1. Migrant rape/violent culture?
First, I will say that socio-geographic conditions can encourage the development of certain behaviours that were developed to increase the chance of survival in these respective conditions.
For example, central-Africans may have lived in certain conditions that encouraged the development of 'violent' or erratic behaviour, which was passed down through what we call 'culture' to their descendants.
Whereas, in northern Europe, conditions may have encouraged the development of abstract concepts, perhaps as more thought was required to live successfully in these particular conditions.
So, a statement that implies that races have implicit traits is true, to the extent that parents/families of particular races will pass down these cultural traits.
So often you'll find that Arabs may tend to be more aggressive or impulsive, whereas Northern Europeans may tend to be more posed and reflective.
These are, of course, extreme stereotypes, which are not wholly accurate but serve to demonstrate how behavioural traits can and have probably been passed down.In reality however, it's no so simple as Northern Europeans vs Central Africans etc...You'll see large variations in inherited behaviour even within Northern European communities, which makes sense considering that successful conquerors squashed a bunch of tribes together to create individual countries, but that's a point I'll address later.
Briefly, there are certain facts. A brain can either compute information, or it cannot. And, Humans respond to incentives. Given these facts, it stands to reason that a Pakistani child, who has not been born in a Pakistani household, but instead has been born in a middle class North London ethnically white English home, could behave identically to a white Englishman of that background.
This is because that white-English family will pass down socio-evolutionary traits inherited from ancestors, passed down through culture (song, dance, allegory, education etc...)However, with parents/family members from a Pakistani background who are in contact with the child, even if the child spends most of his time with Englishmen, he is unlikely to be identical to his white counterparts who return home to a white-English background, and so to a completely different culture.
This really boils down to cultural exposure.
Though it is important to be nuanced. Small cultural differences matter, hence why Africans from nearby tribes would be, and in many cases stilll are segregated. Also, there was NEVER a period when the US had a homogenous genetic/cultural makeup.
Early protestant dutch settlers /english settlers who themselves were from different cultural backgrounds, were radically different to Irish settlers, and then to Italian settlers. If you think there was cohesion under the banner of 'white' race then you are wrong. USA was divided among these European groups, then further among other ethnic groups.
There has never been widespread social cohesion in the USA.
So there was probably no pre-migrant golden age in the USA, that American anti-multiculturalists allude to.
The development of most nation states, and the predominant culture, and perceive homogeneity, was not always a result of shared cultural traits. Rather more powerful cultural groups dominated others and squashed their cultures.
Otherwise, you would see far more cultural differences among white Europeans in their respective countries than currently exists. One example, is forcing parents to send their children to school in Britain, where development of the abstract was not a part of certain farmer communities.
Indeed, you'll find greater incidence of illiteracy in similar communities in corresponding European countries. This utopian cultural homogeneity you refer to, is really only possible through cultural dominance (war/politics/invasions) and eradication of confliciting cultures, or on a small scale within members of the EXACT same culture. For example, within tribes.
Though there may still be some conflict, as humans do not have homogenous personalities. So perhaps the most likely way to create this cultural homogeneity is through cultural dominance.
Pro multiculturalism does not necessarily have to do with 'emotionalist' stupidity.
Politicians, and those that influence politics have interests, and use mediatic/academic channels to promote their interests, in other words propaganda is NOT stupidity.
For example, modelling the government as a unified entity, it relies on tax revenue to assert their authority, mass-migration might bring more income into the country it governs, as workers that it is importing may be cheaper, so it is in it's interests to encourage mass-migration so that it can assert its authority.It may frame this as 'multiculturalism is good' to manipulate the population it governs over.
And in turn, some naive, victims of propaganda, may believe this, and spread pro-multiculturalism, in schools, in shows, generally across society etc...
True social cohesion can only be obtained by having a single dominant culture and leaving only weaker ones to exist, whilst eradicating other potentially conflicting ones. This has nothing to do with 'race' at all. Behaviour is just learned information that the brain has processed.
Moreover, a strong legislative infrastructure is necessary to enforce the particular culture. For example, harsh prison sentences/death penalty, for straying from the particular culture. The aim being to punish those that conflict with the culture, so that cultural assimilation is incentivised.
Race Matters: The truth about multiculturalism
|Would YOU be put off a uni with a high crime rate? First 50 to have their say get a £5 Amazon voucher!||27-10-2016|
Last edited by DrownedDeity; 01-05-2016 at 23:16.
- 01-05-2016 23:12
- 28 followers
- 3 badges
- 01-05-2016 23:13
Paragraphs man, paragraphs.
Edit: Thank you.Last edited by BristolFresher15; 01-05-2016 at 23:19.
- 01-05-2016 23:16
- 01-05-2016 23:18
- 01-05-2016 23:19