[quote]MaximusB wrote:
…in Canada, there are only Canadians. [/quote]
Um, okay.
But, in reality, 42% of Toronto and 46% of Vancouver are immigrants.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is my point. If you leave your native country because of some kind of oppression, then I think it is appropriate to leave that behind and become a part of your new country. My point was not so much about deporting or not deporting, but rather that there is a huge cultural divide in France, as well as here in the US. For example, in Canada, there are only Canadians. Here in the US, we have Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans. Why do we maintain this alter identity? [/quote]
I agree with you, I hate stereotyping (multiculturalism). If you want to be here, be an American. But how are you going to legislate people to stop self-identifying with foreign cultures?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is my point. If you leave your native country because of some kind of oppression, then I think it is appropriate to leave that behind and become a part of your new country. My point was not so much about deporting or not deporting, but rather that there is a huge cultural divide in France, as well as here in the US. For example, in Canada, there are only Canadians. Here in the US, we have Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans. Why do we maintain this alter identity? [/quote]
Theodore Roosevelt:
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts â??nativeâ?? before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City
12 October 1915
It’s a time issue, when someone is away from their native land long enough, they eventually feel that their new surroundings are their new home. This is how it worked with me at least, I have been here so long that I can’t totally identify with Italy all that much anymore.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is my point. If you leave your native country because of some kind of oppression, then I think it is appropriate to leave that behind and become a part of your new country. My point was not so much about deporting or not deporting, but rather that there is a huge cultural divide in France, as well as here in the US. For example, in Canada, there are only Canadians. Here in the US, we have Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans. Why do we maintain this alter identity? [/quote]
Theodore Roosevelt:
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts â??nativeâ?? before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City
12 October 1915 [/quote]
Great find Steely, people should keep this in mind when we see the immigrant marching in the streets for equal rights. With their native flags waving, and signs written in Spanish.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you leave your native country because of some kind of oppression, then I think it is appropriate to leave that behind and become a part of your new country. [/quote]
Feathered Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington and co. are rolling in their tipi-shaped totem-decorated graves!
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you leave your native country because of some kind of oppression, then I think it is appropriate to leave that behind and become a part of your new country. [/quote]
Feathered Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington and co. are rolling in their tipi-shaped totem-decorated graves![/quote]
I must admit, lixy, that made me laugh.
On a related note, it is also good that the pilgrims renounced their dresses and donned loin-cloths.
Satire aside, I don’t think anyone would argue that what early americans did to the natives was a good thing. It does not serve to justify forcing cultural change in the absolute sense. Because some guys hundreds of years ago did it, we’re supposed to roll over and let it get done to us today?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Satire aside, I don’t think anyone would argue that what early americans did to the natives was a good thing. It does not serve to justify forcing cultural change in the absolute sense. Because some guys hundreds of years ago did it, we’re supposed to roll over and let it get done to us today?[/quote]
And honestly… if it had been at all possible for native americans to force assimilation, there probably would be more than like 35 of them left nowadays.
Honestly I think this whole thing (with France), is that there are probably more Muslims people there than they would like to have, and this is a ploy to do something about that.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Honestly I think this whole thing (with France), is that there are probably more Muslims people there than they would like to have, and this is a ploy to do something about that. [/quote]
I agree with this.
I just don’t like it when the government tells me what I can and cannot wear (and yes, I think public nudity is awesome).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Satire aside, I don’t think anyone would argue that what early americans did to the natives was a good thing. It does not serve to justify forcing cultural change in the absolute sense. Because some guys hundreds of years ago did it, we’re supposed to roll over and let it get done to us today?[/quote]
The keyword is “forcing”. Cultures change whether you “force” it or not. And I think going about it with laws and/or guns is a very bad idea. Totalitarian countries that enforce dress-codes will have a field day with this one. At the end of the day, everybody loses. Well…besides populist politician scumbags.
The “regionale” elections are in less than two months. Sarkozy is losing ground and this might be a ploy to distract from the steep rise in unemployment figures since his election.
And if I may ask, what is being done to you today?
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you leave your native country because of some kind of oppression, then I think it is appropriate to leave that behind and become a part of your new country. [/quote]
Feathered Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington and co. are rolling in their tipi-shaped totem-decorated graves![/quote]
Don’t worry, Lixy-- you can still wear YOUR burqa when you wanna.
Evening, Loxy, long time no …er …type!
About the burquas, every stupid law is bad. So there.
And it could also backfire in a very ugly manner. A law makes only sense if you plan to enforce it.
Now in the most alienated and unenlightened districts, where women are forced to wear these , who exactly will stop them wearing it? It would rather end with more women wearing it because the pressure to stand up for the only thing they can identitfy with will rise. And it costs them nothing to beat a woman to submission.
On the other hand, if it’s just about making public servants’ life easier as discussed in the article, then it’s rather reasonable. You cannot expect to ID yourself py presenting a piece of plastic without showing your face. This should be the standard or we can as well forget the idea of carrying an ID card altogether.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Evening, Loxy, long time no …er …type!
About the burquas, every stupid law is bad. So there.
And it could also backfire in a very ugly manner. A law makes only sense if you plan to enforce it.
Now in the most alienated and unenlightened districts, where women are forced to wear these , who exactly will stop them wearing it? It would rather end with more women wearing it because the pressure to stand up for the only thing they can identitfy with will rise. And it costs them nothing to beat a woman to submission.
On the other hand, if it’s just about making public servants’ life easier as discussed in the article, then it’s rather reasonable. You cannot expect to ID yourself py presenting a piece of plastic without showing your face. This should be the standard or we can as well forget the idea of carrying an ID card altogether. [/quote]
Yes. The “security” argument is more reasonable. But I don’t buy it. A cop could stop you anytime and ask you to uncover your face as well as present your “papiers”. And you have to comply. Burqa or no burqa.
This debate is a smokescreen. It fits in the “national identity” circus.
The Imam of Drancy came out in full support of the ban and publicly stated that it was against the teachings of Islam. Yesterday, fundamentalists stormed his mosque and threatened to “liquidate” him.
Wearing that crap should be BANNED in all western nations. A face is the main point of recognition. Having it covered is very shady and makes to committing various crimes easy with no way to identify the perpetrator.
No woman wants to wear that shit. They one’s that do are no different from a brainwashed slave that enjoys his daily beatings by instinct. Too damaged and brainwashed to see the light.
Also, this is a way women were and are oppressed, and it should be ended once and for all. It stems from the fact that Muslim Men are insanely Jealous and deem all women Evil sex fiends to be controlled and managed. Their faced and bodies are covered like that to remove ANY AND ALL sexual power form them and turn them into humbled servants with absolutely ZERO power. Show an ankle? get a beating. show your hair, die. lol. Sick stuff. All in the name of their Religion.
THAT is why it should and will be banned in Europe in very short order. Already the new generation of Muslim kids growing up in Europe hate that crap. Want nothing to do with it. Can any western woman or man blame them? They have not evolved their social structure in THOUSANDS of years. They’re relics of the distant distant past.
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Evening, Loxy, long time no …er …type!
About the burquas, every stupid law is bad. So there.
And it could also backfire in a very ugly manner. A law makes only sense if you plan to enforce it.
Now in the most alienated and unenlightened districts, where women are forced to wear these , who exactly will stop them wearing it? It would rather end with more women wearing it because the pressure to stand up for the only thing they can identitfy with will rise. And it costs them nothing to beat a woman to submission.
On the other hand, if it’s just about making public servants’ life easier as discussed in the article, then it’s rather reasonable. You cannot expect to ID yourself py presenting a piece of plastic without showing your face. This should be the standard or we can as well forget the idea of carrying an ID card altogether. [/quote]
Yes. The “security” argument is more reasonable. But I don’t buy it. A cop could stop you anytime and ask you to uncover your face as well as present your “papiers”. And you have to comply. Burqa or no burqa.
This debate is a smokescreen. It fits in the “national identity” circus.
The Imam of Drancy came out in full support of the ban and publicly stated that it was against the teachings of Islam. Yesterday, fundamentalists stormed his mosque and threatened to “liquidate” him.[/quote]
Liquidate. lol.
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Satire aside, I don’t think anyone would argue that what early americans did to the natives was a good thing. It does not serve to justify forcing cultural change in the absolute sense. Because some guys hundreds of years ago did it, we’re supposed to roll over and let it get done to us today?[/quote]
The keyword is “forcing”. Cultures change whether you “force” it or not. And I think going about it with laws and/or guns is a very bad idea. Totalitarian countries that enforce dress-codes will have a field day with this one. At the end of the day, everybody loses. Well…besides populist politician scumbags.
The “regionale” elections are in less than two months. Sarkozy is losing ground and this might be a ploy to distract from the steep rise in unemployment figures since his election.
And if I may ask, what is being done to you today?[/quote]
Any government action, even in a democracy, is force.
I have been striped of free speech, I have my property stolen weekly and given to others and used to fund things like state approved torture, I’m taught to be ashamed of “my” past, I have legal hurdles placed in front of me for jobs and school because of my race and sex, there are popular organizations in this country devoted to legally harassing people of my religion, sex, and race, there are large media networks not only complacent but also active in these acts, there are senators and network anchors who openly mock my spiritual beliefs (in the name of tolerance no less)…
Want me to keep going?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Satire aside, I don’t think anyone would argue that what early americans did to the natives was a good thing. It does not serve to justify forcing cultural change in the absolute sense. Because some guys hundreds of years ago did it, we’re supposed to roll over and let it get done to us today?[/quote]
The keyword is “forcing”. Cultures change whether you “force” it or not. And I think going about it with laws and/or guns is a very bad idea. Totalitarian countries that enforce dress-codes will have a field day with this one. At the end of the day, everybody loses. Well…besides populist politician scumbags.
The “regionale” elections are in less than two months. Sarkozy is losing ground and this might be a ploy to distract from the steep rise in unemployment figures since his election.
And if I may ask, what is being done to you today?[/quote]
Any government action, even in a democracy, is force.
I have been striped of free speech, I have my property stolen weekly and given to others and used to fund things like state approved torture, I’m taught to be ashamed of “my” past, I have legal hurdles placed in front of me for jobs and school because of my race and sex, there are popular organizations in this country devoted to legally harassing people of my religion, sex, and race, there are large media networks not only complacent but also active in these acts, there are senators and network anchors who openly mock my spiritual beliefs (in the name of tolerance no less)…
Want me to keep going?
[/quote]
yes YES!!!
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Wearing that crap should be BANNED in all western nations. A face is the main point of recognition. Having it covered is very shady and makes to committing various crimes easy with no way to identify the perpetrator.
[/quote]
Beards, hats, sunglasses, hoods and makeup?
[quote]
No woman wants to wear that shit. They one’s that do are no different from a brainwashed slave that enjoys his daily beatings by instinct. Too damaged and brainwashed to see the light.
Also, this is a way women were and are oppressed, and it should be ended once and for all. It stems from the fact that Muslim Men are insanely Jealous and deem all women Evil sex fiends to be controlled and managed. Their faced and bodies are covered like that to remove ANY AND ALL sexual power form them and turn them into humbled servants with absolutely ZERO power. Show an ankle? get a beating. show your hair, die. lol. Sick stuff. All in the name of their Religion.
THAT is why it should and will be banned in Europe in very short order. Already the new generation of Muslim kids growing up in Europe hate that crap. Want nothing to do with it. Can any western woman or man blame them? They have not evolved their social structure in THOUSANDS of years. They’re relics of the distant distant past. [/quote]
Then why not crack down on domestic abuse?