NationStates

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

New Werpland wrote:I think that in the West, most often the kind of multiculturalism people want is liberal. That's the kind where a diverse selection of cultures coexist in the same society, just all of them are liberalized. The way it works is that we are supposed to give ethnic minorities lots of multicultural privileges, such as the right to perform exclusive practices, schooling in their native language, affirmative action, etc, and over time they will give up all their illiberal traditions to become a full part of our liberal open societies. The problem is that this process also depends on minorities being able to situate themselves and integrate into their adoptive societies, and in countries where national identity is still very much an ethnic thing, that isn't so easy.

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

San Lumen wrote:

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

Neo Balka wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

So they are not really native to america, are they?

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Neo Balka wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

So they are not really native to america, are they?

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

The Sauganash Union wrote:"... they have to share the same commitment to liberal, democratic political values as the general population."

And if the general population doesn't necessarily care for liberalism or thinks there's more to its national identity than republicanism and democracy?

The Sauganash Union wrote:And if the general population doesn't necessarily care for liberalism or thinks there's more to its national identity than republicanism and democracy?

Nouveau Yathrib wrote:

New Werpland wrote:I think that in the West, most often the kind of multiculturalism people want is liberal. That's the kind where a diverse selection of cultures coexist in the same society, just all of them are liberalized. The way it works is that we are supposed to give ethnic minorities lots of multicultural privileges, such as the right to perform exclusive practices, schooling in their native language, affirmative action, etc, and over time they will give up all their illiberal traditions to become a full part of our liberal open societies. The problem is that this process also depends on minorities being able to situate themselves and integrate into their adoptive societies, and in countries where national identity is still very much an ethnic thing, that isn't so easy.

And then you have genuinely multicultural countries like Singapore or South Africa, which while reasonably developed, wouldn't be considered liberal by most North Americans or Western Europeans.

Threlizdun wrote:

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

Neo Balka wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

Are you sure about that?

Genivaria wrote:

Neo Balka wrote:
Are you sure about that?

Depends on how far back you go.

Immoren wrote:

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Apartment house.
Terraced house.
semi-detached house.

Neu Leonstein wrote:So as a result, to me multiculturalism doesn't mean tolerating people who beat their wives or agitate for a theocracy. But it does mean tolerating that there's a Buddhist temple in town and that there are people speaking five different language when I catch public transport. For a long time I thought this was obvious, but it happens every so often that people have completely different ideas of what the word means and then talk past each other.

Neutraligon wrote:

Immoren wrote:Apartment house.
Terraced house.
semi-detached house.

Houses where there is joint ownership (ie husband and wife). Condos, etc.

Neo Balka wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

Are you sure about that?

Cetacea wrote:

Nouveau Yathrib wrote:
And then you have genuinely multicultural countries like Singapore or South Africa, which while reasonably developed, wouldn't be considered liberal by most North Americans or Western Europeans.

New Zealand while far from perfect has done very well at the whole multicultural approach while also maintaining a strong bi-cultural identity in which everyone shares a commitment to liberal , democratic political values ... and have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home.

New Rogernomics wrote:Within reason, 2, 4, and 5.

Cetacea wrote:
New Zealand while far from perfect has done very well at the whole multicultural approach while also maintaining a strong bi-cultural identity in which everyone shares a commitment to liberal , democratic political values ... and have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home.

New Zealand is basically a one-party state, since Labour is incompetent, and the Greens - are well, the Greens.

But I am kinda glad that NZ has avoided the messes that Australia* (and other countries) have multiculturalism and 'far-right' conservatism wise, and that on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, bathroom use, adoption,etc the government and society as a whole is relatively sane.

*Blame those crazy Queensland voters who vote One Nation.

San Lumen wrote:

New Rogernomics wrote:Within reason, 2, 4, and 5.
New Zealand is basically a one-party state, since Labour is incompetent, and the Greens - are well, the Greens.

But I am kinda glad that NZ has avoided the messes that Australia* (and other countries) have multiculturalism and 'far-right' conservatism wise, and that on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, bathroom use, adoption,etc the government and society as a whole is relatively sane.

*Blame those crazy Queensland voters who vote One Nation.

Australia and New Zealand are multicultural countries.

Neo Balka wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Australia and New Zealand are multicultural countries.

Shitposting is a culture?