Kortney said:
Therumancer said:
The problem is that a lot of our problems come from the attitude that everyone has to be treated exactly the same, which means that in cases where that isn't working to assimilate people, or differant groups have found ways to exploit that, they still need to be addressed.
I think you are misunderstanding the mindset of people who work for equality. Equality doesn't mean "Everyone is treated exactly the same".
Therumancer said:
Right now for example, we can't for example start singling out latino/mexican immigrants for specific regulation, or to create laws specifically to repeal citizenship and exile them from the country for moral reasons.
Sorry, now you are debating in favour of tearing up human rights. Read article seven of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Equality before the law is an extremely important aspect of culture that ensures just outcomes are met. Abusing this always leads to minorities being trodden against.
Therumancer said:
Yet we're at a point right now where we have kids getting expelled from school because latin immigrants are offended by the flag of their own country (the US flag) being depicted during school holidays. With no tools for dealing with people that aren't assimilated to the country like that, we've had school districts suspending or expelling students for wearing The American Flag in US schools.
Way to see things one sided. Most incidents involving children being punished for promoting the US flag are hardly as one sided as you are making them out to be. On Cinco De Mayo, children were told to either change shirts of go home because they were wearing a US flag on their shirt. This particular school had Mexican-American students who felt disrespected by this. As one Mexican-American student said:
"We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
Schools cannot accept children denigrating sensitive cultural days. A school should not tolerate this because it doesn't exactly promote a proper learning environment. Remember, this isn't illegal - it's a school decision and I can see both sides. The school is just trying to prevent fights. That's the job of a school. Schools have the right to a certain degree of autonomy to prevent violent incidents occurring on their property.
My problem is that you are being completely one sided in these events. You are implying that every time an incident involving the US flag occurs, it is the fault of the minority and the "Americans" were in the right.
Therumancer said:
In a lot of big cities we have giant festering sores of crime and corruption in the form of things like "Chinatown districts" or ones dedicated to other ethnicities/cultures. "Little Havana", "Little Seuol", "Little Italy", and dozens of others. The issue being citizens who want the benefits of being American without becoming part of American society, dig out their own little feifdoms and then do whatever the heck they want, fleeing back to an area that is culturally closed, and where it might be a chore to even find someone who speaks english.
What's wrong with preserving your cultural identity? Once again, you are implying that this provides a solely negative outcome for the USA. It doesn't.
Therumancer said:
As a result you tend to have a lot of criminal activity centered around these places, and trickling out of them, and very little the police can do about it.
Not always. See, you are making a huge assertion here. You are suggesting:
Chinese person moves to the USA----->Goes the Chinatown-------->becomes criminal.
The reason why those ghettos are so crime heavy is because of the lack of money and education the inhabitants have. It has zero to do with their nationality. Chinese people with enough means to live independently do not move to Chinatown ghettos.
The real way to solve this is to ensure that immigrants have enough resources to live autonomously. Many countries do it, and no, it doesn't bankrupt their government - it actually gives their government more money in the big picture. I read last week in the newspaper about how Australia have, over the last five years, taken in a lot of African and Middle Eastern asylum seekers. The Australian government is giving them all a set fee (I think it was about AUD 50,000) to "ensure they have the financial means to integrate into society". The real reason is to ensure that they don't turn into crime lords living in ghettos. They also give them work contracts with trade companies and job companies that ensure employment. The real reason is to ensure they are working so they can pay back the Government.
That is a terrificly intelligent system that would reduce the problems of violent immigration by a mile. I'm certain there are still problems there, but it is a huge step forward.
You can't just throw in immigrants and asylum seekers and say "Go for it!" and expect them all to be positive citizens. They are in a new environment that is alien to them - and to ensure stability you have to give them a "helping hand". This appeals to both liberals and conservatives - because it is the only option that is beneficial.
But I think we can both agree, the USA doesn't deal with immigration very well at all. However, your suggestion is to throw out the immigrants, or destroy human rights. My suggestion is to think intelligently without acting like a dick. Both would work. But both aren't just.
Therumancer said:
In this kind of case one of the things that fuels it is of course that people of specific ethnicities refuse to sell property outside of their ethnicity/culture. Where it's a big deal if say a white guy puts a property up on the market and refuses to sell to a minority who makes the best offer, that isn't a standard that really applies to various minority groups.
If you are selling property privately, you have the right to accept whatever offer from whatever person you please to. White people can do it too.
Therumancer said:
Then of course we have problems like cultural Muslims in the US, and how we can't single them out even during a time of conflict (since we haven't declared Martial Law) and instead have to create a giant mess out of security where we inconveience everyone just so we won't be singling out one group.
What would singling out Muslims achieve? The reason why
everyone has to go through security is because
everyone is capable of an attack.
Answer me this. Why weren't white people singled out in security lines after the Oklahoma bombings? Or the Tuscon shootings?
Whatever answer you come up with - is the same answer as to why Muslims shouldn't be singled out because of 9/11. 9/11 had very little do with the USA domestically anyway. It was an international attack caused of disputes of foreign policy that have been around since the late 70s.
I'm going to stop here. I was originally going to stop after you expressed your support in abolishing articles of the UDHR. There is no point in talking about this. I just simply don't agree with the way you see the World and I believe ending the discussion here will benefit us more than dragging it on. Feel free to make a reply, just know I won't be carrying on this discussion. Thanks!
Well, the thing is that things like the UDHR represents certain moral principles that are not working, largely because those principles have become far too inclusive and have lead to a lot of very big problems which can't be addressed without singling out specific groups. You are correct that other methods should be tried first, but they have been, and they have failed. That is why a lot of these kinds of issues persist, because to address them involves re-evaluating some long held moral principals that are being shown to not be workable.
In this paticular case, the idea is that what is being targeted are behaviors which can be altered. While nobody should be discriminated against purely based on ethnicity, there is no reason why a group should not be targeted based on their behavior, even if that behavior is linked to an ethnic subculture.
In the case of situations like with the American Flag, there is no way to justify the problem. These kids are Americans, they immigrated and became US citizens, and are disrespecting the flag of their own country for all intents and purposes. If they somehow identify with a foreign culture to the point where they become offended by the display of the flag of a country they belong to, then they honestly don't belong here. It's a sign that they don't want to be Americans, they just want the benefits.
They might have had a point if they were being told they couldn't celebrate cinco de mayo or wear a Mexican flag on that holiday, but to prevent people from the country they are in from displaying their own flag, and threatening violence to sway the school system (which acted due to a fear of violence) there is no excuse for that at all. Especially seeing as they are receiving an education from the American goverment at the expense of the American taxpayer.
When it comes to situations like the one with singling out Muslims, again your argueing from a moral principle, and trying to make a deliberatly absurdist case, knowing full well the differance between a minority and the majority. However, you WILL notice that after the Oklahoma City bombings, there was a massive crackdown on militia groups throughout the US. We had raids against various survivalist groups, crackdowns on websites, and people being put under investigation due to association. This died down due to a period of time without incident, and most of those viewed as potential problems being dealt with. On the other hand the current wars/police actions we're involved in with Muslims are still ongoing. The cultures that represent the problem are still going strong, we're still having incidents, and we haven't even succcessfully taken down Al-Queda or The Taliban entirely. Not to mention that we've caught people like college professors recruiting for, and providing information to terrorist and extremist organizations here in the US. Scale is also a factor, Mcveigh blew up one federal building in an isolated incident. The conflict with The Muslim world has been going on for decades, and the current climate was created by a decapitation strike aimed at our goverment (The WTC was the only successful target, people tend to forget The Pentagon was also hit and survived due to luck since it was a bad shot that hit an area that was under repair, we also stopped the planes heading for DC. The WTC sent off financial shockwaves throughout the world. Had we lost The Petagon, Capitol, and White House... or military high command and a good portion of our elected goverment, the US would not be anything like it is now. People judge the attack simply on the part that succeeded and don't look at what the intent was and the staggering level of it).
In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree, and our discussion is probably going to go nowhere (your right about that), but you did ask for more information on what I meant even if you don't like it.
As per the OP though, the basic point here is that while I am against treating people badly for things they can't control like their ethnicity and the color of their skin, I have no problems whatsoever for singling people out and dealing with them based on their behavior. There is no genetic imperitive forcing someone immigrating into the US and becoming a citizen to threaten violence over the display of an American flag in an American school for example. Just as there is no genetic imperitve preventing people from learning to speak english. Behavior is something that can be controlled, even when connected to a culture or subculture. I have no problems at all with judging people and treating them very harshly based on how they choose to behavior and what desicians they decide to make.
Oh and as a final note (before I forget, despite wrapping this up) your wrong about the issue of property ownership. It's been a very big deal when white members of the majority have refused to sell property to minorities to "whitewash" neighborhoods so to speak. There have been some epic battles fought over this. The same standards however are not generally upheld when dealing with minority groups, which is why you have all of these closed ethnic communities, that are almost like walking into anothr country if you visit them.
The bottom line though is that I don't advocate throwing someone out of the country just for being of Chinese Ethnicity, Hispanic Ethnicity, Black, or whatever else. On the other hand if someone comes into this country and doesn't make an effort to assimilate into mainstream American society, I have no sympathy for them and believe they don't belong here, and have no problem with targeting them. The same applies to targeting people for any kind of anti-societal behavior. There are plenty of people of all ethnicities who come to the US and manage to adapt perfectly to the culture and fit right in. In most cases the problem is the people in question not wanting to adapt to the society they live in, despite wanting the benefits, and honestly I have no sympathy for that. Most people agree with you (as opposed to me) which is why the problems persist and things work they way they do, but as you can see I advocate a differant position, and I can defend it fairly well. I see racism and discrimination/bigotry as two entirely differant things that do not nessicarly have to go together, I oppose one, but not nessicarly the others.
You also seem to be intentionally misinterpeting things (or perhaps accidently). I am not saying all Chinese people in the US come here, go to Chinatown, and then become criminals for example. Many do not, which is proof against racism and shows that they CAN adapt when you get down to it. Enough people do follow that path though, where you can point to things like Chinatown districts as a problem, and see the effect they have. This is why I mention targeting the districts themselves, rather than say going after every person of Chinese ethnicity. The issue is the culture and the behaviors, not the race. A chinese person who learns english, and fits in perfectly with the rest of society, and never gives anyone any problems, being no more differant than anyone else, is not the problem. Any visions of protecting some guy who is trying hard to live The American Dream and fit into his no home from oppressive bigots don't apply to the arguement I'm making, the problem is the people
who don't even make that attempt.
