Dan Minette wrote:
> If your goal is long term multiculturalism, then you need to keep barriers
> up between people. Neighborhoods need to be kept segregated. English needs
> to be the second, not the first language of the ethnic groups, kids need to
> be kept from playing together. And, most important, people from different
> ethnic groups must marry exclusively within that group. Thus, even dating
> people from the other ethnic groups must be taboo, because dating can lead
> to falling in love and wanting to get married.
>
> The reason for this is that, if the barriers come down, and there is general
> acceptance between people from different backgrounds, they soon start having
> each other over for dinner, eating each other's foods, and seeing each
> other's traditions. The trade ethnic recepies, words, expressions, and even
> traditions.
>
We're obviously not talking about the same thing here. I guess my
idea of multiculturalism is quite a bit more watered down than the
one you invision. No barriers, no restrictions, simply a policy
that does not favor or encourage one culture over another but does
foster pride in ones ethnicity.
<snip>
> Now, having said that, I think it is foolish to push people to drop
> traditions.
But this is what assimilation encourages.
We should work hard to ensure that all students master English.
> If it is not their first language, efforts should be made to ensure that
> they are as fluent as those who have it as their first language. When kids
> are very young, this is fairly straightforward. As I mentioned, my mom did
> not have English as her first language, and now she barely remembers any
> German at all.
My wife didn't speak a word of English until she was nine, now she
can not speak Japanese at all.
>
>>I saw one study that stated that 41% of the countries non English
>>speaking students were in California. This compared with 15% in
>>Texas. The next closest states had 7%. If true the (educational)
>>challenge in California is 2.5 times greater than anywhere else.
>>I'm not sure about the source however perhaps someone else knows
>>something about them: http://www.elausa.org/issues/bestatus.html
>>
>>
>
> Well, that puzzles me. Let us consider the ethnic makeup of both states:
>
> California Texas
> White alone 46.7 52.4
> Hispanic 32.4 32
> Asian 10.9 2.7
> Black 6.7 11.5
> Other 3.3 1.4
>
> We see that the Hispanic population is about equal. The Asian population of
> California is much higher, but that makes sense. I'm not sure how California
> has many more non-English speaking people, because I know that there are
> many multi-generational Asian families in California. Further, since Asians
> cannot immigrate illegally, the immigration rules tend to favor well
> educated people who already know English.
A possible reason; according to the California census numbers the
Hispanic/Latino population in Ca. increased from 25 to 35% between
'90 and '00. I'm guessing that we get a good deal more migrant
workers here because of the high percentage of fertile land. And
even if Asian immigrants speak English, their children seldom do.
California serves as a gateway to the U.S. from Asia.
>
> The only other possibility that I see is that the Hispanics in Texas tend to
> have a greater fraction of mult-generational Americans than those in
> California.
This is probably true.
Or, they learn English faster.
>
This is doubtful as I believe Texas continues to support bilingual
education which has been proven to impair English education.
>>Honestly, I don't think a comparison of the two states is valid or
>>even relevant.
>>
>
> Why?
>
Immigration statistics are not similar, politics are far different;
whereas, as you mentioned, eccentric fringe politicians are
tolerated on a case by case basis (especially if they say things
like the only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and
dead armadillos), alternative lifestyles proliferate here. The
whole state (with notable exceptions) is geared towards tolerance
and a "do your own thing" kind of attitude.
>
>>I don't think that programs that are more effective at teaching the
>>native language to the children of immigrants is detrimental to a
>>multicultural society. To the contrary, an individual that
>>functions well in a society is more likely to be able to protect
>>those facets of his culture that he/she wishes to retain.
>>
>
> Huh? I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Isolation,
> historically, has been the easiest way to preserve differences.
>
But is it the only way?
> But, what keeps an ethnic group pure for generations? The only thing I can
> think of is a taboo against intermarriage. Further, to preserve that taboo,
> contact with other groups needs to be limited or other groups need to be
> stigmatized in some manner.
Again, we're not talking about the same thing. My vision of
multiculturalism does not employ isolation.
>
>
>>Assimilation, on the other hand, is absorption into the main
>>cultural body, and (in my mind) encourages cultural homogeneity.
>>while this may be good for peaceful coexistence, it comes at the
>>expense of diversity.
>>
>
> Is diversity important enough for so that its worthwhile having taboos
> against intermarriage? If so, why wouldn't the maintenance of those taboos
> foster a tremendous lack of tolerance?
>
No isolation, no taboos. Taboos are taboo (in this context).
Encourage diversity for its own sake. Do not institutionalize one
culture at the expense of others. Foster pride in ethnicity. Do
not discourage differences, celebrate them. Tolerate behavior that
you do not understand or appreciate. That's my multiculturalism.
>
>>One of the most interesting things about Jijo to me was its
>>multiculturalism. Just the idea that races so radically different
>>from one another could coexist was very cool.
>>
>
> Yea, but they _couldn't_ intermarry.
>
Correction, if they did intermarry, they could not procreate...
Maybe.
8^)
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
Irreverence is the champion of liberty.
Mark Twain - Notebook, 1888
