posted
Iran did. In the past, and then let it go, and then reinstated the ban, but it's a moot point, the internet and the black market make it all but impossible for Iran to keep American media and culture out of Tehran or any other major Iranian city.
As for the line between the majority and minority culture. I have to side with the majority, were I forced to make the choice.
Hypothetically (and it's not THAT far removed from reality) let's say you have France, with a growing immigrant population moving in that wants to do things there way. They are perfectly willing to learn, and speak French, but they are bringing a large piece of their culture and religion with them, and they demand that it be integrated with and accepted by France.
There's no problem with that sort of thing in America, and if anyone DID have a problem with it, I'd be on the front lines arguing against whatever idiot had the problem. But America doesn't have a distinct, historical identity of its own. It WAS British, but we haven't been "British" in a hundred and seventy years, give or take. There was plenty of racism, not black/white, but anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-Pole racism at the beginning of the 20th century when large influxes of these populations began coming to America. We accepted them because we needed cheap labor, then painted over that with the welcoming banner of American freedom. But still, legal immigration from China and Africa was HEAVILY limited, to less than 500 people a year during much of the 19th century, and not much better in the early 20th.
It took a century for us to get over that, on the whole, despite whatever traces that may remain. If all else failed though, we could remind ourselves that the culture we were spawned from still exists in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. We're a nation of immigrants, with a distinct national identity, but we still remember where we come from.
Back to France. They see all these people coming in, wanting to change and meld with the French way of life to create something new, and that is extremely threatening. To a people who've lived by tradition for thousands of years, and can trace their roots and traditions back to the foundation of Gaul (not all of them but some, hell, I can, but you get my point), it's extremely threatening to see a group of outsiders want to change whatever they might know and love and don't want changed.
I still don't call it racism though. At end of the day, it still ISN'T a "them" or "us" in the way it was back in early 20th century America, and into the 50's. And I'm not just talking about segregation. Racists think the very race of people they hate, regardless of culture or language, religion or national identity, are inherently inferior, and they can't do ANYTHING to become as good as the better races are.
If hypothetical France is perfectly willing to let immigrants come in and fully assimilate to their culture, then they aren't racist, they are isolationists. And getting back to an earlier point, the people immigrating to hypothetical France still have their mother nation to look back on, still the same way they left it, unchanged. But France would have no such safety. The culture they loved would be changed forever, with nothing else existing on Earth, remaining only in museums and history books. And at the end of the day, it's their nation, and their choice to live the same way they've lived for hundreds and thousands of years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's still some preservation of Hawaiian culture isn't there?
The callous answer is, there's nothing you can do about it. But I suppose the better answer is, that you do everything you can to make sure it's preserved somewhere, even if it's just in one family.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Racists think the very race of people they hate, regardless of culture or language, religion or national identity, are inherently inferior, and they can't do ANYTHING to become as good as the better races are.
That's a pretty narrow defenition of racism there, Lyrhawn. Racism can be born of ignorance as well as hatred. Your description of racists precludes groups of people who don't hate, but stereotype, and make assumption-based generalizations. There are people who are quite willing to work and socialize with other races, but think people should "stick to their own kind."
quote:But France would have no such safety. The culture they loved would be changed forever, with nothing else existing on Earth, remaining only in museums and history books.
Only if your hypothetical France has no form of emigration, and only if you view culture as a stagnant thing. Culture always changes, be it via technology or integration with different cultures. When you talk about them living "the same way they they've lived for hundreds and thousands of years," I think that's very misleading. Cultures, just like everything else are always shifting, giving and taking to and from external forces. Trying to "preserve" something so fluid and, frankly, often disagreed upon is shoveling water against the tide. That brings me to your question about Hawai'i. There has been preservation of Hawai'ian culture, or more accurately a resurgence. It hasn't been until recent years that I've been hearing people (especially young people) speaking the language conversationally. This may sound like a contradiction to what I said earlier about the futility of preservation, but let me explain. This may be useful as a case study to what I'm saying. The "ancient" (that's a bad term, it wasn't that long ago) Hawai'ian culture used a Kapu system of laws. Kapu sort of translates to "forbidden." The penalties for doing something Kapu were often harsh, and violators had little recourse. What was Kapu, depending on your class and gender, could be anything from foods to places to letting the Chief's shadow fall over you. Debate over native Hawai'ian rights has been going on for a while, and certain, more zealous factions supported a return to the Kapu system. This has not been accepted by the majority of Hawai'ians, and I think, rightly so. The culture of Hawai'i survives in the foods we eat, the language we use and a kind of attitude, the "aloha spirit" to use a kind of cliche term. In spite of the forceful suppression of this culture, it has survived and spread to people of many different ethnicities. To suppose that the culture of France, or anywhere else, could succumb to some kind of peaceful takeover would either have to involve incredible cultural weakness - which is clearly not true - or a concerted effort over hundreds, or thousands, of years.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your additions to my words on racism are included in what I said, or rather, should have been. My point all along has been that cultural defense does not equal racism, and I stick to that point.
And yes culture DOES change, as it matures. Cultural evolution, or in some cases, internal revolution are a part of what make the culture what it is today. But those changes are internal. They are either an internal response to outside changes, or an internal response to internal stimuli. The question at hand is what to do when an external force tries to force a change internally. It takes away the option to choose HOW to change their culture THEMSELVES.
And I might remind you, that American culture was radically altered in just a couple generations. Though, that might be a bad example, given that American culture was never really static to begin with.
To return to my original point, which has somewhat been lost I think... The original concern of the thread was the lack of a positive birth rate in European nations, and that they'd slowly decline without an influx of new people. The question also came about of immigrants in Europe being something of a people apart, much much more so than in America, where integration is much easier.
My main point has always been, that people wanting to maintain and defend their culture from outside influence is NOT racist, and that expecting immigrants to conform is also not racist. Hell look at the root word we're dealing with "race." If the people in question don't have the slighest care in the world about what race the immigrants are coming from, I don't see how they can be called racist.
Are the Hawaiians racist for rejecting the Kapu system? Are they racist for returning to their traditional language conversationally and rejecting English as the language of choice?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
