1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice

Islam is the Way Forward

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Apr 2, 2017.

  1. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    USA
    I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Texas is very anti immigration. Makes me think that deep inside they remember exactly how it was that Texas came to be. I also find it really funny that there's a lot of schools where all they say about the Mexican Cession is that the US "bought the land from Mexico". The gun that was held to Mexico's head doesn't seem important to mention somehow.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  2. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    On what grounds do you reject it? We're not talking academic constructs here. In real life there are people from the same culture in the US, some of whom integrate, some of whom do not integrate.

    And, no one is standing "in isolation." They are choosing to reject the larger American metanarrative while living within their own community metanarrative, which can easily be found in churches, mosques, community centers, and other places where there is a highly dense single second-culture.

    Also note, I am speaking specifically of integration into US culture here, because it is the only one I am familiar enough to speak on with any type of authority. While I have an interloper's knowledge of other modern states and cultures, I can't speak to them (except, perhaps, western Canada, and even that knowledge is twenty years old now).
     
  3. Lindsey

    Lindsey Order Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    861
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    In the late 1800s, 1 out of every 4 immigrants were German. German was also the most common secondary language high schoolers would learn. Yet, there were no 'No-Go German Zones.' In fact, most German way of life was destroyed after WWI, where many states banned the use and teaching of German.

    In the 1950s-1990s there was a huge migration from Asia due to the massive regime changes. The United States were taking in more than 3-4x the amount of refugees from South East Asia than we are taking in now(over 150k for a few years). Yet, you don't see Laotian or Cambodian towns. In fact, even the 'international district' or 'china town' is a very vibrant zone filled with many religions and races. Not a 'no-go zone'.

    Even now, with the US taking in more Muslim refugees/immigrants than ever before (we have brought over one hundred thousand Iraqis in the last decade), there isn't any place that is not safe for white people.

    Even Dearborn, MI, one of the biggest Arabic areas in America is a very friendly and vibrant place. I would much rather be there than Flint, MI or Detroit.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/

    The United States accepts more immigrants than the WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION, with usually over a million people per year.

    40,000 Muslims refugees came to the US in the last year alone. This does not even count the hundreds of thousands who immigrated over here. Yes, we may not have beaten Germany by pure numbers in 2016, but we are probably double, if not triple, the amount if we are looking at in the last decade.

    And you can't just look at one year to see how people are adjusting. No one moves to a country and is fully integrated within the first year. It is a very slow going process, especially if you are a refugee who had to flee, instead of getting use to the idea of immigration.

    Most these problems Europe is having is due to second generation immigrants, not refugees. 10-20 years ago, when the first generation arrived, it was in much smaller numbers. Obviously, its not due to mass movement of people.

    Miami is the best city in Florida. It is not 'horrible' in any way, shape or form.

    Second, Spanish as a first language is actually decreasing as the older generations start dying (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/saving-spanish-in-miami/473865/). Spanish was a necessity as many people from Miami fled from Cuba and spoke little to no English. As their children grew up, they spoke both, and as they had children... Those children tend to speak only English.

    Your example of how too much of 'one major non-white culture' is a bad thing, is actually a great example of how integration and assimilation is successfully working in America.

    The first generation roughly integrates. Less so, if they are refugees.
    The second generation is fully integrated.
    The third generation tends to be assimilated.
     
  4. aotsfan86

    aotsfan86 First Year

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    34
    As someone working on a doctorate in American history this gross simplification really annoys me. Texas was an independent country for ten years. It got its independence from Mexico, of course they have always had hostility to Mexico.

    Start rant

    Here's how it happened. Mexico didn't have enough people living in the region. They INVITED the American settlers under the 1824 Constitution. The former Americans or 'Texicans' AND the various Mexicans that lived in the region began a revolution after Santa Anna effectively became a dictator. They formed a provisional government called the Consultation that actually debated whether or not to fight for Independence or try and restore the Constitution that they had all swore oaths too. Immediately after the war Texas and Mexico began to argue over their border, and after Santa Anna was overthrown Mexico claimed that their entire treaty was invalid. Which, they probably wouldn't have overthrown him if he had won. Texas said it was the Rio Grande and Mexico said it was Nueces. When the US annexed Texas Polk offered to pay for Mexico for the Rio border as well as other territory, and forgive debt that Mexico owed to the US. All totaling between $50 to 60 million.

    The Mexican government at that point was extremely unstable and while most of the major factions opposed selling the territory President Herrera didn't want to go to war and tried to avert it, but he was overruled by others and they sent troops to the border where shit hit the fan.

    After the war was over Mexico accepted $15 Million which I think today is around $420 Million and less than half of what the US offered before hand. Given the politics of the day Mexico was lucky that it got what it did, and I imagine that after the fact they wish they had sold the land that they didn't actually control/own as that money would have saved them from even worse trouble down the line.

    End rant
     
  5. Invictus

    Invictus Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,632
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    First. Europe has Muslim populations since the 1450s and Ottoman rule. They're not immigrants. They've been there longer than any white family in the US.

    Second, Miami is the richest city in Florida and one where everyone there wants to live. Is better than any other Deep Southern states it borders, that's for sure. Just check their economy and health issues compared to, say, the main cities of Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Mississippi.

    Third, no go zones in Britain is a myth spilled by homophobic, islamophobic, racist rags that literally attacked one of Britain's too judges for being gay. They accused fans from Liverpool who were helping carrying the injured in Hillsborough of pissing, stealing and beating them. That's the kind of rag you're defending.

    Fourth, youre confusing idiots, actual discussions and your own personal experiences. If you're being called Islamophobic, everything in this thread and others I saw you participating points out that yes, you're islamophobic with prejudicial and unreal and biased opinions towards Muslims and it is only fitting to call you out on being so.

    No go Zones. Fucks sake. Most Muslims in Britain are Pakistanis or Bangladeshi. Their culture is a lot more British than say ME. Or polish. One of these countries were under British rule for centuries, have British influenced institutions and teaches English to a lot of people. The other is Poland.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  6. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,827
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Not for nothing, contemporary opinion in Texas did not put the border at the Rio Grande and when Polk stationed troops at the southernmost point on it a lot of the buzz at the time was that it was a gross overreach.


    Edit: I'll add a citation when I can find the book. I left it with my parents when I moved out and fucked if I can remember the title right now.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  7. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    USA
    As someone who does not have anything approaching a doctorate level education in US history, I'll stand corrected on numerous points and agree that I'm oversimplifying.

    That said, I think my point about Texas being a place where a lot of immigrants came in from a neighboring country, began flouting the laws of their new country, declared independence from it, and then joined their original one is still valid.

    On the topic of the Mexican Cession, I'd argue that even though you may be right in that they'd have been better off selling the land instead of trying to keep it without adequate stability or control over it, it doesn't change the fact that the land was taken at gunpoint after an expansionist war. Sure, they could've taken it for nothing at that point, but declining the opportunity to be a complete asshole doesn't mean you're not an asshole at all. If I beat you up and offer to stop if you sell me your phone for $20 I'm still stealing your phone by any reasonable definition.
     
  8. aotsfan86

    aotsfan86 First Year

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    34
    That is interesting. I would settle for the title of the book. Most of the sources I'm familiar with have the only objections being raised from the Americans at the time were abolitionists, free soilers, and proto Republicans who wanted a slavery allowing Texas to be as small as possible. Rives' The United States and Mexico Vol 2 jumps out to me as mentioning the Texans claiming the Grande. Abe Lincoln raised major objections at the start of the border disputes, but after the peace I think he more or less said since we paid them for the land it wasn't conquest and that Americans could accept the peace and land in good continence. Of course at that point it was clear California was going to be added as a free state so they balanced each other out and cut Slavery off from the Pacific.

    I mean the Texans called the Rio Grande the Rio Bravo. There's no need to change the name of a river you don't own. Now I know that Texas didn't actually claim the Grande until after the Republic of the Rio Grande lost its own bid for independence, but after that I think they took in the exiles from that state and claimed its territory.
     
  9. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    I reject it on the grounds that it doesn't exist.

    Immigrants might continue their religious traditions or cultural festivals, they might hang on to their mother tongue as a primary language at home, they might live in neighborhoods where there are more people around that they can relate to, but if given the chance, all immigrants integrate.

    They pursue citizenship at very high rates, and once they get it, they vote in much higher numbers than native-born Americans, they serve in community positions and on juries, they embrace things like July 4th, etc. They strive much harder than our own young people to attain high achievement and prestigious positions in professional fields, and if they aren't in a position to do that, they do their best to succeed with what skills they do have and take what opportunities are presented to them.

    More importantly, they also try their damnedest to get their kids fully integrated so that they can take full advantage of their new home, even if it's difficult for them, being in later life, to fully take advantage themselves.

    Lindsey put it succinctly:

     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  10. aotsfan86

    aotsfan86 First Year

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    34

    You're not wrong per se I just think that Texans remember their history better than you give them credit for and that is why they don't wont unfettered immigration. Your analogy for the war is shit though.

    This is you proposing to my ex who owned some land I had lost to them, and then offered me some money for that land that I no longer owned and offered even more money for some more land I owned and was doing jack shit with. We started yelling at each other over 'honor.' We started swinging at each other, and half way through the fight I shit myself as you got a couple of really decent hits in. Drunk and embarrassed I accepted half of what you offered to just get the hell out of there.
     
  11. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Plenty of Texans can't find Texas on a map.

    I think you give them too much credit.
     
  12. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    USA
    Given my own experiences with public education in California I'm not sure I'd buy that they teach anything even remotely approaching a neutral version of events in Texas.

    I don't really agree with your own analogy either. Keeping with the theme, a better version would be that there's still a dispute about who it is that owns the land I'm offering to buy from you, and when you refuse to sell I just set up camp there. When you and some of your friends find me there and I refuse to leave you beat me up and I go running to my friends saying you beat me up on my land (that would be the whole "American blood was spilled on American soil" part). So then we come in, beat the crap out of you and all your friends, and then say we'll only stop if you sell us the disputed land and a third of all my other shit for a price I dictate to you while you're lying bleeding on the ground.

    EDIT: I'd also like to add in that my main complaint is that a lot of the US likes to believe that it is an ultimate moral paragon who doesn't do anything wrong and is always in the right, and that this view is pushed in history classes. Every country has done a lot of fucked up shit throughout history, but even in 3rd grade my history classes in Mexico were a lot more honest about our fuck ups than the US is in any of my classes in 5th-12th grade.

    It's not that I think Mexico was fully in the right and the US fully in the wrong, it's that I get annoyed when people think the US was undoubtedly fully in the right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  13. aotsfan86

    aotsfan86 First Year

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    34
    Last post I'll make on this topic since we are getting off topic.

    I in no way endorse the idea that the US is morally superior to Mexico, or any other country for that matter. All nations regardless of geography or duration carry some form of sins.

    I do however think neutral history is bullshit. History should be taught with as many details as possible so we can LEARN from it.
     
  14. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    How can you be objective without being neutral? If you're pushing a storyline, you're no better than a tin-pot propagandist.
     
  15. aotsfan86

    aotsfan86 First Year

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    34
    Easy. You don't tell a story. You tell facts. Then you base your conclusions on facts. In this case as an American I would never advocate blind annexation of a bordering region without entering into prolonged negotiations with neighbors to avoid a war.

    As a Mexican I would draw that we need a stable government to effectivly defend ourselves from external threats from neighbors that are closer than Spain.

    Assigning right and wrong from history is by and large a giant waste of time.
     
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,632
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Because politics and ideals and cultures aren't objectives. You will always have different point of views, dispute of facts and their interpretations, the effects of certain events and etc. Trying to pretend that history is a long and closed book of dry facts is denying that what makes history are human beings.
     
  17. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    USA
    ... How did you get 'leave details out' from 'neutral'? Absolute neutrality would be kind of impossible yeah, but I think most people would agree that a 'neutral' telling of history is one where you include both side's perspectives with as many details as possible so people can draw their own conclusions.
     
  18. aotsfan86

    aotsfan86 First Year

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    34
    I took neutral to mean that only the ends were enumerated and not the paths to the ends. I probably read to much into one word.
     
  19. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    USA
    ... That's a very strange definition for neutral. Glad we got that cleared up lol. But yeah, this has become quite the derail so I'll leave it there.
     
  20. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    This is the kind of thinking that makes me shake my head in shame.

    Truth does not reside in facts. Truth resides in the story from which facts are pulled. Facts are nothing more than uncontextualized pieces of information that can be manipulated for any reason. The only way to find truth is to view the truth within the story.

    "But, the story is biased to the person telling it, so how can it be truthful?"

    Yes, the story is biased to the person telling it, but pulling little tidbits of information out only allows you to construct a story based on your biases without having to confront another bias or point of view.

    ________

    Darth Revan Um, could you give me numbers or sources to back up what your saying, rather than simply your say so?