Russia's demographic 'devastation'

[BC]

BC ~ If we had but a single language, then we certainly would have lost a lot of diversity. Language is often seen as the programming for the mind. There are concepts in some languages that simply do not exist in others. But, increasingly, it is necessary to have a passing knowledge of more than one tongue. This is good as it exposes us to new thought patterns as well as the ability to communicate with huge numbers of people that we would otherwise have to ignore.

Andrew,

As you likely know there is a huge difference between being able to converse in a foreign language and real understanding.. The ability to think (and even dream) in the language being spoken is critical.  This requires much more than lessons, books and cd's.  IMHO learning true thought patterns will remain quite rare.

Funny that you should mention it.. I received a 'wrong number' call today from someone in the UK.  I could hardly understand what the guy wanted and we were both speaking the same language!

 

 

[jb]

Just my opinion, but I feel as soon as a nation begins to embrace  "diversity", as a nation it begins it's death spiral.  Diversity  is killing the USA.  We once had the notion of  "E Pluribus  Unum"  One from many.  This made us strong.  Now we are  many seperate "ones", we have been told we should embrace that which is  different, let it stand alone, do not require that the immigrant  assilimilate, we can embrace yet another language,  and we begin  to lose our identity as a nation.  We were always multi-racial,  but until somewhat recently, we were never multi-cultural.  The  whole multi-cultural, politically correct, bi-lingual education,  everything has to be preached in a half dozen different languages, put  the UN in charge of everything bolsh!t is just a left wing plot to  destroy everything our forefathers built.

Diversity is bad...

[andrewfi]

BC ~ Yes, you are right, there is a difference, but I know that one does not have to understand a huge amount in order to start to be able to understand some of the differences. I am very far from fluent in Russian, tiny, tiny active vocabulary, but I nowadays understand the act that people put on for foreigners, even if I do not understand everything I hear!

jb ~ There is a difference between diversity and multiculturalism. It is almost impossible to argue that diversity is not generally productive, both economically and socially. The same can not be said of unfettered multiculturalism. The United States is (are) not a multicultural society but it is diverse. Sweden is less diverse but is multicultural. In the UK, which has embraced multicultural ideals to a large degree and is very definately, very diverse, there is now a tendency by many groups of many ethnic and religious backgrounds to take a step backward from multiculturalism.

[BC]

Andrew,

Take Chinatown in San Francisco as an example to clarify the differences..

Diversity? Multi-Culti?

Would it be safe to assume that Chinatown is a diverse part of SF but San Francisco is Multi-Culti as a whole?

[andrewfi]

Well, again this is going well off topic! But here is a good article about multiculturalism, it makes a good stab at finding a definition and is thus a good start. Methinks that what many Americans might call multiculturalism is merely acceptance of diversity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#United_States

IMHO multiculturalism is much more than acceptance of other groups but it is not a single yes/no issue, but is a graded one and, in the US, for example can be a regionally based issue within a single country.

[Admin]

Well, again this is going well off topic! But here is a good article about multiculturalism, it makes a good stab at finding a definition and is thus a good start. Methinks that what many Americans might call multiculturalism is merely acceptance of diversity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#United_States

IMHO multiculturalism is much more than acceptance of other groups but it is not a single yes/no issue, but is a graded one and, in the US, for example can be a regionally based issue within a single country.

Stepping out of my area of expertise - I still wonder - isn't the 'issue' of multi-culturalism versus diversity - the 'one from many' versus embracing all differences - isn't this one of the hot topics of the social scientists?

I guess I mean to say - from what I have read (not much), there are many MANY opinions on the topic, but precious little in the way of definitive conclusions which may reasonably be applied - and none which have universal application.

This seems to me a topic in which we all must agree that there is probably no universal truth - and while we all may have opinions, some quite passionate, in the end - IF we are reasonable, my bet is we will need to accept this as a topic in which reasonable people will fail to reach agreement.

Not that this should preclude us from the attempt to seek commonality and points of agreement - just that it seems a very complex topic - and one which has been the subject of some great minds pondering for some years. Who knows - maybe someone here will think up something those others have not

- Dan

[jb]

It is difficult to tread, even softly, into this arena in the US  because those who preach multi-culturalism will so often play a race  card to quell the opposition.  Nobody likes to be called a racist  so they've learned that it's an effective way to shut you up.   However, iyou would have a hard job to convince me that it's a good  thing to teach our children that Americans don't all need a common  language. Bi-lingual education tells them that it is.  Embracing  ebonics tells a part of the population that it is.  Similarily, I  do not see it as a good thing when certain cultual group dominate any  given industry,  yet we see it everyday throughout the US.   Vietnamese dominate the gulf coast fishing business, as mentioned,  Ethopians seem to be in charge of the taxicab business in Washington  DC, Koreans have a choke hold on the motel business, Pakistanis have  the convience stores, Mexicans provide most of the farm labor force,  and Blacks dominate the illegal drug trade, etc.

In what I've personally seen in Russia, there are some of these same  tendencies within certain racial/cultural groups to do the same thing,  mostly in the service sector,although not quite on the same  magnitude.  Most Russians are just so happy to have a job that  pays a living wage they don't seem to mind their ethnic neighbor  working alongside them in whatever business.

WRT to multi-culture bringing opportunity, that's a hard thing to deny,  as long as national economic interests and self-defense issues are not  in harms way, I think it is a good thing for different nations/cultures  to engage in trade and cultural exchange.  A prime example of the  good things this has brought on a world-wide scale, is the  use of  modern Americam farm methods.   Fifty years ago 3/5ths of the  world was unable to feed itself.  The American agra-business  stepped up to the plate with modern chemical fertilizers, cheap to make  and also easy and cheap to trans-ship in bulk, suited-to-terrain  farming machinery, the Caterpillar Tractor is standard of the world in  this business.  The Mid-Western US universities with strong  programs for farming also were instrumental with research for disease  resistant crop seeds, and a whole host of Government assistance progams  initiated by the US.  Thus, it has all come together and most of  those parts of the world which had the need, the native intelligence,  and the desire, are now producing enough food to be  self-sufficient.  There are still parts of the world where the  climate is so human-kind unfriendly, the native population cannot be  taught, either they are so culturally backwards, or just to stupid to  survive in a modern day environment, or both, but they do exist.   All one needs to do to figure out which ones I'm referring to is to  look at those countries  which are perpetually standing in line  with their hands out at the UN.

However, taken the wrong way, a stronger culture can easily dominate,  even destroy a less strong culture.  The historical model of that  is Rome's dominance of Europe and the mid-east up thru the 3rd  century.  We see the China of today as an emerging culture of  dominance, something to watch out for.  Certain religions are a  culture unto themselves and also seek domination, Roman Catholics are  the historically biggest in that group, but the Islamicist are also in  the world domination business.

Take your pick,  multi-culturalism is either your best friend, or your dominator.

[jb]

An very interesting piece by Mark Steyn shows us that the problems of  Russian devastation are not confined solely to Russia,  Europe is  not too far behind.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

[andrewfi]

Well, for you who would love to make glass car parks in deserts, perhpas when reading the numers you need to know that the very people that you might choose not to be 'multi-cultural' with are the ones who are propping up the birth rate in the US. If one is concerned about the issue in Europe then one should be more concerned about the issue in the US. Overall, in Europe birth rates are tending down. In the US too. In the US though the figure is masked by non-white and hispanic birthrates. Now, I have no problem with that, cultures change over time and so does a racial mix in a heterogenous society, but those who prefer to see a country with pale faces all worshipping at the sign of the cross every Sunday need to look more closely at the numbers. Steyn may be a ranting bigot, I don't know for sure, but the piece seems to tend that way, but he did not read the numbers well enough, although he does seem to be aware of the issue as a whole. He obviously does not realise why people really have large families, unless he just makes his money by frightening bigots!

[jb]

From his name, I'm guessing he's jewish, which some would say or  suggest he's biased from his ethnic upbringings, although jews tend to  be more liberal than conservative.  However, I'm trying to look at  the overall picture he's presented and I have to say I've basically  known all of this information from other readings, I've just never seen  it put together quite so succinctly. 

I thought it was a good read, and certainly it sheds more light on the false gods of multi-culturalism.

[jb]

Of course, Mark Steyn did not address some of the other more pressing  concerns regarding "women's rights" throughout the so called "free  world".  Specifically China and India, where the birthrate of girl  children is artificially depressed due to cultural trends.

Selective abortion of the female fetus discovered during ultrasound  examination is fairly widespread in both countries, although there are  no real numbers for China, India has released studies that show half a  million girl babies are killed each year at the wish of couples wanting  to try for another pregnancy that might yield a boy child.  This  trend has already affected Punjab state to the point that many men have  to look outside their province for wives, there simply aren't enough  girls to go around.  Project this into the future two generations  and the problems simply magnify by a factor of 4.  I wouldn't want  to be a male child born in Punjab province India today.

You can call Mr. Steyn a bigot if you like, but personally, I think  he's onto something we should consider seriously.  There's an  awful lot of smoke there, perhaps we ought to be looking for the fire.

[Oosik]

Diversity for the sake of diversity is neutral, not a plus or minus, yet so often it is used as a circular argument to support itself.

The greatest civilization prior to the US were the Romans, in large part because they would take the best of the foreign cultures and technology and intigrate it into Roman life. This is the melting pot theory.

In the US, we were founded by Protestant Christians, and they are 90% responsible for what we are. Other groups were welcomed, not perfectly, but still welcomed to join the club AS LONG AS THEY LEARNED AND FOLLWED OUR RULES. For the longest time, they also intigrated, and the best of what they had became American too.
But in the last 40 years the internationalist/socialists have been trying to break down this model, turning us from the melting pot to the "salad bowl" model, where each sub-group largely maintains it's own identity. For those who fail to inherently see the illogic of that, think of Quebec, think of the Balkans, Paris, think of all the little barrios in the US, or ethnic enclaves anywhere. When you want to destroy an enemy, you divide and conquer, correct? If you want to destroy a nation, multiculturalism is certainly a dividing. The folks who support it don't tell you that the goal is to ultimately end nationalsim, to create a grand UN run socialist world, but that is the goal. Sadly, they have many useful idiots who support them without realizing the end goal. Think about it: why divide a country if you don't want to weaken it?

Diversity is nice when you want interesting dinner conversation. But when you invite a guest to your table, you expect him to be polite. When you begin the meal with your traditional prayer, if they don't like it, they should be quiet and respectful, they don't have to join in. Now, we have some groups that have been welcomed to the country who come to dinner, interrupt the prayer, whine that it is offensive, complain about the Christmas tree, and demand that you hide your religion and culture so that you don't offend them. Think of the recent statements from the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League. Think of the Arab groups that have sprung up in the last decade. This kind of diversity only serves to tear the country apart.

Look at Britain, a majority polled there don't have a sense of what it means to be British, they have been taught to not be proud of their history, and that all other cultures are just as good. So when you see muslims in "Britainistan" as an Englisman once told me, acting like third world thugs yet they are told British culture is no better, how does that help the country stay vibrant with a vibrant culture?

[TigerPaws]

Selective abortion of the female fetus discovered during ultrasound  examination is fairly widespread in both countries, although there are  no real numbers for China, India has released studies that show half a  million girl babies are killed each year at the wish of couples wanting  to try for another pregnancy that might yield a boy child.  This  trend has already affected Punjab state to the point that many men have  to look outside their province for wives, there simply aren't enough  girls to go around.  Project this into the future two generations  and the problems simply magnify by a factor of 4.  I wouldn't want  to be a male child born in Punjab province India today.

[color="blue"][size="4"] In 4 generations the problem with resolve itself, no girls, no more babies, no more boys being born sure they can import girls but at some point the well goes dry, End of problem.
 Maybe a bit over simplistic but the net result is things will become balanced at some point.
[/size][/color]

[Oosik]

When a communist country such as China, which has ambitions of power, finds that they have a huge overstock of young men, they will go to war. Better to expend these men aquiring more territory (or "reclaiming" lost territory) than to have millions of dissaffected young men looking for a cause.

[jb]

Andrew,

I gather you only skimmed the article, I suggest you go back and read  it more closely.  Mark Steyn very carefully made the point that  the salvation of the European system, per se, (benefits, services,  welfare, retirement, et al), was the constant importation of a new  cheap labor force.  The problem is the cultural difference between  the European model and the culture of the imported worker.  Where  does the cheap imported labor come from?  As long as the imported  worker is unwilling to assimilate and clings to his old culture, and  his family, along with the imported families of his peers, continue to  produce babies at a ratio of 6:1 of the natives, it is only a matter of  time before the societal majority becomes that of the importee and not  that of the original.  Thus that piece of real estate that you  used to know as Italy, Germany, or Belgum is only that in name.   It has in reality become an extension of the imported labor force's  prior culture.  Western European culture is very much in danger of  the "suicide bomb" going off at any time now.

That was much of the point of the article.    The USA is in  the beginnings of such a decline, however the birthrate among Christian  believers is still above survivability rates, i.e., above 2.1 children  per reproductive female, and it does not matter the color of the female  producing the child as long as she is of the same culture.  The  culture will survive.   Europe is not in that survivability  range any longer.

[BC]

What jb says seems quite plausible.. looking back at the situation in Germany over the last years (integration of East into West) it may explain why (then) West Germany was so intent on pushing integration forward at such a rapid and very costly pace.  The (then) West Germany was really getting diluted so the influx of 20 mio or so East Germans definitely helped stabilize the percentages.. for a while anyway.

Recent figures for Germany don't seem to show a large foreign population jump.. but I wonder how pre / post percentages would change had the wall not have been torn down. http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/pm2003/p1040025.htm  btw these figures do not show true immigrants (those that have acquired German citizenship) [size="2"]Of 7,34 Mill. foreigners in Germany 1,53 Mill. (20,9%) were born there..[/size]

http://www.country-studies.com/germany/population---historical-background.html

in 2002

FWIW I've lived over here in EU Land for quite a while now but it still amazes me every time when I return to the US how few 'Americans' (culturally speaking) are left.

[BC]

Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population, 1850-2000 (USA)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0900547.html

Also found this quite interesting.. I knew Mexico was at the top of the list but wouldn't have guessed China at the nr 2 spot for the last 15 years..

[coco]

What  jb says seems quite plausible.. looking back at the situation in  Germany over the last years (integration of East into West) it may  explain why (then) West Germany was so intent on pushing integration  forward at such a rapid and very costly pace.  The (then) West  Germany was really getting diluted so the influx of 20 mio or so East  Germans definitely helped stabilize the percentages.. for a while  anyway.

Recent figures for Germany don't seem to show a large foreign  population jump.. but I wonder how pre / post percentages would change  had the wall not have been torn down. http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/pm2003/p1040025.htm  btw these figures do not show true immigrants (those that have acquired German citizenship) [size="2"]Of 7,34 Mill. foreigners in Germany 1,53 Mill. (20,9%) were born there..[/size]

http://www.country-studies.com/germany/population---historical-background.html

in 2002

FWIW I've lived over here in EU Land for quite a while now but it still  amazes me every time when I return to the US how few 'Americans'  (culturally speaking) are left.

The german are not optimistic about her future or the future of the slavic nations.

http://www.zeit.de/feuilleton/kursbuch_162/1_heinsohn