they seek it out in other ways through drugs, eating disorders, bad relationships, cults, you name it. It's probably a route of all the worse problem's in society. Just read Inventing the Child and various Alice Miller books. She's so right. It's the truth.
Plus notice OS-Anton doesn't talk about love. He talks about women like they are this multi-tentacled shoe obsessed alien. I want babies very badly, but how is healthy to just end up with a man JUST to have babies? Kids learn about love and trust from their parents right? So shouldn't their parents at least love each other. Note that OSC agrees with that Just Marry Him article too...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont like being the one that does this, because we all make typos, but its species not speacies.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, I can find no mistake in your correction of the correction, fugu. Have you just falsified Davidson's Law? *boggles*
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hes also very good at depicting sympathetic villains to who don't nessasarily agree with Card's beliefs.
There's a pretty big difference between being able to sympathize with a character and wanting him to win.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did put the period outside the quotation marks, which violates some American style guides (but not others).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an intentional choice in how I write, so I don't think even the wrongheaded people ( ) who disagree would call it a mistake.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any culture that successfully controls their own population growth will be overwhelmed by those who don't.
The reason we have cultural pressure to reproduce is because all the cultures that didn't failed to survive to these modern times.
Likewise, our own push to limit our population will cause us to be swallowed by those who aren't.
And this is even before we get to the problem of not having enough of the young to take care of the old.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Plus notice OS-Anton doesn't talk about love. He talks about women like they are this multi-tentacled shoe obsessed alien. I want babies very badly, but how is healthy to just end up with a man JUST to have babies? Kids learn about love and trust from their parents right? So shouldn't their parents at least love each other. Note that OSC agrees with that Just Marry Him article too...
But there are plenty of passages in Enchanement, Alvin Maker series, Homeworld, and Ender books, where Mr. Card also talks about how men and women are two completely different species, and learning to combine the two, with all the virtues and vices into a cohesive one that then reproduces is life's great adventure.
I don't think you can seriously suggest that Mr. Card does not promote love between partners in his books.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Any culture that successfully controls their own population growth will be overwhelmed by those who don't.
This may, or may not, have been true in the days of swords and spears. I think it is probably untrue in the days of machine guns and tanks; raw numbers do not add very much to the power of a modern army beyond a certain point.
quote:The reason we have cultural pressure to reproduce is because all the cultures that didn't failed to survive to these modern times.
This sort of pseudo-evolutionary reasoning is spurious. Firstly, would you like to point to any culture that actually did voluntarily restrain its breeding? Secondly, cultures do not evolve in a Darwinian fashion; the copying fidelity is way too low and anyway they pass on acquired traits, Lamarck-style. Thirdly, why appeal to culture when there's such an obvious, no-brainer genetic pressure to be had?
quote:Likewise, our own push to limit our population will cause us to be swallowed by those who aren't.
The way the West is swallowing China?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: Raw numbers are what we're talking about. For example, as income goes up in this country, fertility plummets. Massive immigration is displacing the native population. Just as it did before when the current population displaced the previous natives.
Back then, Americans had tons of kids. Now we have 2.1 (or less.)
Part of that is the "Well, we shouldn't be having kids anyway--There are too many people here already" meme. Part of that is laziness. Kids are a lot of work.
If China applied their one child policy across the board (instead of just in certain cities) Their population would shrink dramatically. But it takes more than 30 years. Besides, westerners aren't reproducing either and they ARE being swallowed by immigration from the 3rd world.
You point out that there is genetic pressure to reproduce. Most of that (not all) is genetic pressure to do the act that leads to reproduction, rather than the reproduction itself. In this modern age it is easy to have the act without the reproduction. The remaining urge to reproduce is tempered by the aforementioned laziness.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: and also as it did in every other immigrant wave into the US, yet the US still has a strong national identity. Immigration is not the same as "being swallowed".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Plus notice OS-Anton doesn't talk about love. He talks about women like they are this multi-tentacled shoe obsessed alien. I want babies very badly, but how is healthy to just end up with a man JUST to have babies? Kids learn about love and trust from their parents right? So shouldn't their parents at least love each other. Note that OSC agrees with that Just Marry Him article too...
But there are plenty of passages in Enchanement, Alvin Maker series, Homeworld, and Ender books, where Mr. Card also talks about how men and women are two completely different species, and learning to combine the two, with all the virtues and vices into a cohesive one that then reproduces is life's great adventure.
I don't think you can seriously suggest that Mr. Card does not promote love between partners in his books.
First of all, I don't think men and women are two different species. We are the same species from the same planet. Second of all, the relationship between Alvin and Peggy is SUPER LOVING, more so than any of the books I've read, except maybe Alvin's Mother and father, they had a nice relationship. But in some of his other books the relationships feel forced. But in some of the other stuff it gives off a vague, now we must get married and have babies kind of vibe that urks me to no end. It's simply not enough to marry and continue the species. There has to be more than that, starting with not passing on... well, negative stuff like abuse. That sort of thing does a ton more damage to all of society than people realize or what to think about.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In several of Mr. Card's books he promotes this LDS value, trying to wind it into a plot point. It comes off a lot less preachy than such philosophy handled by others. I want to call it an Apology for LDS family beliefs, but I don't want people to misconstrue the word Apology.
I don't know how purposeful it is. His actual Mormon allegories aside, I would say that OSC's books are based largely on a Mormon value system only because that's what OSC believes in himself. It's difficult to write a hero that you honestly believe in without having him behave in a manner consistent with what you consider to be moral truth. And it's harder to have a character in your novel spouting wisdom that flies in the face of what you believe is wise.
If it was just behavior, or even just conversation that such a character might have, then I might agree with you. But there are several examples where the characters practically turn to the reader and say "Reader, here is what is important in life, brought to you by OSC." Anton's speech about the purpose of life is one. (Actually if it weren't such a consistent theme across novels and universes it might not stick out quite as much, but I have a hard time believing that OSC isn't deliberately trying to influence human culture with the way the "purpose of life" surfaces so consistently in his fiction.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mound Makers in the American Plains The Inhabitants of Easter Island The Early Inhabitants of North Africa Possibly the Mayans
These were all peoples we know who did not limit their pro-creation drive, and basically ate them selves right out of a culture.
(Over grazing in North Africa led to the massive expansion of the Sahara dessert.)
A myriad of others succumb to the real killer of large populations--war. When population pressures increase, wars are fought. (very bad and very over general history lesson) Usually those with the most people are the winners, but not always, and in all cases the culture pre-war is not the same as the culture post-war.
The question is what good is it to save our "culture" when it can end up dooming our species.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My original point was, so a culture limits their population growth. They will be overwhelmed by the cultures who don't. It won't matter that they limited their population growth because they rest of the world won't stop. Humanity's population will continue to grow with the only result being that the culture with the growth limiting aspect will be gone.
The only way limited your own population will work is if you convince (and FORCE where necessary) every other culture to limit their population as well.
So good luck with that, cuz it's back to the War option.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: My original point was, so a culture limits their population growth. They will be overwhelmed by the cultures who don't. It won't matter that they limited their population growth because they rest of the world won't stop. Humanity's population will continue to grow with the only result being that the culture with the growth limiting aspect will be gone.
The only way limited your own population will work is if you convince (and FORCE where necessary) every other culture to limit their population as well.
So good luck with that, cuz it's back to the War option.
It seems to me that you are over-simplifying the situation. Making a claim that these things always work in the exactly same way.
Darth Mauve mentioned cultures where the environment wasn't able to sustain a too large population, and so the culture died. If those cultures would have controlled their population according to the resources around them, they might have survived as cultures.
So how does that fit with your theory?
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Raw numbers are what we're talking about. For example, as income goes up in this country, fertility plummets. Massive immigration is displacing the native population. Just as it did before when the current population displaced the previous natives.
Back then, Americans had tons of kids. Now we have 2.1 (or less.)
Is American culture really in danger of dying because of immigrants? Or are immigrants simply adapting to american culture? Also American culture IS largely immigrant culture, as immigration has always been a crucial part of American society since the Europeans arrived.
Even if the immigrants wouldn't feel that they are Americans, their children likely do. Their grandchildren even more so, as they have been American citizens all their lives, as were their parents.
If Amerian culture gets destroyed because of immigrants, what is the culture that replaces the original one? Mexican? Canadian? Filippino? Chinese?
When immigrants arrive to a country, it's usually the culture of their origin country that starts to disappear from their lives. The 2nd generation people of the immigrant family already feel much less attached to the culture of their parent's origin. A 3rd generation family member might barely remember his ancestorship anymore.
quote:KOM mentioned cultures where the environment wasn't able to sustain a too large population, and so the culture died.
I don't think I did, actually. That said, it's a point. But consider the counterfactual: Let's say the Easter Island Polynesians had invented the condom and been able to control their population. Wouldn't it still be the case that they would have been overrun by the Europeans, who certainly did not control their populations? In this case we can take all the ethics out of the question of population control: The Easter Islanders needed to control their population or die; the Europeans did not; if the Easter Islanders had managed to live within their resource constraints, they would have been crushed by the people with no constraints. Heads you die fast, tails you die slow.
Small islands are a bit of a special case, to be sure. We might consider Japan, instead, who similarly faced a problem of very limited resources, although they had the option (for a while) of conquering Korea for extra stuff. Would it have made a difference if the Japanese had controlled their population, stabilising at say 50 million, which their islands could readily support? I don't think so; they were still going to be too numerous and homogenous for anyone to effectively conquer them over any sort of long run.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] [QUOTE]KOM mentioned cultures where the environment wasn't able to sustain a too large population, and so the culture died.
I don't think I did, actually. That said, it's a point.
posted
I would say that times have changed quite a lot, and one culture taking over another works with different kind of mechanics than it used to. For example American culture is taking over many other cultures around the world, but it's doing this through media, not through immigration, or conquering.
Here in Finland a lot of people like to watch only American movies, listen to American or British music, and watch American TV-shows. They like to eat American, Italian, Chinese, or Thai food. However, our population is steadily (if very slowly) growing. We have very little immigrants coming in, and they have very little impact on the local culture. And yet our culture is being overtaken by other cultures. And this would be happening even if our population would be growing at a fast rate.
Of course our gene base isn't changing that much. But when we talk about culture, do we mean only the gene base?
Lets say North-Korea conquers South-Korea and violently changes the South-Korean society into a totalitarian communist regime. They would completely erase South-Korean literature, music, lifestyle, education, values, industry, etc. I think we would all agree that one culture took over another one. But if we talk about gene base, it's pretty much the same between the two countries. Neither has had much immigration post WW2 in my knowledge. So this is not simply a question of one gene base replacing another one.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Any culture that successfully controls their own population growth will be overwhelmed by those who don't.
This may, or may not, have been true in the days of swords and spears. I think it is probably untrue in the days of machine guns and tanks ...
It may not even have been true in the days of nails and teeth. Part of the trend moving up the ladder from single-celled organisms to herbivores to carnivores is that organisms tend to actually have less offspring but devote more resources to them.
There may very well be a curve...
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: When immigrants arrive to a country, it's usually the culture of their origin country that starts to disappear from their lives. The 2nd generation people of the immigrant family already feel much less attached to the culture of their parent's origin. A 3rd generation family member might barely remember his ancestorship anymore.
Only if you can pass for the majority. In the case of Canada and the US, only if you're white. If you can't pass then people do remind you that you're not the same. The problem actually gets worse in successive generations when people actually start to understand that it is not something that they should have to tolerate.
For example:
quote:That is why even as the economic circumstances of newcomers improve over time, the path to integration does not necessarily become smoother for visible minorities.
The study found that 35 per cent of recent immigrants of Chinese origin reported experiences of perceived discrimination, 28 per cent of South Asians, and 44 per cent of blacks, compared with 19 per cent of whites.
The gap didn't narrow, but widened, with the next generation, with 42 per cent of all visible minority second-generation immigrants reporting discrimination, compared with 10.9 per cent of their white counterparts.
"There is a perception among minority communities that discrimination is part of their lives. Yet if you ask Canadians in general, they discount discrimination," Prof. Reitz noted.
...
As for the children of visible-minority immigrants, 44 per cent of them felt a sense of belonging, compared with about 60 per cent of their parents. In contrast, 57 per cent of the children of white immigrants felt a sense of belonging, compared with 47 per cent of their parents.
While Canadians in general remain supportive of immigration, they also maintain a "social distance" from minorities, reflected in the study's findings, the authors noted.
"When you study the trend over time, visible minorities who were born here feel less like they belong than their parents," Prof. Reitz said.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: My original point was, so a culture limits their population growth. They will be overwhelmed by the cultures who don't. It won't matter that they limited their population growth because they rest of the world won't stop. Humanity's population will continue to grow with the only result being that the culture with the growth limiting aspect will be gone.
The only way limited your own population will work is if you convince (and FORCE where necessary) every other culture to limit their population as well.
You can also have the world's total population exceed what you can possibly feed off of the available productive land (this is happening now).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the article you posted, 2nd generation non-white immigrants have a stronger feeling of discrimination than their parents.
But if you look at the tablet they have at the link, the percentage of immigrants who feel that they are Canadian increased on the 2nd generation considerably - In all groups. The question asked was "Do you identify as Canadian?".
So unless I'm completely misinterpreting the statistics, that seems to support my theory. The identification with Canadian culture on average doubled with the 2nd generation immigrants.
In "Visible minorities" recent immigrants identified with their new home country by 21.4%, long time immigrants identified by 34.4%, and 2nd generation immigrants identified by 56.6%. There was no mention of 3rd generation immigrants, but I would imagine there was again a big increase in their identification with Canadian culture.
Sure, there is racial discrimination. But this also happens within the same culture. Say, blacks have been in USA for hundreds of years, yet they feel a lot of discrimination, but by great majority identify with being American. Their culture is American culture, not African culture.
I would say that racism is a separate issue here, and not really directly connected to the point I was making about immigrants adopting the local culture.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tuukka: To lump all American cultures into one pot is missing the point too.
America is huge and varied. We have many different subcultures.
Right now, urban, middle and upper class subcultures are dropping in fertility. They tend to possess the "It's good not to have children; it saves the earth" meme.
Immigrant, Quiverfull, Rural, Mormon and Catholic subcultures maintain high fertility rates.
Demographically, the first set of cultures will disappear while the second set of cultures will grow.
New people will move into the middle and upper class, and maybe they'll pick up the meme and maybe they won't. In any event, the rest will keep growing.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I can have a couple of babies and adopt some, but i'm not having kids to compete with those folks. Im having kids because I really want to have kids...
Plus Quiverfull folks are so harsh when it comes to discipline. I would hope some of those kids would REBEL. I'd want kids of mine to rebel against me if I was being harsh and downright cruel.
Like some of my relatives were.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Tuukka: To lump all American cultures into one pot is missing the point too.
America is huge and varied. We have many different subcultures.
Right now, urban, middle and upper class subcultures are dropping in fertility. They tend to possess the "It's good not to have children; it saves the earth" meme.
Immigrant, Quiverfull, Rural, Mormon and Catholic subcultures maintain high fertility rates.
Demographically, the first set of cultures will disappear while the second set of cultures will grow.
New people will move into the middle and upper class, and maybe they'll pick up the meme and maybe they won't. In any event, the rest will keep growing.
Well, the urban, middle and upper class subcultures are not unified either. Each has several different subcultures in them. You can't for example put "urban" culture into one pot. It has countless of different cultural variations and subsets.
The same with rural and immigrant cultures, they are not unified at all, but divided into many subcultures.
While rural areas have higher birht rate, they are in fact slowly disappearing because rural people move to cities and adopt urban living habits. And immigrant's original culture disappears because the American culture overpowers their original culture, particularly when they stay in the country for several generations.
And because the urban, middle and upper class typically control media, their cultures are influencing and gaining control over the other American subcultures, destroying them and replacing them with urban, middle and upper class culture.
Also most people belong to several different sub-cultures, so defining who actually belongs to which culture is remarkably difficult.
So basically:
There are many different, equally powerful factors that influence cultural changes. Saying that it's all about birth rate is a very limited, and inaccurate take on the issue, and demands you to ignore the complexity of the world, and the way different cultures influence each other.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay, the Pixiest you obviously did not do the research on China's one child policy, it IS applied across the board there ARE exceptions in the law here they are:
You can have more then 1 child if you are of the following:
-A foreigner. -A child of a foreigner. -a ethnic minority -a child of a couple who were single children as a result of this policy. -The only exception I haven't seen confirmed is how its enforced among rural china this seems to vary.
But in any case China's population growth has dropped significantly not actually because of the One Child Policy but because of industrialization which trends pretty much prove that a society that reaches a certain level of development births tend to drop for an all manner of reasons from the increase in the female work force to increased education and to the lack of demand on /for farm labour.
Nearly all heavily industrialized societies experience negative population growth offset by immigration.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also i would like to point out that there's something called the Maulthusian Limit which is a natural socio-economic trigger that limits destructively population growth. Essentially when the population exceeds the countries ability to "tend" to its population and exceeds its resources and its economic ability to import said resources the system collapses and we get famines, civil wars, ethnic cleansing etc. Sudan/Darfur I think is a good example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Okay, the Pixiest you obviously did not do the research on China's one child policy, it IS applied across the board
No, its implementation and enforcement varies from region to region.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Okay, the Pixiest you obviously did not do the research on China's one child policy, it IS applied across the board
No, its implementation and enforcement varies from region to region.
The way she said it it sounded like its only enforced in "a few cities" China has over 300 major cities with 900,000+ people residing in each and thus still grossely inaccurate.
Of course it is ALSO to be said that its enforcement in the 70's and possibly alot stricter then it is now, now that modernization has caught up to a higher portion of the population.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: ... So unless I'm completely misinterpreting the statistics, that seems to support my theory. The identification with Canadian culture on average doubled with the 2nd generation immigrants.
That doesn't take into account that they feel a higher sense of discrimination plus a lower sense of belonging. It seems unlikely that one would identify with a culture that is alienating you.
What you're failing to account for is that when the second generation identifies as Canadian despite all of these things, its almost a sense of defiance. As in "screw you, I was born here. I'm just as Canadian as you."
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're adopting the local culture, just that they're more assertive in rejecting how the current "locals" define "Canadian."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The one child policy still has different rules based on which province you live in.
And what are you trying to say and how does it disagree with what I said?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: ... So unless I'm completely misinterpreting the statistics, that seems to support my theory. The identification with Canadian culture on average doubled with the 2nd generation immigrants.
That doesn't take into account that they feel a higher sense of discrimination plus a lower sense of belonging. It seems unlikely that one would identify with a culture that is alienating you.
What you're failing to account for is that when the second generation identifies as Canadian despite all of these things, its almost a sense of defiance. As in "screw you, I was born here. I'm just as Canadian as you."
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're adopting the local culture, just that they're more assertive in rejecting how the current "locals" define "Canadian."
Well, there was no detailed info on whether they are adopting to the local culture or not. But I find it more likely that the 2nd generation immigrants are more adapted to the culture of their home country than their parents. I mean, it's hard for them to adapt to the culture of another country (The birth country of their parents), when they don't even live there.
The sense of belonging, or sense of discrimination are separate issues. A 10th generation African-American might lack a sense of belonging, and he might feel he is being discriminated, and facing racism.
But culturally he is still American. His culture is not Nigerian, Kenyan, Etiopian, etc, culture. So you really are talking about a different issue altogether. Racism, discrimination and a sense of alienation are a part of American, or Canadien culture. They are not some other culture which is replacing the original one.
"screw you, I was born here. I'm just as Canadian as you."
...Sounds like Canadian attitude to me, and further supports my point. The person who says that is not trying to bring in another culture to Canada and replace the local one. Instead, he feels he already is Canadian and has already culturally adopted to the local culture. He just wants other people to acknowledge this fact as well.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The one child policy still has different rules based on which province you live in.
And what are you trying to say and how does it disagree with what I said?
I am saying "he one child policy still has different rules based on which province you live in" and it disagrees with you when you said that it was "applied across the board"
For example "a child of a couple who were single children as a result of this policy" can only actually have more than one child under the one child policy if they are in a province that permits this and _not all do_.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: ... The sense of belonging, or sense of discrimination are separate issues. A 10th generation African-American might lack a sense of belonging, and he might feel he is being discriminated, and facing racism.
They aren't separate issues because the racism is inherently part of the local culture. If they adopted the local culture outright, they would get internalized racism, which really does happen.
quote: But culturally he is still American. His culture is not Nigerian, Kenyan, Etiopian, etc, culture. So you really are talking about a different issue altogether. Racism, discrimination and a sense of alienation are a part of American, or Canadien culture.
Nope, racism and discrimination can happen anywhere. While it does manifest in different forms and against different targets in different places there's nothing inherently "American" or "Canadian" about being the target of discrimination.
quote:"screw you, I was born here. I'm just as Canadian as you."
...Sounds like Canadian attitude to me, and further supports my point. The person who says that is not trying to bring in another culture to Canada and replace the local one. Instead, he feels he already is Canadian and has already culturally adopted to the local culture. He just wants other people to acknowledge this fact as well.
No. The person who says that doesn't feel that they *should* have to adapt.
You don't have to adopt a single bit of local culture (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that) in order for you to be Canadian. The whole thing is really quite egalitarian. Either you're born here or you pass a test and you're just as Canadian as anyone else.
You're really missing the subtext. Many people will say that other people aren't Canadian or American as an attack. For example, when Palin says that rural Americans are "real Americans" versus the presumably fake Americans in the cities, it doesn't mean that the city-dwellers will suddenly abandon their culture and become what Palin defines as real Americans. They don't have to and they'll certainly defiantly identify as Americans if they're reminded of that incident before asked.
This kind of stuff happens pretty often to people that are visible minorities, so its no surprise that they'll identify as Canadians when asked, but it really says little about who is adopting what culture.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The one child policy still has different rules based on which province you live in.
And what are you trying to say and how does it disagree with what I said?
I am saying "he one child policy still has different rules based on which province you live in" and it disagrees with you when you said that it was "applied across the board"
For example "a child of a couple who were single children as a result of this policy" can only actually have more than one child under the one child policy if they are in a province that permits this and _not all do_.
You still seem to be missing is that I had already said so, i said enforcement varies but however in all han Chinese provinces the policy is there and active and is aimed at urban centers something I had already said and implied and even then the point is to contrast with Pixiests inaccurate statement that it was only "applied in a few cities" when in fact it is very well applied in all urban centers with varying degrees of exceptions.
For all practical purposes all Han Chinese provinces have the policy enforced to one degree or another, and nearly every province has varying degrees of exceptions.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Immigrant, Quiverfull, Rural, Mormon and Catholic subcultures maintain high fertility rates.
Many of whom are urban, upper/middle class.
Yes, but where there is overlap, those who accept the "Don't have kids" meme will not reproduce, leaving only those who don't accept the "Don't have kids" meme.
I only mention culture in the first place because there is a growing push in our culture to not have kids. When you boil it down to the individual level, if you don't believe in having kids, odds are you're not going to have them or at the very least, raise the ones you already have to think it's a bad thing and they won't have kids. The meme works its way out of the population through attrition.
The only way for the meme to succeed is to get EVERYONE to go along with it and that will require force.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
People only immigrate to the US and other countries because they feel the rewards are worth the risks, once the third world reach the same level of development and prosperity as the US and Canada immigration will be reduced to a trickle.
IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry the "meme" also goes horizontally. Out of my friends: Lesbian couple: don't intend to have children Tall white guy: seriously considering not having children, this may depend partly on his future partner Asian married guy: was totally about having kids, now is thinking only 1 or 2 at the most Myself and partner: No interest in having children Other Tall white guy: No interest in kids Short white guy: May have kids in future.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) who disagree would call it a mistake.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
That said, it's a point. But consider the counterfactual: Let's say the Easter Island Polynesians had invented the condom and been able to control their population. Wouldn't it still be the case that they would have been overrun by the Europeans, who certainly did not control their populations? In this case we can take all the ethics out of the question of population control: The Easter Islanders needed to control their population or die; the Europeans did not; if the Easter Islanders had managed to live within their resource constraints, they would have been crushed by the people with no constraints. Heads you die fast, tails you die slow. 
