Regarding the so called "refugees" invading Australia
- Thread starter Middleway
- Start date
Shadowsblaze
Bluelighter
No I think he was answering someone wise so he didn't appear stupid in there eyes and he was answering someone stupidly so they didn't appear wise in there own eyes.
Last edited:
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Why is it that in the US, integration tends to happen, while other countries seem to have such difficulty?
babylonboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
Does integration happen? Do many recent Mexican immigrants not live in Spanish-speaking enclaves? Isn't Chicago incredibly segregated? Do Muslim Americans not suffer from discrimination and prejudice? Sure, people of Irish and Italian heritage have assimilated, but even then, they're often "hyphenated Americans", and it's been a long time since those major influxes. I think, at the very least, that your assertion belies a gross oversimplification of the matter.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Seems to. It also seems that it's quite common for the old timers to panic about the new timers.
My great-grandfather was born in the part of town known for new immigrants. They nicknamed one of the local streets after a habit of the immigrants. My grandmother would be identified as just-another-American. So from immigrants to American within two generations.
The same part of town is still known for new immigrants. Different culture now. Same moral panic. I expect we'll see the same result in a generation or two.
Sometimes I wish we'd have kept knowledge of the language. I have records in langauges I can't even read.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Multi-cultural immigration to Australia is a relatively new phenomena, though. Immigrants from all regions of the world have always been arriving in America.
So the legal restrictions on most immigrant groups have only been removed a generation or so ago. Give it another couple of decades, and lets see where it's at.
So the legal restrictions on most immigrant groups have only been removed a generation or so ago. Give it another couple of decades, and lets see where it's at.
babylonboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
Escher, I think you might be generalising a little. What you're saying is true of some immigrants (your family, evidently), but think about Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans, who even to this day self-identify in relation to the "old country", even though they themselves and their parents were born in the United States. I also think it's important not to overlook the factor of ethnicity, and, bluntly, skin tone and accent. Living in the UK, I naturally know many second- and third-generation British Muslims. Those of relatively pale-skinned heritage, Turks and Arabs, for instance, are more highly integrated, and self-identify as entirely English, whereas those of South Asian descent generally are less fully integrated. My point is just that there's a lot to this, and I think that to say that in the United States, immigrants assimilate culturally, but that this is not true of other countries, is to overlook the finer points of a nuanced phenomenon.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Seeing that people of English (Irish, Scottish etc) ancestory are also lighter skinned, could it be that the lighter skinned Turks and Arabs are just more accepted culturally than the others, rather than just a failure to assimilate? This might lead those who less successfully integrate to feel as an out group among the light skinned in group, leading to less cultural integration.
Just a theory.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
One might think that. Humans have a tendency to be self-deceptive and biased.
babylonboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
Yeah, Bardeaux, what I was getting at is that people of a skin tone that is similar to that of the majority population are likely to be assimilated more readily. In the case of British Muslims, it's also worth considering that there are large Indian and Pakistani communities, and these can be more inward-looking, but there aren't sufficiently large populations of Arabic or Turkish speakers to allow the same kind of segregation, where you have communities living side by side. It's a complex matter. With regards to skin tone, though, the case of African-Americans seems worth mentioning. People of African descent have been in the United States for a very, very long time, yet they still maintain a distinct culture, including cuisine, music, language and fashion, that is differentiated from that of American society as a whole. I understand that interracial marriages and families are still relatively uncommon, and that there is often a significant degree of segregation in large urban centres. That does not seem to speak to "integration" or "assimilation" to my mind, American society remains heterogenous even with regards to ethnic groups who have been present for many generations. Of course, we should consider whether or not a homogenous society is a desirable thing- isn't a little diversity nice?
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
I dunno. In the US, outside of the legacy of Jim Crow and African-Americans (and even that is collapsing), I see more integration happening. I saw that happen today, one of those cultural shifts that can happen in a generation. I was standing in line at one of the local ethnic grocery stores and there was this tall black woman, wearing an outfit and with hair that wouldn't look out of place at a downtown club. But judging by her skin tone, the stuff she was buying, and her accent, I'd place her as either born-in-Africa, came over young, or born in the US to immigrant parents.
There was an older woman, headscarf and all, perhaps SE Europe, Turkish, Caucasian region, etc, standing ahead of her, looking at her very disapprovingly. :D
You bring up Italians and Irish. While there are some that are still very "we identify as <old country>", as a whole, I think that's the exception rather than the rule. I knew more than a few people with Italian or Irish surnames growing up. I can't recall any who were really gung-ho about identifying with the old country. I'm sure they exist, but I don't think they are common.
It seems more common for people to have some awareness of where their ancestors came from and have some cultural hangovers, usually food, although it can crop up in other surprising ways - such as the borrow/lend confusion in my local dialect, which stems from my mother, who got it from her mother and father, both of them who were raised by people whose native tongue lacked distinct terms for each action.
Please tell me the nice sanitized version where you guys don't give Canada a run for it's money in how the indigenous population was treated by the ruling class of Australia and how in it's early years the British Empire didn't use Irish rebels along with the rest of the "convicts" to build railways and just basic slave labour. I just love to hear glossed over history 8)
Last edited:
Oh man, assessing refugee legitimacy by clothing and other superficial signs = genius.
Oh and no one is allowed to criticise or name call but middleway, nice rule there.
Oh and no one is allowed to criticise or name call but middleway, nice rule there.
Middleway does not speak for most of us.
babylonboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
That's not pretension, it's understanding how to use the English language effectively. For instance, doubling up on punctuation looks shit, as does omitting commas, and resorting to cheap personal shots based on writing style makes you look like an intellectually bankrupt twat being backed into a corner and lashing out because you can't argue like an adult. It's always amusing to see people who vehemently oppose immigration, and often make complaints about the poor English skills of the new arrivals, struggling with the language themselves.
Well what would be your solution to bring Aboriginal Australians standard of living to meet the rest of the population?
You also mention the British empire using Irish slaves, did this happen after 1901?
Last edited:
Im only trying to make sense of this:
"The arguments used against allowing "boat people", "refugees", and "asylum seekers" to cross international borders are generally ad hominem fallacies.
How quickly Australians forget that the majority of them are descendants of Europeans that came here on boats, and that the argument for settling via the doctrine of terra nullius was itself fallacious. Europeans settled Australia illegally, from 1788 onwards. Therefore, the majority of the population of Australia (except indigenous Australians, perhaps) are "boat people" and/or descendants of "boat people.
Any arguments, for not allowing humans to cross the border, that remain, are not reasonable or logical in the strict senses of the terms. The premises that form the arguments are based on legal fiction. Therein lies the problem; resolving apparent contradictions that result from political ideology based on legal fiction."
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
I'm intrigued as to why it is so important for you to make sense of it; there are many more opinions for you to scrutinise. The underlying point I was trying to make is that Australians and humans in general have a tendency to be hypocritical, that is all. Is it really so hard for you to grasp that humans have a tendency to be self-deceptive and biased?
Aboriginal Australians were inhabitants of this country to begin with. Europeans came along, in particular I highlight the English's approach to colonise Australia. The English falsely proclaimed the land as terra-nullius (see the Mabo case if you are truly interested in the topic), then went about colonising.
Now we have a situation where much of the public (not all, but I have noticed this in many of my friends) have a negative (perhaps racist, bigoted, and biased) view towards immigrants of all types (including "boat people", "refugees", and "asylum seekers"). It is hypocritical for Australians to oppose immigration based on a person's country of origin; as I explained, Australia was colonised illegally in the first place (did indigenous Australians have a law against foreigners?). I presented a rational approach to this topic. That is all.
Edit: and I just noticed this comment:
For further reference, name-calling is the lowest form of argument. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. I can't hate on you for your view, I hope this assists you in your quest to provoke needless quarrels:
Furthermore, do you see a need to provoke others? This is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it may supplement your search for a wholesome existence:
Last edited by a moderator:
^ "It is hypocritical for Australians to oppose immigration based on a persons country of origin; as I explained, Australia was colonised illegally in the first place (did indigenous Australians have a law against foreigners?)."
No, Indigenous Australians did not have any law against the immigration of foreigners.
Do you live in Australia?
No, Indigenous Australians did not have any law against the immigration of foreigners.
Do you live in Australia?
Last edited:
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Prove it.