Opinions are starting to change since 7/7

[moeur]

Maybe multiculturalism isn't such a good thing afterall.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion...5/15barone.htm

[mendhak]

Told you so... told you so... told you so.

[visualAd]

If you ask me, its the media who are trying to change opinions. There is nothing wrong with a multi cultural society, people are entitled to their opinions and views and beliefs.

They keep saying how the terrorists won't win, but it seems to me like they are. If the terrorists were not winning then we would not see references to the bombings in every news story that there is.

[moeur]

people are entitled to their opinions and views and beliefs.

In a free country this is mainly true, however there are always exceptions. We are not free to promote violence even if it is one of our beliefs or views.

I think people are starting to reassess the practicalities of permitting immigrants to come to a country, form their own separate communities that hold values that differ drastically with the rest of the nation.

Assimilation is one of the major keys to success.

[grilkip]

In a free country this is mainly true, however there are always exceptions. We are not free to promote violence even if it is one of our beliefs or views.

I think people are starting to reassess the practicalities of permitting immigrants to come to a country, form their own separate communities that hold values that differ drastically with the rest of the nation.

Assimilation is one of the major keys to success.

I agree with that Assessment, but by pointing out to people that they come from an inferior culture or a culture that simply has no place here (which is happening these days), you are not encouraging anybody to assimilate.
I think that's the danger of this whole 'awareness'.

We should all become BORG

[yrwyddfa]

I've thought long and hard about this idea, as I think that is a far more complex problem than a lot of people realise.

Identifying that there is a 'problem' with immigrants brings (to me) two main ideas with regard to the term immigrant (in this context)

(i) Identifying a person solely by their nationality
(ii) Patriotism

Now, as a general rule of thumb, you cannot have (i) without (ii).

We've all seen the new rules of employment, and cast a glance at the new world order where everyone (and everything) is all held equal. Equal opportunities, equal rights, and and all that. I don't think that this is a bad thing. Sure, political correctness has gone mad, but then that idea is the nth degree of equal opportunity that some really anal people seem to live for.

Patriotism is a reversal of equal opportunity; at the very least the merest hint of patriotism means that equal opportunity is available only to one's country's population. A sort of subset of humanity. I know that a lot of people are comfortable with this, and there are many logical and philosophical arguments that present themselves.

My problem is that I can't help feeling that it's wrong somehow on a moral level.

Identifying someone solely by their nationality, and by implication disregarding every other aspect of such a person feels like something straight from the English middle ages.

By definition, patriotism, strongly infers and encourages 'My country is better than yours' thoughts. To the more anthropological reader will see this as instinctive tribal behaviour.

The human pysche is driven by the (hidden) concept of tribes. The first tribe is the family, the next the schoolyard. The ever expanding size of one's personal 'tribe' clearly ends up with a country, a school of thought, or something else that is unimaginable large that the very notion of 'tribe' somehow becomes inadequate. It is, however, still relevant.

You can see tribal actions - especially in the face of globalisation - everywhere. It permuates foreign policy, it shows it's face in racism.

The simple fact, remains, though. The concept of a tribe reduces down to the need of human beings to belong to something, or somewhere. We are incredibly social animals. We get married, multiple, and ensure that we all generally belong to multiple 'tribes' as a sort of redundant insurance policy

The vast majority of humanity's tribalness (if there's such a word) boils down to love, compassion, and morality.

The strange dichotomy, of course, is the tribalness causes tension, and creates wars. A human being once it belongs to a tribe feels the need to protect his social environment. It feels morally right to do so from your friends, your family, your country.

But just because you feel that something is right this does not make is so. Those who shout for immigration control are clearly acting in their best interests (at whatever tribal level they're not aware of)

But acting in one's self-interest (although not necessarily bad) promotes distrust between tribes. It creates tensions.

Whether we like it or not we live in a global society. The EU, and America are doing their best to exploit the situation, fiscally, but to subdue the environment socially and politically. (China for instance will produce 50% of the textiles in the world within a decade. The EU, and America are produces trade quotas to prevent this happening)

I cannot think of one good reason why I should love my country more than another (even though I do) I cannot think of one good reason why I should love one women above all others (even though I do) I cannot think of one good reason why I should seperate my children from others and ensure my own children's survival, and success, above others (even though I do)

We all, including me, cling to our tribes. There is no logical or rational explanation for doing this. Not one. There is probably some historic reason why humans have developed the tribal instinct. You can understand that as our brain got bigger our babies were born earlier [Edit] because the larger heads could not fit through a womens rather small cervix [/edit] and were thus unable to care for themselves. If Mum has to look after babies, then whose going to look after Dad. It's easier to extrapolate this idea all the way up until you have what resembles a family, then a street, then a village, a town, a city, a country, a world.

The last one left is the world. And we're there right now. We are on the brink of globalisation A natural evolution of what it is that we are.

Those who delineate individuals on the basis of race, or country (or anything else) are delaying what is inevitable. And that, whether you like it or not includes culture - which, of course, is simply another manifestation of a human tribe.

[moeur]

I know that patriotism is a bad word in some circles, but it is just a manifestation of tribal loyalty at the country level. This tribal loyalty is important for the survival of the tribe, without out it tribes dissolve and we’re left with anarchy.

In terms of the tribe then, the question becomes: do we allow tribes to form within our own tribe that are hostile to our tribe and want to see it dissolved? For the good of the tribe I would have to say no.

Shouldn’t we insist on a few simple rules for immigration? One of them being that you will be loyal to your new country and not work to destroy it from within?

[yrwyddfa]

I know that patriotism is a bad word in some circles, but it is just a manifestation of tribal loyalty at the country level. This tribal loyalty is important for the survival of the tribe, without out it tribes dissolve and we’re left with anarchy.

Yes, patriotism is a manifestation of the population's loyalty. Is that such a good thing? Is blind faith in one's country always such a good idea? In which case where does democracy stand? Capitalism is based on competing tribes, isn't it?

In terms of the tribe then, the question becomes: do we allow tribes to form within our own tribe that are hostile to our tribe and want to see it dissolved? For the good of the tribe I would have to say no.

It depends, I think, entirely on how you define 'freedom'

Shouldn’t we insist on a few simple rules for immigration? One of them being that you will be loyal to your new country and not work to destroy it from within?

All tribes have rules. Some socio-political manifest to hold it coherent.

My argument is that the new tribe is the world - and we should try to think that way.

[moeur]

Yes, I understand your point about the world as a tribe, but the stucture you laid out puts the world tribe at one end and the family tribe at the other. We have the strongest ties and loyalty to our closest tribe (the family) and those ties weaken as we move outward.

Example: in the middle East, Countries like Iran and Iraq fought for years yet they would band together against outsiders to the Arab world.

Whenever the Earth is attacked by aliens then you will see the World tribe band together, but not before.

[yrwyddfa]

Yes, I understand your point about the world as a tribe, but the stucture you laid out puts the world tribe at one end and the family tribe at the other. We have the strongest ties and loyalty to our closest tribe (the family) and those ties weaken as we move outward.

Example: in the middle East, Countries like Iran and Iraq fought for years yet they would band together against outsiders to the Arab world.

Whenever the Earth is attacked by aliens then you will see the World tribe band together, but not before.

I thought about the aliens and the 'we're not alone' thing before I posted the 'article'

I'd just like to add that I'm a little confused, and I'm not so sure that I believe quite what I posted.

I'll be the first to admit that I find this issue particularly difficult to rationalise.

Please be patient!!

[MasterBlaster]

Confusing? It's very simple. If someone comes into your tribe family whatever and starts ytrying to convince you brothers, kids sisters wife, or who/whatever to put on a set of asploding underwear and blow you up, what would you do? England is just kicking them out. Personally I'd show them how the busisness end of a sawed off 12 ga works.

[yrwyddfa]

I think I covered the point about people protecting their tribes without any rational explanation . . .

[Valleysboy1978]

It all boils down to emotion doesn't it?
We are more emotionally tied to localised tribes than the general tribes. I love my family and friends and would protect them.
I love my country because that is my home, but would protect my family from fellow countrymen.
As for banding together, it is simply a survivalist way of thinking, the most basest form of thinking that goes back to when man was still living in caves. If a tribe was threatened they would band together just as if many tribes were threatened they would band together. It is how the human race has survived, by necessary alliances.

I would also agree, although it sounds like science fiction, that an alien threat would be the only cause for a world-wide alliance, as it is the only possible world-wode threat.

[MasterBlaster]

I would also agree, although it sounds like science fiction, that an alien threat would be the only cause for a world-wide alliance, as it is the only possible world-wode threat.

Global warming or any number of global natural disaster that have occored over the last couple million years could do it as well. If an alien invasion occured I'm sure the first thing to happen would be loss of global communications which makes the whole global tribe thing impossible. Sat-Com and internet communications are still possible if it's only a natural disaster.

[moeur]

Yea, global warming... that's going to make the terrorists embrace us.

[MasterBlaster]

Yea, global warming... that's going to make the terrorists embrace us.

It will if it kicks of catestrophic events all over the world. "Hey habib let's go bomb a bus station". "Sorry Abdul I can't My village is underwater and all of my explosives are ruined"

PS: Don't roll your eyes at me.

[Valleysboy1978]

Global warming or any number of global natural disaster that have occored over the last couple million years could do it as well. If an alien invasion occured I'm sure the first thing to happen would be loss of global communications which makes the whole global tribe thing impossible. Sat-Com and internet communications are still possible if it's only a natural disaster.

Even though the US refuses to admit global warming exists and scientists cannot agree on the severity of what it's seeing?
No, nothing will unite the globe, we are a selfish species

[yrwyddfa]

Even though the US refuses to admit global warming exists and scientists cannot agree on the severity of what it's seeing?
No, nothing will unite the globe, we are a selfish species

I hate to be pedantic but . . .

There is virtually no disagreement that the planet is warming up. The argument is whether or not human activities are the cause.

[moeur]

There is virtually no disagreement that the planet is warming up.

Actually the evidence for warming is not conclusive either. Check out Michael Crichton's book. It's fiction, but is loaded with facts which are all footnoted so you can look up the sources if you wish.

[yrwyddfa]

You'll know that I've already read the book. Perhaps you've forgetten the relevant thread.

I stand by what I said, even with the references.