See also: Canada, Australia, New Zealand; all have higher percentage of immigrants than the US.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
TacticalFox88
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gYCMn_gZ1EI
Gets fucking destroyed, holy shit
Gets fucking destroyed, holy shit
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Yup. Quite sad how reflexive these stereotypes are for some.
empty vessel
Member
I appreciate Ellison saying that spending cuts will increase the deficit. That doesn't get said nearly as much as it needs to be said given that reducing the deficit is the pretext being relied upon to attack American welfare and living standards.
The Librarian
Banned
I was actually being sarcastic. Out of those posts raining quoted, neither were "blaming minorities." The US is more diverse than any of the Nordic countries.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
The US is definitely more diverse, but the cultural homogeneity excuse is outdated. Addressing the underlying issue: I feel like the mainstream narrative within America often underestimates the ability and cultural investment of its immigrant communities - which is not uncommon anywhere or historically, of course - as well as the waves of immigration occurring overseas. If this argument of "cultural values" is used as an excuse to avoid effective socialist policy, then it's being done with poor justification.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It was virtually the White House's idea, and republicans voted on it. The thought process was that republicans would be so afraid of defense cuts that they'd agree to some bipartisan deal.
Ultimately it goes back to the fiscal cliff deal. We wouldn't be having this discussion if sequestration had been dealt with at the time, or delayed longer as Reid and others suggested. Now Obama has very little leverage and republicans smell blood.
12.5% of the US population is foreign born.
12.3% of the population of Sweden is foreign born.
Edit: I would also like to add that randomly pointing out differences between countries proves nothing, that's an observation, a theory need some explanation of the mechanism, otherwise it's as serious as saying "well of course we can't do Scandinavian welfare state in the US, no country there starts with a U".
zero shift
Banned
People are less considering of immigrants and more so brown and black people with different cultures and different historical roots within the nation. You can't really compare most of the immigrants in Australia and Sweden to say African Americans who have had a radically different historical ties to their nation and a notable unique culture.
I will like to state that Americas diversity isn't something the nation can't overcome nor is it something negative for America as it can be incredibly positive. It's just unfortunate that this nation has handled its demographic "problem" by lacking specific demographics up in cages.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you're saying the US can't do a Scandinavian style welfare state not because of immigration, but because we have many brown and black people?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
zero shift
Banned
This is why I stealth edited my post because I felt that it didn't capture what I was getting at. In a way yes but not really. I do believe that its certainly possible to have such a system in he United States. I'm trying to say that due to its wide ranging of demographics people tend to be less likely to empathize with one another. It doesn't have to be this way but Americans have taken the route of oppressing their minorities instead of fixing their communities. I believe that things will change and in ways already are and that social democracy is possible for nation and should be what we shoot for but there is a difference between having immigrants of neighboring Western countries and people from continents with significantly different cultures.
The Librarian
Banned
What does that have to do with how diverse a nation is? Immigration rates can cause a nation to become more diverse, sure, but that doesn't speak to how ethnically diverse a nation currently is. I'm not in this argument about welfare systems and ethnic composition of an electorate; I just made a statement.
Not quite so correct; if you have a look there you'll see that most of the countries on the list significantly differ culturally, from Sweden, nor is it as if the US doesn't also see a lot of immigration from other western countries. Out of that list, I'd say only about ~340k (out of 1,427,296) of the immigrants come from countries that are culturally similar to Sweden.
How do you define diversity then?
And I thought this whole discussion started because it was given as a reason as to why the US can't have a Scandinavian style welfare system, if we're just randomly pointing out differences between the countries I would add that our sports superstars are not little bitches.
What does it mean "wide ranging demographics people"?
Honest question.
And I'm not sure I understand the rest of your argument, you're saying that because we were assholes to minorities in the past, we can't have that system now?
Why?
I honestly don't understand, like, how physically does that prevent that from happening?
And damn, countries like Australia and Germany were pretty damn terrible to minorities in the past and they still manage to have a respectable safety net.
zero shift
Banned
I counted more than 340k but nevertheless that is a significant amount. I stand corrected.
I didn't say that we can't have such a system now. I stated the exact opposite. All I said that it may be a bit mor difficult for the United States to have such a welfare system because of its wide range of demographics. Though raining may have proved me wrong here. As for wide range of demographics well one third of the United States isn't white. You aren't going to find that in Australia and Germany.
The Librarian
Banned
Well, the discussion was about minorities, so I thought we were looking at ethnic diversity.
So it's all about skin color?
First, let's stop talking about "range of demographics" and call that spade a spade, but more importantly, I don't think that theory holds water, you effectively claiming that a country can handle 15% "non white" (which is not really a thing mind you), but if you get to 25%*, oh shit, game over man.
Not buying it.
* unless you're New Zealand, who seem to be doing fine with 25% Mauris, but they're different, probably because they filmed Lord of The Rings there.
Ethnic diversity is not a well defined measurable thing, but I think immigration correlates quite well with the common broad definitions of the term.
Are you literally talking about variations in melanin levels?
zero shift
Banned
Why are you arguing with me when I already admitted that I was wrong?
Stealth edit - Also New Zealand is 15% Maori, though its also 32% nonwhite.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Top comment:
How can you tell when a Republican is lying? The motherfucker starts talking.
zero shift
Banned
People are xenophobic and racist as fuck. Remember a huge reason for the rise of the right in America over me past few decades is due to the fear of brown and black people after the Civil Rights Act.
The Librarian
Banned
Something close to that last part, yes. Though that begs the question: If a country has large shares of three distinct ethnic groups (white, Hispanic, black), is that more diverse than a country that is largely white but has many smaller ethnic groups? I dunno.
I don't accept that what make an ethnic group distinct is its skin color, not even vis-à-vis racism; as a Jew of eastern European descent, I think the dark sections of my family tree make a strong argument to the contrary.
jamesinclair
Banned
Question for history GAF
I recently watched Django.
The movie is mostly based on the idea around bounty hunting and "Wanted: Dead Or Alive" posters.
Question 1:
Is that factual? Did those exist, or is that just a trope from western movies?
Question 2:
If it did exist, how it is constitutional? AKA, Due process...?
I recently watched Django.
The movie is mostly based on the idea around bounty hunting and "Wanted: Dead Or Alive" posters.
Question 1:
Is that factual? Did those exist, or is that just a trope from western movies?
Question 2:
If it did exist, how it is constitutional? AKA, Due process...?
That sort of thing exists now. If someone jumps bail then it's not the cops who go after them (well they do too) but there are bounty hunters who do it. The cops also offer rewards for information leading to the capture of a suspect. I'm sure it doesn't work like in Django today but back then in the west I dunno. It was pretty lawless and it was all before Miranda.
empty vessel
Member
There is nothing about ethnic diversity that would make a welfare system not work. There is something about racism that can be an obstacle to the development of a welfare system. Many whites perceive (and are encouraged by business interests to perceive) welfare systems as systems redistributing wealth from deserving whites to undeserving blacks. Consequently, those systems receive less democratic support than they would in a more racially homogeneous society. I think this undeniably occurs. At the same time, there has always been resistance to welfare systems in the US, even when blacks were "kept in check" in the American South by formal segregation. The resistance has of course always been misguided and rooted in moral objections that effectively reduce to perceptions of deservedness.
jamesinclair
Banned
I know bounties exist today, but theyre certainly not "dead or alive" its usually "information leading to the capture of"
The Librarian
Banned
I may be confusing ethnicity with race, if that help clears things up. The discussion was about minorities, so race. Yes, yes, some Hispanics look white, blah blah blah. But if we can't even define how to classify a minority, we may as well not be talking about diversity.
Yea I figured. I figure it was all a bit more hazy back then as far as someone's rights went. Lack of Miranda and whatnot. As far as a quick google search tells me they did used to do it, but I'm sure there was a court case that shut that all down pretty quick.
Frank the Great
Banned
I don't know anything about the old west but the Fifth Amendment due process clause did not apply to the states until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was obviously after the Civil War. Actually I'm pretty sure the cases explicitly finding the Fifth Amendment enforceable against states through the Fourteenth did not arise until sometime during the 1900s.
Also, on the frontier maybe the local governments did not have their own due process clauses, as many state constitutions do?
jamesinclair
Banned
I see, I thought it was a federal founding fathers thing.
Sort of assumed that being killed for allegedly taking place in a robbery was not ok.
I think that's a terrible definition that is really not all that useful for anything.
There really isn't such thing as race, there's cultural background and the is similarity in appearances, both can get intolerant fucks worked out, but trust me, those people will find someone to hate even if we were all Romney white (see: the history of Europe).
Or to put it differently, what causes racism is racists*, not the fact that some people have darker skin.
* or the socio-economic, religious and political forces that help foster racists if you want.
You also need to remember that a lot of that region was still territories at the time.
Not sure exactly how the federal law applied to it in theory, but in practice, it mostly didn't.
The Librarian
Banned
So what's a good definition for what a minority is?
It really depends on the context, when you try to talk about immigration policy, it makes sense to focus on country of origin, if you discuss civil rights, it stand to reason to look at the element by which the group people is being called out and discriminated against.
But I will say this, if you end up with something that lump Jews and Irish in the same boat, you're missing a whole lot societal and cultural nuance.
Seems strange to compare foreign born to foreign. Does foreign include children born in Sweden from foreign born parents?
It's the same metric - people born in another country, it's not perfect, but it's easy to measure.
The blog isn't dead! Both Zero Shift (Nader) and I made some posts today. His was on an assertion by Herman Cain (and others) that the Chilean model is the way to go for Social Security.
I have to say I enjoy his posts, since they deal with other countries, both historically and currently, and those sorts of things never really get enough coverage. No one in our news really talks about countries like Chile, even with people like Herman Cain use it as an example. So, it's refreshing to see what's really up.
My piece was in response to what I saw from Ann Wagner and Rand Paul today. Basically I go through all the evidence that austerity doesn't work and has not worked in Europe. In the end I thought Krugman was very right when he said that the austerity has been an unethical experimentation on human beings. My assessment of that is that, "the shocking about all this austerity in Europe is that not only are we experimenting on the most needy of our nations people, but were not even using all the hard data weve collected from it all!" We have all this data from other countries that shows what our politicians want to do doesn't work, but we're not even using it. It's a shame that it seems like almost no one gains from all this crap.
I have to say I enjoy his posts, since they deal with other countries, both historically and currently, and those sorts of things never really get enough coverage. No one in our news really talks about countries like Chile, even with people like Herman Cain use it as an example. So, it's refreshing to see what's really up.
My piece was in response to what I saw from Ann Wagner and Rand Paul today. Basically I go through all the evidence that austerity doesn't work and has not worked in Europe. In the end I thought Krugman was very right when he said that the austerity has been an unethical experimentation on human beings. My assessment of that is that, "the shocking about all this austerity in Europe is that not only are we experimenting on the most needy of our nations people, but were not even using all the hard data weve collected from it all!" We have all this data from other countries that shows what our politicians want to do doesn't work, but we're not even using it. It's a shame that it seems like almost no one gains from all this crap.
IronicallyTwisted
Banned
Well once you bring race into the argument you can win any discussion. I've lived in Sweden and yes its homogeneous compared to other countries i've visited in my lifetime. Its also a country that has been moving to the right since the mid 1990's - they've been deregulating industry for years now. The social democratic party was far more powerful in the 80's over there, they've been going downhill since and giving more ground over to the moderate (center right) party in the Riksdag.
IronicallyTwisted
Banned
Why don't you start with the opposite proposition, what is it about homogenous societies that makes welfare systems politically feasible?
zero shift
Banned
While the topic of looking at smaller nations experiment with economics is still slightly on topic I wonder why people tend to ignore Belarus? I mean it has tons of human rights abuses and what not but it has some of the highest GDP growth rates in the world. It's sort of proof that a state controlled economy could still work yet its always ignored as people instead attack Venezuela (a nation with mixed results), Cuba (has been doing fairly on point with GDP growth but is "privatizing" companies, and North Korea which is a giant slave state. Yet Belarus always gets ignored.
Thanks for the recommendation. Not sure what I want to do my next article on. Maybe on Hugo Chavez?
That's the same claim.
The opposite proposition is that welfare systems can work in all societies (or at least all developed societies), and I think it's supported by the fact that such systems were successfully implemented in many countries all over the world (in fact, I'm struggling to think of too many countries that tried and failed to impenitent a welfare state, maybe Greece? god bless Greece, the counterexample for everything).
Also, people seem to forget that not so long ago, the United States lead the world on that front, sure, you can claim that the US's anti-welfare uniqueness only manifested itself after the 60s (or 40s, depending on how you want to count such things) but I think that's going to be an even more difficult assertion to defend.
I don't have the statistics, but Sweden has a large portion of its population concentrated in and around its major cities in the south. Much more so than, say, Norway.
Edit: Here
IronicallyTwisted
Banned
Same claim, different framing, and the framing matters when people want to jump right to racism. Those systems were widely implemented in the 60's and 70's with very different politics. Just because welfare exists everywhere doesn't mean it exists with the same ambition, scope or in the same form.
'Urban' is how (certain parts) of corporate America refers to black people, amd it tragically managed to bleed into the political discourse; I'm almost certain he was using it in that sense.
But who's making that claim?
For example, I don't accept that ethnic makeup of a country has anything to do with its ability to implement a welfare system, why would I try to explain why it can only be done in Sweden?
Are you shadowboxing?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
jamesinclair
Banned
Picture showed up in my news feed.
Fracking in Colorado.
Keep that in mind next time Coors tell you about the water their beer comes from
Fracking in Colorado.
Keep that in mind next time Coors tell you about the water their beer comes from
cartoon_soldier
Member
I have no idea what I am supposed to see in that pic
Have you ever been to Golden, Colorado?
The commercials make it looks like the pacific northwest, but it's mostly shitty little desert mountains around there.
- Status