---

What do you call a society with many races and only one culture represented?

---

---

So you admit that a country with a majority of blacks can have a large numbers of engineers.  You admit that ANY race can have a wide variety of characteristics and balities. You admit that there are  GREAT variations in skills and talents within the same race.
Good.

---

---

Then how is lagnuage relevant?
Why did you bring that up?

---

That isn't helping one bit.

---

What makes you think thye can't? Just because they are a differnt race does that mean they do not speak the same langauge?
Also there might be people who can speak BOTH english and spanish. Or they may all agree to speak the same language. That doesnt change who they are.

---

---

You are confusing latin-based language with having latin and greek words as root of the language.  
Remember Kidd this is what I said

---

Not only that spanish and english share latin as the root.  

---

Do not mistake the two meanings. Thats a pretty stupid confusion Kidd.

---

The root of English is Western Germanic languages.

As I said, some English words have Latin roots, but that doesn't mean English has Latin as the root.

And English isn't a "[L]atin-based language" either.

Look at the tree.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Multiracial.

---

---

but only push towards division of the people and conflict.

---

---

Different races and cultures speak different languages.
Often, immigrants come to the USA speaking no English.

---

---

That isn't helping one bit.

---

---

It is possible, but not always the case, Jake.

---

---

Latin Americans immigrate to the USA all the time without knowing English.

---

The majority of those with English problems are in fact illegal immigrants.

Also if we were to believe your claims then we should have not accepted Italians, Polish, French Germans or Swedish immigrants. Even the cots and Irish would have been borderline acceptable in your eyes.

The only acceptable immigrants for you in an English speaking soceity would be the british.

That is one way to look at it but that removes all white immigrants from most of Europe.

Do not forget Kidd that many European immigrants came to the US WITHOUT any knowledge of English and often had to wait until the second generation to really fit in.

Do you really believe that the US would have been a better place if it was 100% british? I think it would never have achieved the power and strength it has so far.

It would have been very poor without Einstein, Pulitzer, Frankfurter,

Also check this out

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234953

---

Addressing these issues requires data on just how inventive immigrants are, a question that until recently was the province of educated guesswork. But William Kerr, an economist at Harvard Business School, used name-matching software to identify the ethnicity of each of the 8m scientists who had acquired an American patent since 1975. He found that the share of patents awarded to scientists born in America fell between 1975 and 2004. The share of all patents given to scientists of Chinese and Indian descent living in America more than tripled, from 4.1% in the second half of the 1970s to 13.9% in the years between 2000 and 2004.

Nearly 40% of patents filed in 2005 by Intel, a silicon-chip maker, were for work done by people of Chinese or Indian origin. Some of these patents may have been awarded to American-born children of earlier migrants, but Mr Kerr reckons that most changes over time arise from fresh immigration.

---

---

Over time, knowledge flows between countries, and innovations in one place may benefit people elsewhere. So in the long run it may not matter where research takes place. Nonetheless, innovation benefits from clusters. Until there are Silicon Valleys all over the place, the world (and not just America) would be better off if American firms could hire the best people regardless of where they come from.

---

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234953

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

But if it only has one culture it would be monocultural.

---

---

Not all immigrants are of other races and not all of other races are immigrants.

---

---

It is often the case Kidd. You just like to use extreme artificial examples to try to push your ppoints.

---

I see it in my neighborhood, back when they were building houses.

The LAtin Americna workers separate over to one side and do this work, the Negroes and Whites do something else.
It wasn't a rare occurrence to hear a boombox on one side of the house with Latin American music, and one on the other with something else.

---

False.
The majority of those with English problems are in fact illegal immigrants.

Also if we were to believe your claims then we should have not accepted Italians, Polish, French Germans or Swedish immigrants. Even the cots and Irish would have been borderline acceptable in your eyes.

The only acceptable immigrants for you in an English speaking soceity would be the british.

That is one way to look at it but that removes all white immigrants from most of Europe.

Do not forget Kidd that many European immigrants came to the US WITHOUT any knowledge of English and often had to wait until the second generation to really fit in.

Do you really believe that the US would have been a better place if it was 100% british? I think it would never have achieved the power and strength it has so far.

It would have been very poor without Einstein, Pulitzer, Frankfurter,

---

Latin American immigrants aren't.

Actually, I'd prefer no immigration to the USA happens, and all illegals kicked out.

Illegal immigrants are still immigrants.

---

Also check this out

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234953

---

Your story claims "in the long run it may not matter where research takes place" so why let them in the USA?
Innovation benefits from clusters? Why does it have to be the USA? Go cluster somewhere else, somewhere that wasn't founded by Whites for a change.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

yeah,... never liked it.

Good message, but I just didn't like the song lol

---

But we're speaking of what we'd call a nation based on the number of races.

---

Using the ideas of White nationalism vs Multiracialism is silly. T

hings can be in between the two extremes and they don't have to have a ready name for it. We can call them monocultural but they can be multiracial. (South Africa for example) We can call them multicultural but they might be monoracial (Belgium would be an example)

---

But some are, and they are the ones creating "Diversity"

---

---

It's not extreme or artificial, happens all the time here.

---

I work with ppl who do not speak English. I speak English. Things work out fine.

---

The LAtin Americna workers separate over to one side and do this work, the Negroes and Whites do something else.

---

---

White Americans assimilate after generation

---

---

and are often indistinguishable from other White nationalities in the USA.

---

---

Latin American immigrants aren't.

---

---

Actually, I'd prefer no immigration to the USA happens, and all illegals kicked out.

---

---

Why not try to improve our own education system or improve the intelligence of our own people instead of accepting their stupidity and importing smarter people from other countries?

---

---

Minority children whose mothers are immigrants outperform students from the same ethnic group whose mothers were born in the United States, University researchers have shown.

The findings demonstrate that family optimism about the future, an attribute of the immigrant home, plays an important role in determining school success, the scholars said. The research also suggests that immigrant families and their values provide an unappreciated resource for policy-makers interested in improving schools.

"Most efforts to improve the educational performance of immigrant and minority youths focus on the students themselves," said Marta Tienda, the Ralph Lewis Professor and Chairman of Sociology and an author of the study.

The study emphasizes the need to involve parents in programs and policies designed to improve educational opportunities for minority youths.

"Diversity of the school-aged population need not be seen as a liability," Tienda said. "The principal policy challenge is to generate the optimism of immigrant parents among U.S.-born parents."

Tienda's conclusions were reported in the March issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly. The paper, "Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant Youth," was co-authored by Grace Kao, a University graduate student in Sociology.

The researchers studied educational performance among Hispanic, Asian and black youths from families that were first-generation (both parents and children were born abroad), second-generation (parents born abroad and children born in the United States) and third-generation (both parents and children were born in the United States).

Although immigrant status had little impact on the white children studied, it did influence success in school for minority immigrant children, Asian youths in particular. Second-generation students generally fared best, as they had both the advantage of an optimistic immigrant mother and the language skills necessary to be successful in school. Attitudes about the future, as well as use of time, seemed to be important in determining success, the researchers found.

"Foreign-born parents have significantly higher educational aspirations for their children than do native-born parents. Thus, parental immigrant status appears to be a crucial factor shaping the educational aspirations of immigrant youth," according to the report.

"International migrants are self-selected and predisposed, if not outright anxious, to adapt to the host society," Tienda said. "Although many find themselves at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder initially, they generally expect that they or their offspring will eventually experience upward mobility." The immigrants view their adjustment problems as temporary and are "creative in inventing pragmatic solutions to their current predicaments."

---

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/950330/tienda.shtml

---

Innovation benefits from clusters? Why does it have to be the USA?

---

---

Go cluster somewhere else, somewhere that wasn't founded by Whites for a change.

---

---

You are speaking of that. I ma saying theres different cariations. Its not all monocultural vs multicultural.
Using the ideas of White nationalism vs Multiracialism is silly. T

hings can be in between the two extremes and they don't have to have a ready name for it. We can call them monocultural but they can be multiracial. (South Africa for example) We can call them multicultural but they might be monoracial (Belgium would be an example)

---

We're SOLELY speaking of race in this instance.
Now, ignoring all culture, since it has nothing to do with race, can a country be something other than Multi- or Mono-racial?

---

Again your expereince isn't the measure for everyone else.
I work with ppl who do not speak English. I speak English. Things work out fine.

---

Racial and cultural and ethnic diversity is a WEAKNESS, and there are no actual strengths.

---

Were they all with the same specialty?

---

Workers that build houses around here tend to do everything. Lay the bricks, the roof tiles, paint, etc.

---

For Italian it took much longer than a signle genration. Latinos also assimilate after one generation. You just don't notice because you focus on the first generation and to you all latinos look alike.

---

And Latin Americans don't all look the same.
I live with a lot - I'd know.

And Latin Americans have virtual the same % of college graduates compared to first, second, and third generation, and all Latin Americans.

---

Some latinos are white remember.

---

---

So no white european immigration either right? But don't speak about the US. You hate the US and what it stands for anyway.

---

And part of the reason I hate the USA is because of all this immigration.

No immigrants.

---

Actually immigrants improve our education system.
[...]
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/950330/tienda.shtml

---

And it admits immigrants from the continent of Asia do this more often.

Remember, this may be good in some ways for the USA, but it's not helping the countries we get these people from. The best of these countries are immigrating to the USA, leaving their country in the third world.

We should be encouraging OUR OWN citizens to do better in school, instead of importing people to do our deeds over and over again, until we have a population of 1 billion.

---

Because the US does benefit as a country financially with the companies created here the money generated, and has more prestige

---

---

Spoken like a true racist.

---

Why not go to sub-Saharan Africa or Asia or South America instead?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

We're not talking about culture at all now.

---

---

We're SOLELY speaking of race in this instance.

---

---

Racial and cultural and ethnic diversity is a WEAKNESS, and there are no actual strengths.

---

Ok tell me do you believe that South Africa is stronger now that it is governed comepletely by blacks? Do you believe that whites leaving is a good thing for South Africa?

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Lack of other races is monoracial.
With other races is multiracial.

---

South Africa is a shit pile now and was never truly "Multiracial" at all.
Apartheid doesn't really count towards a "Multiracial" society.

It was a part of Britain until the 60's, so it really cruised off of Britain's accomplishments.

There were race riots and much more violence which are obviously the "Joys of diversity" and when Mandela came to power, it was never really a "Strong" country again.
Post-apartheid South Africa can't really be considered "Strong" nor could the majority of South Africa ever.

Wealth was solely with the Whites.

If you think THAT is a strength of racial diversity - wealth and power solely in the hands of one race - then you've contradicted yourself and the supposed aims of diversity.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

I thought we were speaking of multi- and mono-racial societies.
I said:

---

Lack of other races is monoracial.  
With other races is multiracial.

---

---

---

If Whites want to live with other races, they can do so in a multiculturalcountry.

---

---

South Africa is a shit pile now

---

---

It was a part of Britain until the 60's, so it really cruised off of Britain's accomplishments.

---

---

There were race riots and much more violence which are obviously the "Joys of diversity"

---

---

Post-apartheid South Africa can't really be considered "Strong" nor could the majority of South Africa ever.

---

---

Wealth was solely with the Whites.

---

---

Racial and cultural and ethnic diversity is a WEAKNESS, and there are no actual strengths.

---

And South africa was multiracial (there WERE MANY races there) but monocultural.

The brits brought in Asian indians in south africa.

Clearly they believed that many different races were needed there, Else they could easily have chased off all blacks from the territory and made it exclusively white without a single nonwhite living there. And they surely wouldn't have brought in asians.

---

you've contradicted yourself and the supposed aims of diversity.

---

Clearly you believe that South Africa NEEDS other races (whites in your case) in order to function.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

South Africa is a shitpile and adding other races would just put more people into a shitpile.

---

So it wasn't because of whites there then? It was just because it was a colony.

---

---

The riots occured DURING apartheid.

---

---

Yet it is majorly black now as a country and government.

---

---

So you are saying that a monoracial South africa without whites is a bad thing? You are contradicting this then

---

Nothing changed for the Negroes there.

The Whites still had their money, and they left with it.

There is no reason for Whites to live in Africa.

---

And South africa was multiracial (there WERE MANY races there) but monocultural.

The brits brought in Asian indians in south africa.

Clearly they believed that many different races were needed there, Else they could easily have chased off all blacks from the territory and made it exclusively white without a single nonwhite living there. And they surely wouldn't have brought in asians.

---

If they did it for the diversity they would have lived IN The diversity.
They didn't. They lived only with their kind, and nonWhites were stuck in different portions.

---

Nope I used to contradict YOUR view.  
Clearly you believe that South Africa NEEDS other races (whites in your case) in order to function.

---

---

I misused "Multiracial" yes.

---

---

South Africa is a shitpile and adding other races would just put more people into a shitpile.

---

---

It was because of the British, who were White.

---

---

They occurred during and after, Jake.

---

---

---

So you are saying that a monoracial South africa without whites is a bad thing? You are contradicting this then

---

I didn't say that.
The Negroes WERE poor, and they still are.

---

---

Nothing changed for the Negroes there.

---

---

There is no reason for Whites to live in Africa.

---

---

They believed many races were needed, so they created exclusively White portions?
That makes no sense.

---

If they did not need asians why did they bring them there?

---

If they did it for the diversity they would have lived IN The diversity.

---

---

I don't, actually.
I think that all non-Africans should leave South Africa, and it should try to fix itself without importing other races.

---

The introduction to Whites in South Africa - which wasn't really inhabited, and if it was, it was by non-Black African people (Khoisan or San peoples, belonging to the Capoid race) - was not beneficial to ANYONE but the Whites themselves.

Since the aim of a multiracial or multiculutral society is not to have one group on top, and the rest in the lower class, the example of South Africa before Black rule is an example of failed diversity.

Once the Whites left, which had pretty much all the money, South Africa spiraled down and is becoming more and more like the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.
150 years after the first colonies around Capetown, no Negroes existed for 100s of miles.

You could easily say that North America benefited from the European presence. But then you would be ignoring Amerind treatment from then until now.
Was it really helpful to Amerinds, or just the Whites?

Tell me, Jake, what "Skills" did the people from Asia have that the Whites in South Africa not have?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

I don't think you get it, Jake.

---

---

The introduction to Whites in South Africa - which wasn't really inhabited, and if it was, it was by non-Black African people  (Khoisan or San peoples, belonging to the Capoid race) - was not beneficial to ANYONE but the Whites themselves.

---

---

Since the aim of a multiracial or multiculutral society is not to have one group on top, and the rest in the lower class, the example of South Africa before Black rule is an example of failed diversity

---

---

Once the Whites left, which had pretty much all the money, South Africa spiraled down and is becoming more and more like the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

---

You could easily say that North America benefited from the European presence.

---

---

But then you would be ignoring Amerind treatment from then until now.
Was it really helpful to Amerinds, or just the Whites?

---

If thats really your belief I won't fight it.  

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

The Whites in South Africa contributed for themselves and for their European counterparts.

Again, I didn't say Whites didn't contribute to the country.
A contribution is not necessarily a good contribution, nor is one always favorable in multiracial society.

Not really. The Whites themselves were policing the Negroes. It's funny how they kicked the remaining Whites out by force which was no doubt a hate crime and many call it genocide.

Is that the joy of diversity, Jake?

Innocent White men, women, and their children SLAUGHTERED, RAPED, and much more?

What about one racial group having all of the money, and another living in poverty?

I never said North America didn't benefit from European presence.

The North Americans did not.
North America did.

Though I do think Whites should leave the USA because it sucks.

And I did not make any argument about how Whites are racist or exploitive. It was one or two examples, and it was just supporting the joys of diversity. It was in the past, and you need to understand that.

Jake, racial diversity has no strengths. None.
It's a weakness, and a crippling one at that.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Therefore, there is no reason to import other races into a society, as they don't bring anything new or different besides culture, race, religion, and the like - none of which help the development in the nation, but only push towards division of the people and conflict.

---

Absolutely not. Conflicts and division exist whereever you go, and multiculturalism teaches tolerance and understanding and curiosity from our very birth - we must be these things so that we can live happy lives in our society. All of which, I might add, are positive traits for people to have when they are growing up and participating in an increasingly globalized world.

I'm Canadian, and we are a multicultural country, and the only qualms I have with multiculturalism is that it can sometimes be divisive (as you said) as some people like to hang around their "own". They like to hang around their ethnic enclaves (ChinaTown, Little Italy), etc, and this can lead to problems in integrating into mainstream Canadian society. However, second generation Canadians are integrated from birth and do not face the same obstacles as their parents. They are Canadian, through and through, and that is the end of it.

---

Different races and cultures speak different languages.
Often, immigrants come to the USA speaking no English.

That isn't helping one bit.

---

Different cultures speak different languages - perceived race has little to do with it. There are whites that come to Canada and speak not a word of English and don't bother learning English in their little ethnic enclaves; So, again, race has little to do with it. Culture would be the culprit if there was a victim - there sadly is not.

Immigrants don't HAVE to speak English. If they want to be successful, they will LEARN. And speaking English does not mean one cannot contribute to society. There are foreign-born people that have other skills that they can use to contribute while they are learning English - bit by bit.

---

Latin Americans immigrate to the USA all the time without knowing English. Some might know it, but too many don't.
This "Diversity" and "multiculturalism" isn't helping us.

---

Did you just say Latin Americans don't want to speak English, and then cite that as an example for why diversity and multiculturalism aren't helping?

Pretty weak point, imo. America IS multiculturalist and diverse; THAT is America. You act as if there is some other alternative. As if multiculturalism were some sort of "science project" that America could just toss away when you think some experiments haven't been fruitful enough. You would ask the French to stop being French, so I don't know why you would ask America to stop being American.

Post edited at 1:03 pm on July 8, 2009 by Takinam