Houellebecq

[WICKES]

Has anyone read his controversial novel Submission? What did you make of it? Do you think he is for or against Europe becoming an African and Islamic continent? Having visited France many times, it is clear to me that France's destiny is to be the first African and Islamic nation in Europe. But I suspect that it is the long-term destiny of all the European nations, whether they want it or not. Native white Europeans are not having enough children, while Africa's birth rate is the highest in the world. Right now there is an unprecedented migrant crisis unfolding in Europe. Some of the migrants are genuine refugees, but many are just in search of a better life. A snowball effect seems to be occurring.

Why aren't there more novels dealing with this? It is an astonishing change. The native Europeans are so consumed with guilt at their colonial past that they seem to want their continent to become African and Islamic so as to atone. Is there much fiction that addresses this other than Submission? It seems a hot topic right now. No doubt all the novelists will be on the side of the migrants and will welcome this profound change (personally I hate seeing it happen).

[Clopin]

I think Europeans will wake up eventually. If not, well, any population which would voluntarily displace itself from its own native soil isn't worth saving. Hopefully the whole world will eventually look like Africa and we can all enjoy the diversity it brings. :^)

[Emil Miller]

Having visited France many times, it is clear to me that France's destiny is to be the first African and Islamic nation in Europe.

Not if Le Front National have anything to do with it.....and they most certainly will.

[mortalterror]

A few times I've been around that track,
So it's not just gonna happen like that,
'Cause I ain't no Houellebecq girl,
I ain't no Houellebecq girl.

[mortalterror]

Not if Le Front National have anything to do with it.....and they most certainly will.
Instead of giving up your countries to foreigners or letting xenophobic racists fight your battles, you could try reinforcing a sense of pride and value in your culture equal to the immigrants' pride in what they bring with them. New comers are just filling a vacuum made by the secularity, nihilism, relativity, shame, and depression which Western Europe currently wallows in. You can't confront passion with apathy, belief with indifference, or beauty with intellectual onanism. You guys have to go back to your roots and rediscover the things you've lost.

[Clopin]

Yes, you try publicly embracing 'white pride' and tell me how it goes for you.

[EvoWarrior5]

I wholeheartedly agree with Clopin. On the one hand, mortalterror has a point in saying that the West's sense of pride needs to be equal to that of any immigrants or any other part of the world. But the problem in that is that advocating 'white pride' just will not cut it. Because historically, what meant 'white pride' also meant the suppression of those not white. And as you should be aware of, with suppression I mean not only imperial rule, but also the mental violence they were subjected to, being forced to internalise values that put them at the bottom of a racial hierarchy which was artificially constructed by the colonisers.

As I said before, pride needs to be equal across everywhere. But right now, 'white pride' will not cut it, as what I just said and people still perpetuating those values today have just made it too negatively charged. Perhaps one day it could be 'reclaimed' in a proper manner, who knows. But right now maybe something else is in order. What about national pride? I can easily say that I am Dutch and proud to be Dutch without coming across like a racist. And it should work the same for everyone. An Italian can say he's a proud Italian and an Indian can say he's a proud Indian. No real sense of racism there. Perhaps it may be more difficult for peoples where patriotism used to be a problem in sort of the same way as white pride did. Perhaps, for example, England and the US should approach national pride carefully because it may be more charged for them. But it sure beats 'white pride'.

@Wickes, I have not read Submission, but reading this thread I definitely want to. I intend to focus my studies on colonial literatures, so contemporary literatures about globalisation or migration are also really interesting. I will keep watching this thread to see if anyone else has suggestions for other good novels about these themes.

[Iain Sparrow]

I wholeheartedly agree with Clopin. On the one hand, mortalterror has a point in saying that the West's sense of pride needs to be equal to that of any immigrants or any other part of the world. But the problem in that is that advocating 'white pride' just will not cut it. Because historically, what meant 'white pride' also meant the suppression of those not white. And as you should be aware of, with suppression I mean not only imperial rule, but also the mental violence they were subjected to, being forced to internalise values that put them at the bottom of a racial hierarchy which was artificially constructed by the colonisers.

As I said before, pride needs to be equal across everywhere. But right now, 'white pride' will not cut it, as what I just said and people still perpetuating those values today have just made it too negatively charged. Perhaps one day it could be 'reclaimed' in a proper manner, who knows. But right now maybe something else is in order. What about national pride? I can easily say that I am Dutch and proud to be Dutch without coming across like a racist. And it should work the same for everyone. An Italian can say he's a proud Italian and an Indian can say he's a proud Indian. No real sense of racism there. Perhaps it may be more difficult for peoples where patriotism used to be a problem in sort of the same way as white pride did. Perhaps, for example, England and the US should approach national pride carefully because it may be more charged for them. But it sure beats 'white pride'.

@Wickes, I have not read Submission, but reading this thread I definitely want to. I intend to focus my studies on colonial literatures, so contemporary literatures about globalisation or migration are also really interesting. I will keep watching this thread to see if anyone else has suggestions for other good novels about these themes.

What we're really talking about isn't ethnic pride, it's more to do with nationalism.
I'm not proud that I'm white. However I am proud to be an American.
Because we're better than everyone else... especially Canadians and the Dutch. Those people are very shifty.

[mortalterror]

Yes, you try publicly embracing 'white pride' and tell me how it goes for you.

I'm proud to be an American. I think it's the greatest country in the world. Now, just replace your country of origin with America and add the word second before the word greatest and you will be good to go. It's not hard. You just need to have the same strength to your convictions that Coca-Cola has when it tells you it's better than Pepsi.

I wouldn't say that I'm proud of my skin color but I'm definitely proud of my European heritage. Michelangelo, Mozart, Plato, and Shakespeare are my birthright and I pity any uncultured slob who doesn't embrace the things his forefathers built. Christianity is an amazing religion that offers more peace, love, happiness, and contentment pound for pound than any other religion and the West were a bunch of fools for dropping it. If I were a European I'd be celebrating all of that loudly every day in the streets.

[Clopin]

European heritage is what I'm referring to. And yes, I'm proud as well and I'm also fine with saying so. However, for every person who thinks like you and I you have another dozen university graduates who think more along these lines... http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/04/holding-the-tension/

That article is one of literally thousands which are shared through social media and which all espouse similar viewpoints. You would be hard pressed to find many taking the opposite view (that Europeans should be proud of their own culture and heritage) finding their way through any mainstream media outlets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/13/teacher-why-i-dont-want-to-assign-shakespeare-anymore-even-though-hes-in-the-common-core/

As a bonus check out this article that was recently shared on my Facebook newsfeed (where it was applauded). Basically the article boils down to the idea that we should stop teaching Shakespeare in English Lit classes because as a long dead white male he's not in touch with the modern, diverse, urban classrooms of today. Her suggestions for what would replace Shakespeare with are recitations from the African oral tradition (In ENGLISH class).

Also note the racially charged language she repeatedly uses and tell me if it would be even moderately acceptable if applied to any other race.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Clopin;1303673]However, for every person who thinks like you and I you have another dozen university graduates who think more along these lines... QUOTE]

It was ever thus, youth and self-righteousness often go together. However, experience usually solves the problem and, where it doesn't, it is better to ignore those who refuse to grow up.'

[gustave dore]

Christianity has inspired many great minds and great artists, but it also inspired many ignorant people. It has produced evangelicals are who skeptical of scientists just because their findings contradict the literal Evangelical interpretations of the origins of the earth. Some of these people believe that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. They believe that all secular entertainment is satanic, so they produce godawful arts that were not inspired by their god to create something beautiful like the great christian artists of the past did, but to provide wholesome entertainment that teach their children twisted morals. They are often self-righteous and judgmental. They are bigoted against homosexuals and Muslims, these people were saying horrible things about gays like the AIDs crisis was god's plague upon them for sodomy. They also have a massive persecution complex, believing that in a nation that is over 70% christian, that somehow Christianity is under attack and Christians are a persecuted minority.

Don't you think you guys are being a bit sensationalist?

[Ecurb]

I'm not proud to be an American, although I'm happy to be one. What should I have to be "proud" about? I'm an American through an accident of birth; I did nothing to deserve it, and have done (perhaps) less than I should have to improve my country. It seems like "grateful" describes my feelings better than "proud".

In addition, I knew some teachers who didn't like teaching Shakespeare to their "inner-city" (i.e. minority) students. Why? In at least one case, half of the students were not native English speakers, and "Cat in the Hat" or "Harold and the Purple Crayon" would have been more appropriate to their level of English skill. It's silly to teach difficult, poetic, 16th century English to students who struggle to read standard, modern, English prose. For half of American high school kids, Shakespeare doesn't further language skills or the enjoyment of literature.

"White pride" is reasonably contemned. Why? There's no reason to extol the virtues of power and dominance. The high school football players who bully other students don't need affirmation; the chess club members who are getting beat up do. If anything, the football players need a little less pride, and more humility -- while the chess club members could band together and have the pride to fight back.

In addition, it's reasonable to criticize oneself (or one's own group). That's because we can change ourselves (or our own groups). Slamming someone else (or their group) lacks humility, and is less likely to effect change (although, of course, it is sometimes reasonable).

I haven't read "Submission", and know nothing about it. But surely if we are "proud" of our heritage, we must also be ashamed of it. We Americans (for example) enslaved our fellow humans for 50 years after all European nations had abandoned the practice, and black people were legally banned from defecating in public toilets during my lifetime.

So I remain grateful for (rather than proud of) of my American and European heritage. The distinction may seem minor, but I think it's worthwhile. "Proud of" suggests that the prideful person somehow takes credit for something, and may lead to a sense of personal superiority.

[mortalterror]

European heritage is what I'm referring to. And yes, I'm proud as well and I'm also fine with saying so. However, for every person who thinks like you and I you have another dozen university graduates who think more along these lines... http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/04/holding-the-tension/

That article is one of literally thousands which are shared through social media and which all espouse similar viewpoints. You would be hard pressed to find many taking the opposite view (that Europeans should be proud of their own culture and heritage) finding their way through any mainstream media outlets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/13/teacher-why-i-dont-want-to-assign-shakespeare-anymore-even-though-hes-in-the-common-core/

As a bonus check out this article that was recently shared on my Facebook newsfeed (where it was applauded). Basically the article boils down to the idea that we should stop teaching Shakespeare in English Lit classes because as a long dead white male he's not in touch with the modern, diverse, urban classrooms of today. Her suggestions for what would replace Shakespeare with are recitations from the African oral tradition (In ENGLISH class).

Also note the racially charged language she repeatedly uses and tell me if it would be even moderately acceptable if applied to any other race.
The person who wrote that first article is gross and has a lot of white guilt and self-loathing baggage they need to drop before they can think in a healthy way. She even blames whiteness for why she doesn't know her own cultural heritage and ethnic background. She ought to stop acting like a victim and admit that she's been lazy and ignorant by choice or that perhaps her sense of identity shame and politics are holding her back.

The lady who wrote the second article actually has a good point but she takes it too far. Black students do need to be exposed to literature that empowers them and speaks more directly to their experience. They should still have to study Shakespeare, because they speak English, he's a major influence, and generally the best writer around; but they should also read great African American writers like August Wilson or Richard Wright. They should definitely be exposed to Zora Neale Hurston, Toni Morrison, and Langston Hughes once they've had a taste of Shakespeare, Dickens, Milton, Wordsworth, and Chaucer. They also need a grounding in Melville, Hawthorne, Twain, London, Eliot, Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, and Fitzgerald to appreciate their uniquely American identity as opposed to their linguistic or ethnic roots. The education children receive should be somewhat universal, so that they can relate to others, but also uniquely tailored to their lives for practical use.

[mortalterror]

Christianity has inspired many great minds and great artists, but it also inspired many ignorant people.
Like any other belief system it's a mixed bag, but generally it's a positive force in the universe.


It has produced evangelicals are who skeptical of scientists just because their findings contradict the literal Evangelical interpretations of the origins of the earth.
A rather small minority of Christians believe that, even though most mainstream Christian denominations teachings are in accord with the scientific establishment. However, even something like 13% of atheists are skeptical of those scientific claims and cling to other pseudoscientific explanations. This is more likely a flaw in scientific education than do to any particular dogma or religion. It's sort of like how 1/4 people believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. There are a lot of crackpots out there willing to climb out on any shaky limb.

Blaming all Christians for a few not believing in a couple of scientific theories is like blaming all liberals for their GMO phobia, fear of nuclear power, believing that vaccines cause autism, or that power lines cause cancer. It's not all liberals. It's just the stupid ones. There's a sizeable minority in the atheist community that denies the historical Jesus existed despite ample evidence. They spread the erroneous belief that everyone before Columbus thought the earth was flat, that dissections were forbidden in the middle ages, that Bruno was killed for his scientific beliefs, and the long discredited science/religion conflict theory proposed by Draper and White. So it's not just Christians twisting science and history to suit their agenda. It's stupid people of all stripes and creeds.


Some of these people believe that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. They believe that all secular entertainment is satanic, so they produce godawful arts that were not inspired by their god to create something beautiful like the great christian artists of the past did, but to provide wholesome entertainment that teach their children twisted morals.
I guess some people don't like art. Usually though I tend to use Christian art of the Renaissance as a point in our favor. Big chunks of the best art, literature, music, and architecture in Europe is Christian. There's no denying it.


They are often self-righteous and judgmental.
They are more often humble and charitable.


They are bigoted against homosexuals and Muslims, these people were saying horrible things about gays like the AIDs crisis was god's plague upon them for sodomy.
Some are, most aren't. They are pretty much in accord with the rest of society and in some cases churches lead the charge to legalize gay marriage. I went to a gay church a few months ago by accident. It didn't seem much different from others I've been to except for the life partner of the minister was giving the sermon while the minister was away on business. I doubt that that church is bigoted against homosexuals.

As for Islamophobia, I see a lot more of that coming from the militant atheists like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. For my part, I like what the Muslims represent more than the atheists do; so if Europe can't be Christian any more I'd rather it be Muslim since I see a lot of overlap in our values.


They also have a massive persecution complex, believing that in a nation that is over 70% christian, that somehow Christianity is under attack and Christians are a persecuted minority.
Christianity is under attack, even if it is still the majority in America, and your post is an example of the numerous slights and insults Christians are subjected to every day.


Don't you think you guys are being a bit sensationalist?
No. I think we need to be more passionate and committed to our beliefs and way of life than our detractors are to theirs and to tearing us down or else we'll lose the war of ideas.

[gustave dore]

Forgive me for my christophobia, I don't truly believe Christians are believe, I am just annoyed by the christian right and hardcore evangelicals. I guess I had yet to get over my fundamentalist atheist stage.

[mortalterror]

I'm not proud to be an American, although I'm happy to be one. What should I have to be "proud" about? I'm an American through an accident of birth; I did nothing to deserve it, and have done (perhaps) less than I should have to improve my country. It seems like "grateful" describes my feelings better than "proud".
You can be proud of your community, and that you are a part of something greater and larger than yourself. Don't let your sense of individuality blind your sense of empathy and all the things you have in common with your society. Being proud to be an American and taking pride in your country's accomplishments is like feeling proud of a friend or a family member. You might not have personally done something, but you may be glad of their success and share it vicariously.

Think of it like President Obama did when he said "If you have a business, you didn't build that." A thousand unseen hands are at work building our roads, bridges, houses, infrastructure, laying the groundwork on which our own success is built. "No man is an island, complete unto himself."


In addition, I knew some teachers who didn't like teaching Shakespeare to their "inner-city" (i.e. minority) students. Why? In at least one case, half of the students were not native English speakers, and "Cat in the Hat" or "Harold and the Purple Crayon" would have been more appropriate to their level of English skill. It's silly to teach difficult, poetic, 16th century English to students who struggle to read standard, modern, English prose. For half of American high school kids, Shakespeare doesn't further language skills or the enjoyment of literature.
Obviously, if you can't read then Shakespeare isn't for you. But for those who can read English it most certainly is. The children who can't read are an exception. What's important is that they have the best literature available for their reading level.


"White pride" is reasonably contemned. Why? There's no reason to extol the virtues of power and dominance.
If that's all it is to you "power" and "dominance" then I can see why you don't support it. I don't like the term any more than say "black power" because of the racial overtones. But I think that ethnic heritage is an important dimension to a person's identity and trying to amputate a community out of someone leaves them misshapen and hollow. People have a right to explore and express their historical heritage. For some that means wearing dashiki's and listening to the blues and to others it may mean wearing kilts and playing the bagpipes.


The high school football players who bully other students don't need affirmation; the chess club members who are getting beat up do. If anything, the football players need a little less pride, and more humility -- while the chess club members could band together and have the pride to fight back.
The high school football players deserve self-esteem and pride as much as the chess club members. Another person's strength and wealth does not make us weak and poor.


In addition, it's reasonable to criticize oneself (or one's own group). That's because we can change ourselves (or our own groups). Slamming someone else (or their group) lacks humility, and is less likely to effect change (although, of course, it is sometimes reasonable).
I think we can criticize our own group or someone else's. But I think that some liberals are a little too quick to criticize their own group, a little to harsh on their own group, and a little too lenient on others. You get a lot of unpatriotic, hypercritical, self-loathing talk from some people, especially liberals. To hear them tell it, we've never done anything commendable.


I haven't read "Submission", and know nothing about it. But surely if we are "proud" of our heritage, we must also be ashamed of it. We Americans (for example) enslaved our fellow humans for 50 years after all European nations had abandoned the practice, and black people were legally banned from defecating in public toilets during my lifetime.
I'm not ashamed of any of it. I think my forefathers weren't any worse than other people in their time. There were countries that still had slavery in the twentieth century, so by that measure we stopped early. That whole toilet thing is too bad, but we fixed it eventually and it was a product of it's time. You could say the same about Canada or anywhere else.

That's just human nature, and you are always going to have a little bit of that. It's like crime. Every society has some of it, but some have less acceptable levels than others. The only things we should be ashamed of are the ones that are abnormally bad for their time period, that violated even the social norms of their age, and generally the United States has always been progressive and in advance of social justice or civil rights reforms.

Besides, you are framing it all wrong. We aren't just the slavers, we're also the abolitionists who went to heroic lengths to free the slaves. You know that movie Glory, about the black regiment fighting in the Civil War? One of my great-great-great grandfathers was the Matthew Broderick character that lead them and died fighting so that all men could be free.

The way you talk, you'd think everyone was still in chains and nobody could vote today. You'd think we never invented airplanes, rock and roll, walked on the moon, wrote the Bill of Rights, or fought the Nazis.


So I remain grateful for (rather than proud of) of my American and European heritage. The distinction may seem minor, but I think it's worthwhile. "Proud of" suggests that the prideful person somehow takes credit for something, and may lead to a sense of personal superiority.
No, we wouldn't want to encourage people liking their community or having high self-esteem would we?

[mortalterror]

Forgive me for my christophobia, I don't truly believe Christians are believe, I am just annoyed by the christian right and hardcore evangelicals. I guess I had yet to get over my fundamentalist atheist stage.

No problem. Those guys bug me too.

[desiresjab]

I have not read that book. Sounds interesting and timely.

The cultures of Bach, Galois, Newton and Picasso will pass into dust. Only a dictator with an iron heel can save the world now from a dumbed-down equilibrium. If I prayed, I would pray for a dictator.

[Clopin]

I haven't read "Submission", and know nothing about it. But surely if we are "proud" of our heritage, we must also be ashamed of it. We Americans (for example) enslaved our fellow humans for 50 years after all European nations had abandoned the practice, and black people were legally banned from defecating in public toilets during my lifetime.


Yes, and that's perfectly fair. It works in reverse though as well. If I'm somehow culpable for black slavery in America due to my skin colour then aren't I equally responsible for creating the freest and most prosperous societies and nations in the History of the world? I mean if I get to be accredited with everything white people have ever done I'll take that because the good outweighs the bad by several orders of magnitude.

[Clopin]

By the way I don't understand why American public schools are obliged to educate classes where half of the students can't read in English. How do they get citizenship and why?

[HCabret]

By the way I don't understand why American public schools are obliged to educate classes where half of the students can't read in English. How do they get citizenship and why?
The United States does not have an official langauge. Have a proficient level of the english is not a requirement of citizenship. The first amendment protects free speech and thus prohibits English-only policies. Why are you assuming that non-english speaking people are automatically not citizens?

[HCabret]

Yes, and that's perfectly fair. It works in reverse though as well. If I'm somehow culpable for black slavery in America due to my skin colour then aren't I equally responsible for creating the freest and most prosperous societies and nations in the History of the world? I mean if I get to be accredited with everything white people have ever done I'll take that because the good outweighs the bad by several orders of magnitude.Denial of the severity of black slavery is equal to complying with its existence. Americans should actively be ashamed of the fact that slavery was once widespread and legal in thier country.

[mortalterror]

Denial of the severity of black slavery is equal to complying with its existence. Americans should actively be ashamed of the fact that slavery was once widespread and legal in thier country.

Slavery is one of those things like masturbation which everyone has done and which it doesn't make sense pointing fingers about. Are the Jews still mad at the Egyptians? Are Christians/Europeans mad at the Jews, Vikings, and Africans/Muslims for the millennia of white slavery and millions of our people that were sold centuries ago? If Asians, Africans, Europeans, North and South Americans all had slavery but nobody has slaves any more then we are all equal and no one should look down on anyone else. Although, maybe we can look down on parts of Africa and the Middle East which continued to practice slavery well into the twentieth century.

[Clopin]

The United States does not have an official langauge. Have a proficient level of the english is not a requirement of citizenship. The first amendment protects free speech and thus prohibits English-only policies. Why are you assuming that non-english speaking people are automatically not citizens?

If they're attending public school then I'm sure they are citizens. I never doubted that. Whatever, I guess educating and then jailing (a large percentage of) people who can't read is just a diversity tax.

[mortalterror]

If they're attending public school then I'm sure they are citizens. I never doubted that. Whatever, I guess educating and then jailing people who can't read is just a diversity tax.
You don't need citizenship to go to school here. Lots of illegal immigrants go to school here. We send the ones who don't speak English to ESL classes and special ED, until they become fluent.

[Clopin]

Does that actually work? My mom was a schoolteacher on a native reserve for a number of years and the illiteracy rates are absolutely shocking.

[HCabret]

If they're attending public school then I'm sure they are citizens. I never doubted that. Whatever, I guess educating and then jailing (a large percentage of) people who can't read is just a diversity tax.
Why are you assuming that a public school student be a citizen of the USA? Non-citizens regularly attend public school in the USA everyday.

What is your aversion to languages which are not called "english" and/or the speakers of said languages?

[HCabret]

Slavery is one of those things like masturbation which everyone has done and which it doesn't make sense pointing fingers about. Are the Jews still mad at the Egyptians? Are Christians/Europeans mad at the Jews, Vikings, and Africans/Muslims for the millennia of white slavery and millions of our people that were sold centuries ago? If Asians, Africans, Europeans, North and South Americans all had slavery but nobody has slaves any more then we are all equal and no one should look down on anyone else. Although, maybe we can look down on parts of Africa and the Middle East which continued to practice slavery well into the twentieth century.So your remedy to slavery is pretending like it never happened? Why is it so taboo to discuss the evils of slavery and the evil of those who practiced it?

[HCabret]

You don't need citizenship to go to school here. Lots of illegal immigrants go to school here. We send the ones who don't speak English to ESL classes and special ED, until they become fluent.
Lot's of legal immigrants, who are not citizens of the USA, attend school in the USA as well. There is no mandate that anyone living in the USA speak in and use any particular language.

[Clopin]

Why are you assuming that a public school student be a citizen of the USA? Non-citizens regularly attend public school in the USA everyday.

What is your aversion to languages which are not called "english" and/or the speakers of said languages?

Oh I just assumed you had to be a citizen to attend public school. Mortalterror already addressed that.

I have no aversion to other languages, but I know that reading and writing in English are essential skills for success in America (as reading and writing Japanese will be essential to success in Japan) and I'm unsure why America would accept immigrants who lack these basic and necessary skills.

[HCabret]

Does that actually work? My mom was a schoolteacher on a native reserve for a number of years and the illiteracy rates are absolutely shocking.
Virtually all native Americans speak English as a first language.

[Clopin]

So your remedy to slavery is pretending like it never happened? Why is it so taboo to discuss the evils of slavery and the evil of those who practiced it?

What do you mean by 'remedy'? There no longer is slavery in North America.

[HCabret]

Oh I just assumed you had to be a citizen to attend public school. Mortalterror already addressed that.On what basis were you making that assumption? That seems like a weird assumption to make.


I have no aversion to other languages, but I know that reading and writing in English are essential skills for success in America (as reading and writing Japanese will be essential to success in Japan) and I'm unsure why America would accept immigrants who lack these basic and necessary skills.One of the most fundemental freedoms which all people (regardless of their citizenship status) hold is that of speech. There are 40 million spanish speaker over the age of five in the United States. If anything bilingual education in English and Spanish should be cumpolsury for all students. I would even like to see knowledge of all the UN official languages become compulsory for all students in the USA.

The USA should accept anyone and everyone who want to migrate there. Freedom is an entitlement, not a privilege.

[mortalterror]

So your remedy to slavery is pretending like it never happened? Why is it so taboo to discuss the evils of slavery and the evil of those who practiced it?
No, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying we pretend like slavery never happened. I'm saying that we recognize that everyone practiced it and it's just a historical fact; so there's no need to single America out as a boogie man.

[Clopin]

The USA should accept anyone and everyone who want to migrate there.

Not if they want to remain a first world country.

[HCabret]

What do you mean by 'remedy'? There no longer is slavery in North America.
Some would even go as far to deny that there was ever slavery in North America. And even then, many that don't deny that it existed, like to pretend that it wasn't all that bad. I've even encountered people in the USA who argued that slavery was a good thing.

The fact that slavery existed in the USA should never be forgotten and those who practiced it should never stop being demonized for doing so. Slavery is an abomination and this simple fact should never be forgotten or downplayed.

[HCabret]

Not if they want to remain a first world country.
Who's "they"?

So you believe that it's okay to deny poor people equal rights and freedoms? Should only rich people be allowed to enjoy the freedoms of the USA?

[mortalterror]

Oh I just assumed you had to be a citizen to attend public school. Mortalterror already addressed that.

I have no aversion to other languages, but I know that reading and writing in English are essential skills for success in America (as reading and writing Japanese will be essential to success in Japan) and I'm unsure why America would accept immigrants who lack these basic and necessary skills.

We educate the citizens of illegal immigrants, because we don't hold them responsible for the actions of their parents. We also have a lot of socialism in our country and so we consider education a basic civil right. Then do to our policy where if you are born here or live here long enough you can be naturalized as a citizen it's in our interest to educate a potential citizen of our country. Lastly, it keeps the kids off the streets and prevents a lot of crime.

However, I believe you are correct that there is a written test to become a citizen. I think it's in English and you must demonstrate some knowledge of our customs, history, laws, and government.

[HCabret]

No, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying we pretend like slavery never happened. I'm saying that we recognize that everyone practiced it and it's just a historical fact; so there's no need to single America out as a boogie man.
Those who were slaves did not practice it. The fact that slavery existed in the USA should never be forgotten or downplayed.

Why are Americans so averse to admitting that Americans practiced and supported the slavery of black people?

[Clopin]

Who's "they"?

So you believe that it's okay to deny poor people equal rights and freedoms? Should only rich people be allowed to enjoy the freedoms of the USA?

American Citizens.

Yes I believe it's okay to deny people who want to immigrate to your country. I would certainly be denied if I sought citizenship in Switzerland, for instance, because I lack any trade or concrete skill, I have no familiarity with any of the languages spoken there, and would have no real guarantee that I could support myself adequately, or provide any benefit to the Swiss. I also would not be permitted Japanese citizenship. This is fine and proper.

[HCabret]

We educate the citizens of illegal immigrants, because we don't hold them responsible for the actions of their parents. We also have a lot of socialism in our country and so we consider education a basic civil right. Then do to our policy where if you are born here or live here long enough you can be naturalized as a citizen it's in our interest to educate a potential citizen of our country. Lastly, it keeps the kids off the streets and prevents a lot of crime.

Adult illegal immigrants with children attend public schools everyday. Undocumented persons receive in-state college tuition in many US states.

[HCabret]

American Citizens.Most US citizens accept and embrace the precept that "liberty and justice [be given to] all".


Yes I believe it's okay to deny people who want to immigrate to your country. I would certainly be denied if I sought citizenship in Switzerland, for instance, because I lack any trade or concrete skill, I have no familiarity with any of the languages spoken there, and would have no real guarantee that I could support myself adequately, or provide any benefit to the Swiss. I also would not be permitted Japanese citizenship. This is fine and proper.
Switzerland embraces the basic human freedom of movement. Anyone can and come and go from Switzerland with complete freedom. Switzerland also has a very high english proficiency and many Swiss people speak english as a second or third language. You'd have no problem whatsoever as an english speaker in Switzerland.

English is the international language of diplomacy, business, and entertainment. Virtually every country on earth has a sizable english speaking population. India, for example, has 130 million english speakers. English is not a language unique, or even native to the USA. I don't understand the fetishization of the english language by many US citizens.

There is no economic requirement for a person to become a citizen, this is not Soviet Russia. Citizenship isn't a privilege reserved only for the wealthy, it is a basic right. Everyone and anyone who wants to enjoy the freedoms of the USA should be allowed to do so, regardless of how much material wealth they may or may not have.

[Clopin]

I think you're a little confused about what citizenship means. I can't just go to Switzerland and become a citizen. Citizenship also isn't a basic right, I'm not sure what you think you mean by that.

[mortalterror]

One of the most fundemental freedoms which all people (regardless of their citizenship status) hold is that of speech. There are 40 million spanish speaker over the age of five in the United States. If anything bilingual education in English and Spanish should be cumpolsury for all students. I would even like to see knowledge of all the UN official languages become compulsory for all students in the USA.

The USA should accept anyone and everyone who want to migrate there. Freedom is an entitlement, not a privilege.
Um, no? English is the national language. It's what all the street signs and government documents are written in. You need it to speak to 85% of the population. It's a necessity. Spanish wouldn't even be useful for the northern half of the country since most of the Spanish speakers are along the southern border; so I can't see making it compulsory.

You want every child to learn six languages? When are they even going to use Chinese, Arabic, Russian, and French? At least in America they might run into someone who only speaks Spanish once in a while. Although I've lived half my life in California and only run into that a handful of times. Mostly the Mexicans just learn English, or if they are stubborn, they bring a child who's bilingual and related to them wherever they go.

I really can't get behind America just accepting everybody who wants to come here. A nation is like an ecosystem, the indigenous life forms have a balance that can be thrown out of whack if suddenly tons of flora and fauna come in that wasn't there before. A sudden spike in population could mess up economies driving housing prices up, putting strains on traffic, lowering wages, etc. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens interests before considering the needs of aliens.

You have a right to live, but there is no right to live in California. That's one of the things that bothered me the other day watching the news. Syrian refugees are traveling from Turkey, to Hungary, to Germany. I'm like "What? Germany isn't anywhere near Syria!" It's 3,700 miles away. When those people fled Syria to Turkey they were refugees. Now they are just on vacation or emigrating for financial reasons to a more prosperous country. You see how they conveniently bypass all the poor countries like Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia on their way to the richest country in Europe. That's not being a refugee. A refugee would have fled to Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, or Georgia which are in the neighborhood of where they started. That's sheer opportunism and taking advantage of bleeding heart's sympathy.

[HCabret]

I think you're a little confused about what citizenship means. I can't just go to Switzerland and become a citizen. Citizenship also isn't a basic right, I'm not sure what you think you mean by that.
Citizenship in the USA is a basic right of birth. Have you not read the 14th amendment?

[Clopin]

Good point with that last paragraph Mortal.

http://s13.postimg.org/jfk1dtzkn/1441498740584.jpg

[Clopin]

Citizenship in the USA is a basic right of birth. Have you not read the 14th amendment?

A right of birth if you are born in the U.S.A...

[mortalterror]

Those who were slaves did not practice it. The fact that slavery existed in the USA should never be forgotten or downplayed.

Why are Americans so averse to admitting that Americans practiced and supported the slavery of black people?

In every family tree there is a slave and a slaver a king and a peasant. I told you already that Africans enslaved each other and Europeans for thousands of years. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire . If America were the only place that practiced slavery it would rightly deserve to be notorious, but it wasn't just the U.S. It was everybody back then. Singling out America for special punishment is biased and unfair.

[HCabret]

Um, no? English is the national language.The United States does not have an official language. There is no mandate the english language be used.


It's what all the street signs and government documents are written in.That is a matter of custom and of demographics. There is no law requiring that street signs be in any particular language.


You need it to speak to 85% of the population. It's a necessity. Spanish wouldn't even be useful for the northern half of the country since most of the Spanish speakers are along the southern border; so I can't see making it compulsory.20% of New York City speaks spanish. There are seven times as many spanish speakers in NYC as there are people in all of Wyoming. About 17% of Chicagoans speaks spanish, 12% in Washington DC, 10% in Atlanta, 20% in Orlando, 8% in Boston, 12% in Springfield Massacusetts, and 15% of Bridgeport Connecticut.


You want every child to learn six languages?Ther are imnumerable cognitive and developmental benefits which derive from multilingualism. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/more-languages-better-brain/381193/


When are they even going to use ChineseChina is the USA's second largest trading partner and this relationship will only grow if trade policies in the two countries continue to liberalize. Chinese (Mandarin) is also the most commonly used language on earth.


ArabicSame economic reasons as above.


RussianSame.


, and French?Same. French is also an official language in Louisiana, and has sizable speaking populations in Maine and Missouri.


At least in America they might run into someone who only speaks Spanish once in a while. Although I've lived half my life in California and only run into that a handful of times. Mostly the Mexicans just learn English, or if they are stubborn, they bring a child who's bilingual and related to them wherever they go.There are 4.5 million spanish speakers in LA, 1.3 million in Riverside/San Bernadino, 8 hundred thousand in San Diego, and 7 hundred thousand in the Bay Area. How were you only running into spanish speakers "once in a while"?


I really can't get behind America just accepting everybody who wants to come here.I can. Freedom is a good thing.


A nation is like an ecosystem, the indigenous life forms have a balance that can be thrown out of whack if suddenly tons of flora and fauna come in that wasn't there before. A sudden spike in population could mess up economies driving housing prices up, putting strains on traffic, lowering wages, etc. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens interests before considering the needs of aliens.The USA isn't a "nation", it's a multinational suprastate. Humans aren't native to North America in the first place. The government should not be regulating the economy. Their is no requirement for any government to protect anyone's material wealth. The government's job is not to provide you with wealth.


You have a right to live, but there is no right to live in California. That's one of the things that bothered me the other day watching the news. Syrian refugees are traveling from Turkey, to Hungary, to Germany. I'm like "What? Germany isn't anywhere near Syria!" It's 3,700 miles away. When those people fled Syria to Turkey they were refugees. Now they are just on vacation or emigrating for financial reasons to a more prosperous country. You see how they conveniently bypass all the poor countries like Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia on their way to the richest country in Europe. That's not being a refugee. A refugee would have fled to Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, or Georgia which are in the neighborhood of where they started. That's sheer opportunism and taking advantage of bleeding heart's sympathy.Freedom of movement is a basic human right. When did freedom become a bad thing?

[HCabret]

A right of birth if you are born in the U.S.A...
Is that not what I said?

[HCabret]

Good point with that last paragraph Mortal.

http://s13.postimg.org/jfk1dtzkn/1441498740584.jpg
So you're against the freedom of movement?

[mortalterror]

I think you're a little confused about what citizenship means. I can't just go to Switzerland and become a citizen. Citizenship also isn't a basic right, I'm not sure what you think you mean by that.

I think he's confused. He's using the term citizenship interchangeably with freedom, liberty, and justice.

[mortalterror]

Citizenship in the USA is a basic right of birth. Have you not read the 14th amendment?

If and only if you are born in America.

[Clopin]

HCabret I am absolutely against open border immigration, yes.

[HCabret]

In every family tree there is a slave and a slaver a king and a peasant.Source?


I told you already that Africans enslaved each other and Europeans for thousands of years. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire . If America were the only place that practiced slavery it would rightly deserve to be notorious, but it wasn't just the U.S. It was everybody back then. Singling out America for special punishment is biased and unfair.I never denied that non-American countries practiced slavery, nor did I claim that the USA was the only country which practiced slavery.

How is declaring that slavery and those who practiced it as evil considered a "punishment"? American slave owners were pure evil, as slave owners of all other nationalities were equally evil. What is the harm in pointing this out?

Do you believe that somehow American slave owners were less evil than those of other nationalities?

I was born in and still live in the United States. It serves to reason that I would be focused on the crimes of this country as opposed to those of people in other hemispheres.

[HCabret]

HCabret I am absolutely against open border immigration, yes.
Why? What's wrong with free trade and capitalism?

[HCabret]

If and only if you are born in America.
Did you guys not read my post?

[HCabret]

I think he's confused. He's using the term citizenship interchangeably with freedom, liberty, and justice.Are they not interchangeable? Do citizens not recieve rights and freedoms which are not afforded to non-citizens?

[Clopin]

Did you guys not read my post?

The only person having problems with reading comprehension here is you.

[HCabret]

The only person having problems with reading comprehension here is you.
What am I missing? Did I not say that "citizenship is a basic right of birth" and then cite the 14th amendment?

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?82647-Houellebecq&p=1303742&viewfull=1#post1303742

[Clopin]

You also said that everyone has the right to U.S citizenship. And Swiss citizenship.

[gustave dore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auEA9Ay6G0o

This is relevant to the discussion.

[gustave dore]

Um, no? English is the national language. It's what all the street signs and government documents are written in. You need it to speak to 85% of the population. It's a necessity. Spanish wouldn't even be useful for the northern half of the country since most of the Spanish speakers are along the southern border; so I can't see making it compulsory.

You want every child to learn six languages? When are they even going to use Chinese, Arabic, Russian, and French? At least in America they might run into someone who only speaks Spanish once in a while. Although I've lived half my life in California and only run into that a handful of times. Mostly the Mexicans just learn English, or if they are stubborn, they bring a child who's bilingual and related to them wherever they go.

I really can't get behind America just accepting everybody who wants to come here. A nation is like an ecosystem, the indigenous life forms have a balance that can be thrown out of whack if suddenly tons of flora and fauna come in that wasn't there before. A sudden spike in population could mess up economies driving housing prices up, putting strains on traffic, lowering wages, etc. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens interests before considering the needs of aliens.

You have a right to live, but there is no right to live in California. That's one of the things that bothered me the other day watching the news. Syrian refugees are traveling from Turkey, to Hungary, to Germany. I'm like "What? Germany isn't anywhere near Syria!" It's 3,700 miles away. When those people fled Syria to Turkey they were refugees. Now they are just on vacation or emigrating for financial reasons to a more prosperous country. You see how they conveniently bypass all the poor countries like Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia on their way to the richest country in Europe. That's not being a refugee. A refugee would have fled to Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, or Georgia which are in the neighborhood of where they started. That's sheer opportunism and taking advantage of bleeding heart's sympathy.
Iraq has is at war right now and none of the gulf states are accepting refugees. Why is basic human decency dismissed as bleeding heart liberalism?

[mortalterror]

20% of New York City speaks spanish. There are seven times as many spanish speakers in NYC as there are people in all of Wyoming. About 17% of Chicagoans speaks spanish, 12% in Washington DC, 10% in Atlanta, 20% in Orlando, 8% in Boston, 12% in Springfield Massacusetts, and 15% of Bridgeport Connecticut.
Fortunately, those people can speak English too. I'm talking about people who can only speak Spanish.


Ther are imnumerable cognatice and developmental benefits from multilingualism. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/more-languages-better-brain/381193/
Yeah, I have a nutty friend who dabbles in a bunch of languages for fun and was pushing that garbage at me a few weeks ago. I told her what I'm telling you now. Learning Esperanto and sign language is a complete waste of my time. The amount of time you want to waste teaching things people will never have any practical use for is obscene, and we can't spend more time on frivolous nonsense when we are already falling behind in math, science, and literacy. There may be "innumerable cognitive and developmental benefits to multilingualism," but there are more benefits in structuring your time and education efficiently, gaining proficiency in the things you need most.


China is the USA's second largest trading partner and this relationship will only grow if trade policies in the two countries continue to liberalize. Chinese (Mandarin) is also the most commonly used language on earth.
Only a handful of businessmen actually interact with the Chinese and often through interpreters. The actual percentage of Chinese people living in the United States is south of five percent, and most of them speak English.


There are 4.5 million spanish speakers in LA, 1.3 million in Riverside/San Bernadino, 8 hundred thousand in San Diego, and 7 hundred thousand in the Bay Area. How were you only running into spanish speakers "once in a while"?
I've lived in areas where I was the only white person and non-Spanish speaker. When I conversed with the people they all spoke English. Your problem is that you assume that just because a person can speak Spanish that they can't also speak English. One of my best friends is the son of a Mexican immigrant. He doesn't even speak Spanish, has a Ph.D. in English and teaches writing at a college. You need English to get around in America. You don't need Spanish.


I can. Freedom is a good thing.
I'd rather see them free in the country they were born in.


The USA isn't a "nation", it's a multinational suprastate. Humans aren't native to North America in the first place. The government should not be regulating the economy. Their is no requirement for any government to protect anyone's material wealth. The government's job is not to provide you with wealth.
The US is a nation. It doesn't really matter that humans aren't native to North America. The government should definitely be regulating the economy. One of the only things a government is explicitly supposed to do is protect it's citizen's property.


Freedom of movement is a basic human right. When did freedom become a bad thing?

You are free to go anywhere that other people don't own and won't stop you from going to. You don't have a right to move into my house.

[mortalterror]

Source?

There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his.

- Helen Keller


I never denied that non-American countries practiced slavery, nor did I claim that the USA was the only country which practiced slavery.

How is declaring that slavery and those who practiced it as evil considered a "punishment"? American slave owners were pure evil, as slave owners of all other nationalities were equally evil. What is the harm in pointing this out?
In the philosophy of ethics there are some who theorize that morality is objective and others who consider it situational. It's quite one thing to declare people centuries in the past "pure evil" once a practice is long gone and another thing to see them that way when you live among them and the practice is common. We may dismiss the Nazi's as evil, or we may acknowledge that under similar conditions we might well have done the same things as them. Things like the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Experiment with authority show that socially normal people are capable of "evil" actions under the right circumstances.


Do you believe that somehow American slave owners were less evil than those of other nationalities?
While I myself abhor the practice of slavery and consider it evil, I can well see people of an earlier time not sharing my scruples. I'm also not sure that a person in Roman times would have to be "pure evil" to own a slave any more than a woman who gets an abortion now has to be "pure evil" to kill her baby. The issue isn't seen in the same light in different eras and social norms prevail. What I believe is that there is a tipping point where everyone wakes up to how wrong something is and then the good people do their best to put a stop to it. Before that tipping point, it's hypothetically possible to do evil things out of ignorance. After that tipping point, when ignorance is no longer an excuse, it becomes harder and harder to justify.

While I don't believe that American slave owners were less evil than those of other nationalities, I don't think they were worse, or unique and worthy of the special attention they generate. The US gets more than it's fair share of abuse because everybody knows our history and they don't know much about other people's. No nation is a saint. I once made a brief timeline of Canadian atrocities and the thing came out to three pages and made them look worse than the Nazis.

[HCabret]

Fortunately, those people can speak English too.Source?



Yeah, I have a nutty friend who dabbles in a bunch of languages for fun and was pushing that garbage at me a few weeks ago. I told her what I'm telling you now. Learning Esperanto and sign language is a complete waste of my time. The amount of time you want to waste teaching things people will never have any practical use for is obscene, and we can't spend more time on frivolous nonsense when we are already falling behind in math, science, and literacy. There may be "innumerable cognitive and developmental benefits to multilingualism," but there are more benefits in structuring your time and education efficiently, gaining proficiency in the things you need most.Communicating with other human beings is an extremely vital part of almost all human activity. Since when is learning langauges which billions of other humans speak considered "frivolous"?



Only a handful of businessmen actually interact with the Chinese and often through interpreters. The actual percentage of Chinese people living in the United States is south of five percent, and most of them speak English.People live inside of the United States too. A billion people live in China, over 3 times as many people as live in the USA.



I've lived in areas where I was the only white person and non-Spanish speaker. When I conversed with the people they all spoke English. Your problem is that you assume that just because a person can speak Spanish that they can't also speak English. One of my best friends is the son of a Mexican immigrant. He doesn't even speak Spanish, has a Ph.D. in English and teaches writing at a college. You need English to get around in America. You don't need Spanish.So you want the governemnt to legislate everyone's speech and require that they only speak a single particular language? what is so special about the english language as compared to other lanaguages anyway? English is extremely irregular and confusing.



I'd rather see them free in the country they were born in.I'd rather they be free to live wherever they want.



The US is a nation.The USA is by defintion, not a "nation". The word "nation" has a very specific meaning. http://www.geographictravels.com/2009/07/nation-versus-state-versus-nation-state.html


It doesn't really matter that humans aren't native to North America.Yes it does. Either all humans are allowed in North America or none are. Humans are native to East Africa, that is where they belong.


The government should definitely be regulating the economy. One of the only things a government is explicitly supposed to do is protect it's citizen's property.Where does it say that?




You are free to go anywhere that other people don't own and won't stop you from going to. You don't have a right to move into my house.I, along with all other human beings, have the inherent freedom of movement. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes this explicitly clear.

[HCabret]

There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his.

- Helen Keller This quote is your source for the claim that everyone has practiced slavery? Do you have any actual historical/demographic evidence?



In the philosophy of ethics there are some who theorize that morality is objective and others who consider it situational. It's quite one thing to declare people centuries in the past "pure evil" once a practice is long gone and another thing to see them that way when you live among them and the practice is common. We may dismiss the Nazi's as evil, or we may acknowledge that under similar conditions we might well have done the same things as them. Things like the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Experiment with authority show that socially normal people are capable of "evil" actions under the right circumstances. So you don't think that slave owners were pure evil?



While I myself abhor the practice of slavery and consider it evil, I can well see people of an earlier time not sharing my scruples. I'm also not sure that a person in Roman times would have to be "pure evil" to own a slave any more than a woman who gets an abortion now has to be "pure evil" to kill her baby. The issue isn't seen in the same light in different eras and social norms prevail. What I believe is that there is a tipping point where everyone wakes up to how wrong something is and then the good people do their best to put a stop to it. Before that tipping point, it's hypothetically possible to do evil things out of ignorance. After that tipping point, when ignorance is no longer an excuse, it becomes harder and harder to justify. The USA was one of the last developed countries in the world to outlaw slavery. Slavery was widely seen as being complete and pure evil in many places for a long time prior to its final and absolute abolition.


While I don't believe that American slave owners were less evil than those of other nationalities, I don't think they were worse, or unique and worthy of the special attention they generate.What "special attention" are they receiving which you believe they shouldn't be?


The US gets more than it's fair share of abuse because everybody knows our history and they don't know much about other people's. No nation is a saint. I once made a brief timeline of Canadian atrocities and the thing came out to three pages and made them look worse than the Nazis.The USA deserves the abuse its receives from its history of enslaving black people. I live in the USA; I don't live in Canada. I am aware of the USA's endorsement of slavery as a virtue of me having lived here for my entire life.

[HCabret]

You also said that everyone has the right to U.S citizenship. And Swiss citizenship.
Everyone does have the right to full freedom everywhere. What am I missing?

[HCabret]

"You belong somewhere you feel free." -Tom Petty

Simple.

[gustave dore]

>I was only nine years old

>I loved Shrek so much, I owned all the movies and merchandise

>I pray to Shrek every night, thanking him for the life I have been given

>"Shrek is love", I say, "Shrek is life"

>My dad hears me and calls me a faggot

>He is obviously jealous of my devotion to Shrek

>I called him a ****

>He slaps me and sends me to my room

>I am crying now, because my face hurts

>I go into my bed and it is very cold

>I feel a warmth moving towards me

>I fell something touch me

>It's Shrek

>I am so happy

>He whispers into my ear, "This is my swamp"

>He grabs me with his powerful ogre hands and puts me on my hands and knees

>I'm ready

>I spread my *** cheeks for Shrek

>He penetrates my butthole

>It hurts so much, but I do it for Shrek

>I can feel my anus tearing as my eyes start to water

>I push against his force

>I want to please Shrek

>He roars a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his love

>My dad walks in

>Shrek looks him deep in the eyes and says, "It's all ogre now"

>Shrek leaves through my window

Shrek is love, Shrek is life

[Clopin]

Everyone does have the right to full freedom everywhere. What am I missing?

:brickwall

[HCabret]

:brickwall
That's what I'm missing? Why can't people just use clear english? Auntie Shecky just had a thread about the ineffectiveness of emojis when trying to communicate.

What about everyone having freedom everwhere do you not like?

[Drkshadow03]

So you want the governemnt to legislate everyone's speech and require that they only speak a single particular language? what is so special about the english language as compared to other lanaguages anyway? English is extremely irregular and confusing.



Hmm, you do realize this is a Strawman. He said nothing about the government legislating people's speech and requiring them to learn English in the quote you responded to, nor did he say English is special compared to other languages.

[North Star]

Good point with that last paragraph Mortal.

http://s13.postimg.org/jfk1dtzkn/1441498740584.jpg

More like this:

https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/10272475_10153238488665787_1090272706820660920_o.j pg

[Clopin]

Well okay so most of the world sucks. Is Europe supposed to let everyone in so that finally the entire world can be a ****hole?

[gustave dore]

How about europeans stop whining and portraying themselves as the victims in this situation? Its partly the west's policies that helped create the mess we have in the middle east right now anyway. Also, most of the refugees have fled to other middle eastern countries.

[Ecurb]

Pride
1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
3. a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem.
4. pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself

This is from Dictionary.com. I think that there is another sense of “pride” that is more general, meaning “a general sense of happiness when you or someone associated with you accomplishes something worthwhile.” So we might be “proud” of our children in this last way, or because we “believe (their accomplishments) reflect credit upon ourselves”.

Of course most of us Americans vote, some have served in public capacities as soldiers or school teachers, and others have worked to promote American virtues in other ways. We are all proud to be American in the sense of definition 2: our position as Americans entitles us to certain dignities and rights that may be denied others.

Nonetheless, pride is also the deadliest of the seven deadly sins; it is the sin by which Lucifer fell. As mortal terror suggests, a certain level of self-esteem is good for people – but when “White Pride” suggests that one’s “dignity, merit, or superiority” surpasses that of others on the basis of race, pride is both misplaced and obnoxious.

I’m a father. I reared my son as a single father, and of course I’m proud of his accomplishments in the general sense that I’m happy when he succeeds. However, when (and if) I start believing that his success “reflects credit” upon me, my pride risks becoming egotistical. He’s the one who got straight “A”s all through school. I tried my best to discourage him, but it didn’t take. I remember when Shane was in high school our normal evening conversation was, “Let’s go to a movie, Shane, or maybe take in a game.”

“I can’t, Dad. I have homework.”

“O, blow off your homework for once. It won’t kill you to get a “B”.”

On the other hand, Earl Woods wrote a book entitled, “Training a Tiger: A Father’s Gide to Raising a Winner in Golf and Life”. I’ve never read the book, and perhaps the publisher chose the obnoxious title because they thought it would increase sales. However, I think lots of parents take “pride” in their children’s achievements because they think “it reflects credit on them”, as the title of the book suggests.

Similarly, some Americans probably think American success reflects credit on them, and some White people think the success of other white people reflects credit upon them. In a sense, isn’t it more reasonable to feel humble about being an American than to feel proud? What did I (or mortal terror) do to deserve such a bounty of freedom and money? Should the born-again Christian feel proud about being “saved”, or humble about it? We are saved by Grace (if we are Christians), and we (who were born citizens) are Americans by Grace.

[Clopin]

Okay Gustave so where is the line drawn then? There are billions of people living in abject poverty or in dangerous, war torn, cities and countries the world over; who don't we let in to Europe and North America when sympathy is the name of the game? Everyone? Can everyone come? Do you honestly think the infrastructure in countries like Great Britain, Sweden or Germany can support such an influx? And even if they could support (hundreds of) millions of migrants do you think such a massive upheaval of demographics will be a positive thing for people indigenous to the continent? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it would be?

[mona amon]

I'm proud to be an American. I think it's the greatest country in the world. Now, just replace your country of origin with America and add the word second before the word greatest and you will be good to go. It's not hard. You just need to have the same strength to your convictions that Coca-Cola has when it tells you it's better than Pepsi.

I wouldn't say that I'm proud of my skin color but I'm definitely proud of my European heritage. Michelangelo, Mozart, Plato, and Shakespeare are my birthright and I pity any uncultured slob who doesn't embrace the things his forefathers built. Christianity is an amazing religion that offers more peace, love, happiness, and contentment pound for pound than any other religion and the West were a bunch of fools for dropping it. If I were a European I'd be celebrating all of that loudly every day in the streets.

Way to go, Mortal! :D That really needed to be said. Pride in one's country and culture is a natural feeling, and attempts to deny it are just humbug and hypocrisy and will only result in loads more support for extreme right jingoists who, whatever their failings, at least recognize the existence of things like national pride.

[Ecurb]

On slavery:

It's reasonable to distinguish between the moral value of institutions and individuals. We may think slavery evil, but refuse to think that all of the citizens of ancient Athens were unspeakably evil because they owned slaves. We are all products of our own cultures.

Nonetheless, America can use this excuse only with difficulty. It's not as if slavery were a universally accepted institution in the mid 19th century: it had been banned throughout Europe for 50 years, and many Americans were preaching fanatically about its evils. In addition, American slavery was racist (where Classical slavery was not). Racist segregation laws persisted into the 1960s, and, again, those supporting those laws could hardly excuse them on the basis of universal cultural acceptance, because they could not avoid hearing the cacophony of complaints about how evil they were.

I don't feel any personal guilt about slavery, but when Donald Trump says "Let's make America Great Again", I wonder to which America he wants a return? Is it the America of the 1950s and '60s, in which there was legal segregation (and a Progressive income tax that reached over 80% in certain income brackets)?

[Clopin]

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/hey-v12n5


1.4% of White Americans owned slaves during peak years

[Ecurb]

1.4% of White Americans owned slaves during peak years


What percentage (I wonder) of blacks in America were slaves?

[Clopin]

I don't know; a high percentage? Look I'm not trying to suggest that the people who were slaves didn't suffer, but rather that slavery was not invented by white people and that, in actual fact, the vast majority of white people (even only considering America) never owned slaves. It becomes important to establish facts like these when people like Hcabret go on and on about how we should feel ashamed forever because of this history.

[Ecurb]

Of course you're right, Clopin. Slave owners in America were the same evil 1% liberals love to complain about today!

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAct7Ynxty8

[Ecurb]

No. I'm mocking the anti-1%ers. It seems like some American liberals would like to see the rich become less rich. I'd like to see the poor become less poor, but I don't care how rich the rich are (although, of course, one way to help the poor would be more progressive income taxes, like we had in the '50s and '60s, eras to which some conservatives paradoxically seem to want to return).

[HCabret]

Hmm, you do realize this is a Strawman. He said nothing about the government legislating people's speech and requiring them to learn English in the quote you responded to, nor did he say English is special compared to other languages.
He insinuated that English be a requirement of citizenship, which is unconstitutional. He also has made it out to be that English is somehow superior to other languages and is the only language which people should be learning im schools.

[HCabret]

Well okay so most of the world sucks. Is Europe supposed to let everyone in so that finally the entire world can be a ****hole?
Again, i ask, what is wrong with freedom of movement? What could possibly be bad about giving more people equal rights?

[HCabret]

Okay Gustave so where is the line drawn then? There are billions of people living in abject poverty or in dangerous, war torn, cities and countries the world over; who don't we let in to Europe and North America when sympathy is the name of the game? Everyone? Can everyone come? Do you honestly think the infrastructure in countries like Great Britain, Sweden or Germany can support such an influx? And even if they could support (hundreds of) millions of migrants do you think such a massive upheaval of demographics will be a positive thing for people indigenous to the continent? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it would be?The line should never be drawn. Why do you feel that you are more deserving of freedom than someone from somewhere else is? What makes you so special? Are you afraid that you may have to act with some sort of humanity and express empathy towards those who are suffering?

[HCabret]

I don't know; a high percentage? Look I'm not trying to suggest that the people who were slaves didn't suffer, but rather that slavery was not invented by white people and that, in actual fact, the vast majority of white people (even only considering America) never owned slaves. It becomes important to establish facts like these when people like Hcabret go on and on about how we should feel ashamed forever because of this history.
So because white people may not have invented slavery, that excuses them from having practiced it after its invention? Can mass murderers get off because they did not invent guns, bullets, or bombs?

The vast majority of white Americans, prior to the Civil War, actively supported slavery regardless of whether they owned slaves or not. The CSA's soldiers weren't fighting out the goodness of thier hearts, they were actively seeking to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.

Am you from the USA? I can't figure out if you are Canadian or English.

[HCabret]

Of course you're right, Clopin. Slave owners in America were the same evil 1% liberals love to complain about today!Please refrain from discussing politics. Politics are strictly off-limits in this forum. Discussing the morality of migration and of slavery are okay, as neither have anything to do with politics. Discussing and assigning other posters with particular political ideologies is, and should be, out of bounds.

[Ecurb]

I think we can practice cultural criticism that skirts the borders of politics. It seems to me that the capitalist ethos that promotes the idea that riches are "earned" or "merited" contributes to the current American obsession with "disparity" of wealth. This is clearly no more "political" than discussions about immigration policies -- probably less so.

[Clopin]

Again, i ask, what is wrong with freedom of movement? What could possibly be bad about giving more people equal rights?

I think it would reduce first world countries to third world countries.

[Clopin]

He insinuated that English be a requirement of citizenship, which is unconstitutional. He also has made it out to be that English is somehow superior to other languages and is the only language which people should be learning im schools.

I never said anything of the sort.

[HCabret]

In an attempt to return this thread to it original topic: there has been a major movement in Europe over the last 60 years to make society more empathetic towards those who may have been harmed by a hundred years of brutal colonialism. Literature reflects this. Beginning during the proto period of decoloniaztion in the 1920s following World War 1, James Joyce wrote Ulysses, which gavanized the anti-English movement and lead to the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. Literature like Ulysses not only promoted anti-colonialism among those living under it, but allowed the colonializers themselves to see the error of their ways. Ulysses, now considered by many to be the greatest english language work of all time, was written by a anti-english revolutionary. The Irish people now had a national epic and a rejuvinated national identity.

Authors, including, but not imited to, JM Coetzee, Maryse Condé, Cyril Dabydeen, Tsitsi Dangarembga, Max Davine, Buchi Emecheta, Athol Fugard, Nadine Gordimer, Bonny Hicks, Hanif Kureishi, Doris Lessing, Earl Lovelace, Gabriel García Márquez, Bharati Mukherjee, Barbara Kingsolver, VS Naipaul, Michael Ondaatje, RK Narayan, Mahashweta Devi, EM Forster, Anita Desai, Wilbur Smith, Wole Soyinka, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Yvonne Vera, Derek Walcott, Kath Walker, Paigham Afaqui, Arundhati Roy, Amitav Ghosh, Haim Sabato, Eleanor Dark, Bole Butake, Anne Tanyi-Tang, Bate Besong, Maxine Hong Kingston. Marcus Garvey, Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire, Léon Damas, Jhumpa Lahiri, among others, contributed to the literary documentation of colonialism and its after-effects.

The proliferation of literature promoting anti-racism, anti-slavery, anti-colonialism, and pro-human rights, helped immensely in the ending of the horrible abuses of victorian culture, which spilled over into most of the 20th century. Walden and Uncle Tom's Cabin helped end slavery in the USA. Heart of Darkness helped end personal rule in the Congo. Gandhi's Autobiography helped end British rule in the Subcontinent. MLKjr's Letter from Birmingham Prison helped end segregation in the USA. And today Modern Family has helped end the prohibition on LBGT rights.

Europe is by definition a 'european continent' as it is itself Europe. Europe will never be an 'african continent' as it is physically not apart of Africa whatsoever. Islam has been present in Europe for over a thousand years. There is nothing new about Muslims living in Europe.

[HCabret]

I think we can practice cultural criticism that skirts the borders of politics. It seems to me that the capitalist ethos that promotes the idea that riches are "earned" or "merited" contributes to the current American obsession with "disparity" of wealth. This is clearly no more "political" than discussions about immigration policies -- probably less so.


Please do not discuss whatever merits you believe any particular political ideology may or may not have. This thread is about literature addressing the issues of human migration and cultural exchange, not a "liberals vs conservatives" debate thread.

[HCabret]

I think it would reduce first world countries to third world countries.
So you are more worried about making sure that you remain wealthy rather than trying to pull poor people up out of poverty?

What virtues do you see in mono-cultural societies? Should any cultural exchange occur, or should foriegn culture be outright banned forever in an attempt to fight multiculturalism?

[Clopin]

http://www.workpermit.com/australia/point_calculator.htm

Here is what Australia requires before you are allowed to immigrate.

[Clopin]

So you are more worried about making sure that you reamin wealthy rather than trying to pull poor people up out of poverty?

Yes. I can't possibly pull billions of people out of poverty. Nobody and no country can do that. I am much more concerned with maintaining my standard of living, and the same standard of living for my potential children, nephews and nieces than I am concerned with reducing the entire world to Indian or African levels of poverty because I don't think wealth disparity is 'fair'.

[Clopin]

Hcabret I'm curious as to how many children from impoverished or war torn countries you have personally adopted and if the number is zero could you please tell me why the number is zero?

[mortalterror]

The line should never be drawn. Why do you feel that you are more deserving of freedom than someone from somewhere else is? What makes you so special? Are you afraid that you may have to act with some sort of humanity and express empathy towards those who are suffering?

There are competing goods in this case. While it may be commendable for a rich person to give all his money to a homeless person, but if he has a family to take care of then by doing so he will plunge them into poverty and that is an evil which should be avoided. A man's natural obligation is to those closest to him first, then to groups he may belong to such as a nation, and finally to those more distantly related to him. Your assertion of pure equality would make no distinctions and put the stranger at the same level as the father, the wife, or the daughter to which we clearly owe a greater responsibility.

[HCabret]

http://www.workpermit.com/australia/point_calculator.htm

Here is what Australia requires before you are allowed to immigrate.
I don't live in Australia. From what I have read, Australian society still persists with a large portion of society holding ill will towards Aborigines and other native groups. Racism is a big problem on Australia and the culture most certainly reflects this.

[HCabret]

Yes. I can't possibly pull billions of people out of poverty. Nobody and no country can do that. I am much more concerned with maintaining my standard of living, and the same standard of living for my potential children, nephews and nieces than I am concerned with reducing the entire world to Indian or African levels of poverty because I don't think wealth disparity is 'fair'.Self-centered inhumanity is what caused inequality in the first place. What makes you more eeserving pf having material wealth than people who do not share your lifestyle? Why are your relatives more deserving of wealth than those people from other places?

[Clopin]

I don't live in Australia. From what I have read, Australian society still persists with a large portion of society holding ill will towards Aborigines and other native groups. Racism is a big problem on Australia and the culture most certainly reflects this.

And yet Australia is one of the most successful countries in the world with one of the absolute highest standards of living. I'm sorry but I don't see any problem if Australians come off as a little xenophobic.

[HCabret]

Hcabret I'm curious as to how many children from impoverished or war torn countries you have personally adopted and if the number is zero could you please tell me why the number is zero?
Why must I have adopted a child in order to advocate that freedom be a universal?

[HCabret]

There are competing goods in this case. While it may be commendable for a rich person to give all his money to a homeless person, but if he has a family to take care of then by doing so he will plunge them into poverty and that is an evil which should be avoided. A man's natural obligation is to those closest to him first, then to groups he may belong to such as a nation, and finally to those more distantly related to him. Your assertion of pure equality would make no distinctions and put the stranger at the same level as the father, the wife, or the daughter to which we clearly owe a greater responsibility.Neo-liberal self interest is only one of looking at the world. Other theories view the world and human nature as being inherently charitable.

[Clopin]

Self-centered inhumanity is what caused inequality in the first place. What makes you more eeserving pf having material wealth than people who do not share your lifestyle? Why are your relatives more deserving of wealth than those people from other places?

What makes me more deserving than people in the third world? Nothing of course. Why haven't you sold your computer yet and spent the money on food for refugees? Why haven't you given away all of your own possessions? and why haven't you adopted some kids from Africa?

[Clopin]

Why must I have adopted a child in order to advocate that freedom be a universal?

Because it shows that you aren't interested in radically changing your life circumstances and income (children are expensive) in order to equalize your position in the world with that of the least fortunate. If you can't voluntarily do that why do you expect nations to do the same thing on a much grander scale? And why do you expect the people of those nations to act towards the ruin of their own livelihoods?

[HCabret]

And yet Australia is one of the most successful countries in the world with one of the absolute highest standards of living. I'm sorry but I don't see any problem if Australians come off as a little xenophobic.
"A little xenophobic"? If Australians are more worried about protecting the wealth of their rich white populations than they are about providing basic human rights to everyone, then they have a major problem.

I'd rather be free than rich.

[Clopin]

"A little xenophobic"? If Australians are more worried about protecting the wealth of their rich white populations than they are about providing basic human rights to everyone, then they have a major problem.

I'd rather be free than rich.

Luckily Australians are both free and rich! How about that. And yes, Australia is not responsible for providing 'human rights' to the entire world. No country is.

Australia also made the number two spot on the HDI for 2015 so I'm not seeing any major problem with the way they run their country. Quite the opposite in fact.

[HCabret]

What makes me more deserving than people in the third world? Nothing of course. Why haven't you sold your computer yet and spent the money on food for refugees? Why haven't you given away all of your own possessions? and why haven't you adopted some kids from Africa?Why must I sell my personal belongings in order to advocate for freedom for everyone? This has nothing to do with providing wealth to anyone. I want immigrants to have equal freedom, the benefits of freedom will come on thier own later.

[HCabret]

Because it shows that you aren't interested in radically changing your life circumstances and income (children are expensive) in order to equalize your position in the world with that of the least fortunate. If you can't voluntarily do that why do you expect nations to do the same thing on a much grander scale? And why do you expect the people of those nations to act towards the ruin of their own livelihoods?


Why are you putting such a focus on material wealth? I could care less about how much crap someone has. This is about freedom for everyone, not material wealth for everyone.

There's nothing wrong with being poor.

[HCabret]

Luckily Australians are both free and rich! How about that. And yes, Australia is not responsible for providing 'human rights' to the entire world. No country is.
Austrailia is responsible for providing those within their borders with basic human rights. Aborigines are still treated as being less by many white australians. Stolen children are still recovering from the Austrialian government's anti-aboriginal policies.

[Clopin]

Austrailia is responsible for providing those within their borders with basic human rights. Aborigines are still treated as being less by many white australians. Stolen children are still recovering from the Austrialian government's anti-aboriginal policies.

Can you point to some rights Australian Aborigines do not have, and which white Australians do?

[HCabret]

Can you point to some rights Australian Aborigines do not have, and which white Australians do?Aborigines have high rates of violent crime victimization. A quarter of Aborigines have reported being the victims of violent crime and are twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime than a whilte person. Despite this, the imprisonment rate for indigenous people is 14 times higher than white people.

In many places, native land claims are still being denied to aboriginal peoples.

[HCabret]

If we are not going to discuss literature, then I will recuse myself from this thread and refrain from posting in it any longer. This is a literature forum, not a political debate forum.

[Clopin]

So wait, what rights don't they have? Under law?

[mortalterror]

Literature reflects this. Beginning during the proto period of decoloniaztion in the 1920s following World War 1, James Joyce wrote Ulysses, which gavanized the anti-English movement and lead to the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. Literature like Ulysses not only promoted anti-colonialism among those living under it, but allowed the colonializers themselves to see the error of their ways. Ulysses, now considered by many to be the greatest english language work of all time, was written by a anti-english revolutionary. The Irish people now had a national epic and a rejuvinated national identity.
I think you have your literary history a tad mixed up. Ulysses wasn't even available in Ireland until perhaps the 30s. And James Joyce was writing after that movement had been going for decades. You should probably look to the Irish Literary Revival or Celtic Twilight and the Gaelic Revival starting in the late nineteenth century for it's source. That's what Joyce is referencing about how Yeats would have made the old woman at the beginning of the book a symbol of Ireland even though Stephen Dedalus notices that she doesn't understand Gaelic.


The proliferation of literature promoting anti-racism, anti-slavery, anti-colonialism, and pro-human rights, helped immensely in the ending of the horrible abuses of victorian culture, which spilled over into most of the 20th century. Walden and Uncle Tom's Cabin helped end slavery in the USA. Heart of Darkness helped end personal rule in the Congo. Gandhi's Autobiography helped end British rule in the Subcontinent. MLKjr's Letter from Birmingham Prison helped end segregation in the USA. And today Modern Family has helped end the prohibition on LBGT rights.
One, Walden wasn't about slavery. It was about a dude living alone in the woods and self-reliance. Two, the Congo Free State controlled by Leopold III and Rhodesia controlled by Cecil Rhodes or African Hitler were quite a bit worse than anything the British and French did on the African continent. One might even make the argument that where the British and French ruled conditions for the natives improved substantially, so it's best not to conflate some of the wickedest rule in history with another which was somewhat exploitive but comparatively benign. Other than that you are mostly correct.

[Drkshadow03]

He insinuated that English be a requirement of citizenship, which is unconstitutional. He also has made it out to be that English is somehow superior to other languages and is the only language which people should be learning im schools.

He implied it would be impractical and unnecessary to learn other languages since English is the de facto national language in America. His argument comes down to practicality. This is evident when he writes: “You need English to get around in America. You don't need Spanish.” This makes no judgement about which language is superior, merely which one is more practical to possess in the U. S.

On the other hand, you wrote: "If anything bilingual education in English and Spanish should be cumpolsury[sic] for all students. I would even like to see knowledge of all the UN official languages become compulsory for all students in the USA."

You are arguing for a compulsory language requirement for people in the U. S.

[Clopin]

Cabret was talking about my position, not mortalterror's, though they are practically the same in this instance.

[HCabret]

I think you have your literary history a tad mixed up. Ulysses wasn't even available in Ireland until perhaps the 30s. And James Joyce was writing after that movement had been going for decades. You should probably look to the Irish Literary Revival or Celtic Twilight and the Gaelic Revival starting in the late nineteenth century for it's source. That's what Joyce is referencing about how Yeats would have made the old woman at the beginning of the book a symbol of Ireland even though Stephen Dedalus notices that she doesn't understand Gaelic.Dubliners was written in 1905 and published in 1914. Ulysses was serialized in 1918 and published in 1922. My whole point was that both of these works gave Ireland a rejuvinated national identity and helped the english colonizers to be more symathetic towards the cause of Irish nationalists. Ulysses was not available in the US until the 1930s due to censorship laws.



One, Walden wasn't about slavery. It was about a dude living alone in the woods and self-reliance. Two, the Congo Free State controlled by Leopold III and Rhodesia controlled by Cecil Rhodes or African Hitler were quite a bit worse than anything the British and French did on the African continent. One might even make the argument that where the British and French ruled conditions for the natives improved substantially, so it's best not to conflate some of the wickedest rule in history with another which was somewhat exploitive but comparatively benign. Other than that you are mostly correct.Walden was about slavery. Thoreau explicated about the confines of modern society and how institutions prevelent at the time were holding human progress and freedom back. Read the Visitors chapter.

British and French rule were extremely violent and oppresive at times.
http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/26/britain-should-either-acknowledge-its-many-imperial-crimes-or-stop-pretending-to-care/
http://www.wnd.com/2003/04/18496/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/colonial-atrocities-explode-myth-of-dutch-tolerance-1439153.html

[HCabret]

He implied it would be impractical and unnecessary to learn other languages since English is the de facto national language in America. His argument comes down to practicality. This is evident when he writes: “You need English to get around in America. You don't need Spanish.” This makes no judgement about which language is superior, merely which one is more practical to possess in the U. S.

On the other hand, you wrote: "If anything bilingual education in English and Spanish should be cumpolsury[sic] for all students. I would even like to see knowledge of all the UN official languages become compulsory for all students in the USA."

You are arguing for a compulsory language requirement for people in the U. S.


I am arguing for compulsory mutltilingual education. There should be no language requirement to become a citizen.

[mortalterror]

Dubliners was written in 1905 and published in 1914. Ulysses was serialized in 1918 and published in 1922. My whole point was that both of these works gave Ireland a rejuvinated national identity and helped the english colonizers to be more symathetic towards the cause of Irish nationalists. Ulysses was not available in the US until the 1930s due to censorship laws.
You didn't say Dubliners. You said Ulysses inaugurated some big Irish movement in 1922, even though the book was banned in the United Kingdom until the 30s. A limited print run was made in Paris and some copies might have been smuggled into Ireland or England but the U.S. was the first English language country in which the book was widely published and that seems to only date from 1934.


Walden was about slavery. Thoreau explicated about the confines of modern society and how institutions prevelent at the time were holding human progress and freedom back. Read the Visitors chapter.
That passage is three sentences long and only mentions that he once had a runaway slave visit his cabin. In a book 114,634 words long, that passage accounts for only 58 of the words. Walden is not about slavery.

[HCabret]

You didn't say Dubliners. You said Ulysses inaugurated some big Irish movement in 1922,There are mounds of scholarly work discussing Ulysses influence on Irish nationalism and de-colonialism. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5s200743&chunk.id=d0e2545&toc.id=&brand=ucpress http://mural.uv.es/romoma/nationalism.htm http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533397

I was discussing the influence literature had on the liberalization of colonialism, I was simply using Ulysses as prominent example as it is widely viewed as being a national epic of Ireland.


even though the book was banned in the United Kingdom until the 30s. A limited print run was made in Paris and some copies might have been smuggled into Ireland or England but the U.S. was the first English language country in which the book was widely published and that seems to only date from 1934.The book was serialized in The Egoist in 1919. English people, especially the educated upper class, was more than aware of Ulysses and its content throughout the 1920s.



That passage is three sentences long and only mentions that he once had a runaway slave visit his cabin. In a book 114,634 words long, that passage accounts for only 58 of the words. Walden is not about slavery.Close reading. Walden is an extremely complex book and more than certainly is about slavery.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-does-thoreau-express-his-ideas-slavery-walden-370823

[mortalterror]

Close reading. Walden is an extremely complex book and more than certainly is about slavery.

You are wrong.

[HCabret]

You are wrong.
How am I wrong?

[desiresjab]

Denial of the severity of black slavery is equal to complying with its existence. Americans should actively be ashamed of the fact that slavery was once widespread and legal in thier country.

I cry at least an hour everyday because America had slavery. Active shame is not enough. Active neurosis is preferable. Psychosis would be nice, but we do not demand it. Mass suicides would go a long way toward proving contrition.

Thank God slave owners in the U.S. were not pure eeev-yil, because they were, after all, southern gentlemen. Do not forget that. These men attended church regularly. Eeev-yil is eeev-yil to some people, but I would actually describe our fine southern slaveowners as men who made a simple mistake. They turned left instead of right. Anyone could make that mistake. Call them careless. Their eeev-yil was diluted with Christ-blood anyway. This in no way releases their heirs from suicide.

Mexican immigrants at the border should be made to recite Pete Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. If they are unable to do this they have no business wanting in.

Europe. Let those poor moslems in. I say open your borders five times a day at moslem prayer time. If they can enter prostrate while facing east, then I say they deserve instant, automatic citizenship.

Remember, you should weep regularly over American slavery to cleanse your soul of eeev-yil.

[HCabret]

Can this thread be closed?

[mona amon]

There are mounds of scholarly work discussing Ulysses influence on Irish nationalism and de-colonialism. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5s200743&chunk.id=d0e2545&toc.id=&brand=ucpress http://mural.uv.es/romoma/nationalism.htm http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533397

I was discussing the influence literature had on the liberalization of colonialism, I was simply using Ulysses as prominent example as it is widely viewed as being a national epic of Ireland.

The book was serialized in The Egoist in 1919. English people, especially the educated upper class, was more than aware of Ulysses and its content throughout the 1920s.

What mounds of evidence? The three articles you linked to (and they are very interesting in their own way, thanks for posting) are each about something else altogether - the first one is about whether or not Ulysses fits the bill for Ireland's 'National Epic'. The second is about nationalist opinions in Joyce's work, which are various, ambiguous and inconclusive, and the third is about nationalism in the Cyclops episode, where Joyce contrasts nationalism in its most virulent, narrow-minded and bigoted form with the internationalist, broadminded and pacifist views of the Irish Hungarian Jew protagonist, and it is easy to see where his sympathies lie. I just cannot see how this realist work could have any specific influence on colonialists or colonized in the way you suggest.

[prendrelemick]

Just read this .

Laurent Joffrin, editor of Libération, wrote that Submission “will mark the date in history when the ideas of the far right made a grand return to serious French literature,” and armed guards were placed at the offices of Houellebecq’s publishers.

Meanwhile, this thread shows that, like the the speed of light, opinions are relative to the position of the observer

[desiresjab]

Other famous books in American literature actually about black enslavement in America:

1 Green Eggs & Ham, Dr. Seuss

2 In Cold Blood, Truman Capote

3 The Teachings of Don Juan, Carlos Casaneda


Walden, honey child, you are not alone.

[Emil Miller]

I cry at least an hour everyday because America had slavery. Active shame is not enough. Active neurosis is preferable. Psychosis would be nice, but we do not demand it. Mass suicide would go a long way toward proving contrition.




:lol:

[Ecurb]

Some famous people chip in:



Walter Scott

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd,
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd,
From wandering on a foreign strand!



Samuel Johnson

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


François Fénelon

“All wars are civil wars because all men are brothers... Each one owes infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in which he was born.”


Clarence Darrow

True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.


Aldous Huxley

One of the great attractions of patriotism - it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.


Charles de Gaulle

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

[Ecurb]

I cry at least an hour everyday because America had slavery. Active shame is not enough. Active neurosis is preferable. Psychosis would be nice, but we do not demand it. Mass suicides would go a long way toward proving contrition.....

Remember, you should weep regularly over American slavery to cleanse your soul of eeev-yil.

I wonder if our satirical friend would be equally prepared to mock the moderate Muslim who is ashamed of ISIS beheadings, the Hutu who cries over Tsutsi massacres, or the Russian who regrets Stalinist purges. If we are to be proud of our heritage, surely we can also be ashamed of it. They are flip sides of the same coin.

[HCabret]

Other famous books in American literature actually about black enslavement in America:

1 Green Eggs & Ham, Dr. Seuss

2 In Cold Blood, Truman Capote

3 The Teachings of Don Juan, Carlos Casaneda

How are these about slavery?

[HCabret]

I wonder if our satirical friend would be equally prepared to mock the moderate Muslim who is ashamed of ISIS beheadings, the Hutu who cries over Tsutsi massacres, or the Russian who regrets Stalinist purges. If we are to be proud of our heritage, surely we can also be ashamed of it. They are flip sides of the same coin.
America is perfect in every way. Everything America has ever done is perfect. Anyone who criticizes America and/or our history is a threat to America. If your not going to speak English in America then you can leave. America is the greatest country ever. The South will rise again. Slavery was good for the niggers. Liberals just want to destroy our history and make it seem like America is bad, even though Anerica is perfect in every way.

#Sarcasm

[HCabret]

Can this thread please be closed? Or at least moved to 'Serious Discussions'?

[Clopin]

I wonder if our satirical friend would be equally prepared to mock the moderate Muslim who is ashamed of ISIS beheadings, the Hutu who cries over Tsutsi massacres, or the Russian who regrets Stalinist purges. If we are to be proud of our heritage, surely we can also be ashamed of it. They are flip sides of the same coin.

Isis and Muslim jihadists exist, like... right this second exist. There is no slavery in America and there hasn't been for a very long time so that comparison is meaningless. Russians almost certainly do regret Stalinist purges, just like Americans regret slavery.

[Clopin]

America is perfect in every way. Everything America has ever done is perfect. Anyone who criticizes America and/or our history is a threat to America. If your not going to speak English in America then you can leave. America is the greatest country ever. The South will rise again. Slavery was good for the niggers. Liberals just want to destroy our history and make it seem like America is bad, even though Anerica is perfect in every way.

#Sarcasm

Right because people have been saying things which even resemble this right? You're such a complete twit.

[Ecurb]

Isis and Muslim jihadists exist, like... right this second exist. There is no slavery in America and there hasn't been for a very long time so that comparison is meaningless. Russians almost certainly do regret Stalinist purges, just like Americans regret slavery.

You can compare them in some ways, although, as you point out, not in others. I don't think the comparison is "meaningless": my point was merely that if it is reasonable be proud of American accomplishments of the past it is reasonable to be ashamed of them. (Similarly, if it is reasonable for Muslims to be proud of Muslim accomplishments of the present, it is reasonable for them to be ashamed of them.)

You are right: most Russians and Americans feel a reasonable (i.e. slight) shame about some of their nations' past. Of course I argued in an earlier post in this thread that pride in America is reasonable only in a minor and very general sense (a general happiness about her achievements, rather than "pleasure or satisfaction believed to reflect credit upon oneself" (which is a more specific definition of "pride"). The inverse (if that's the right word) of my proposition is also correct: if it is reasonable NOT to be proud of being an American, it is also reasonable NOT to be ashamed of it.

If the analogy is made to a family, we might feel either proud or ashamed of our child. or our parent (depending on what he does). But, whatever the achievement or the sin, we didn't do it. (Tiger Woods' dad's book notwithstanding.)

I promise not to use the word "reasonable" in my next 10 posts, as exculpation for my sins in this one.

[Ecurb]

Can this thread please be closed? Or at least moved to 'Serious Discussions'?

It seems to me that literature (in addition to other merits) often poses philosophical, social, cultural and political questions. I'ce never read "Submission", but I read a couple of reviews, and they all discuss issues surrounding immigration, patriotism, nationalism, etc., just as we are in this thread. Why is that so horrible?

[HCabret]

It seems to me that literature (in addition to other merits) often poses philosophical, social, cultural and political questions. I'ce never read "Submission", but I read a couple of reviews, and they all discuss issues surrounding immigration, patriotism, nationalism, etc., just as we are in this thread. Why is that so horrible?
Very few posts in this thread have anything to do with the OP. This has turned into a political debate thread. I attempted to bring the discussion back to the OP and was attacked for suggesting a possible literary interpretation for Walden. Apparently books are only about one thing nowadays.

This thread should either be moved to the 'Serious Discussions' forum or should be closed.

[desiresjab]

Can this thread please be closed? Or at least moved to 'Serious Discussions'?

When someone disagrees with you it scares you. Other people should not be allowed to even look at what scares you, should they?

Stop puling, you sickening baby, and stop telling people how they should feel. Stop making hypocritcal demands that others refrain from doing what you are doing, as in expressing political views. Only a churl insists this issue is not already heavily politicized worldwide. Each of your views is perfectly politically correct. Somehow that makes them non-political in your eyes. Must be because they are the right views. Isn't that correct? As long as one represents the good political views, they are not political, eh?

I could read half a dozen of your posts and then list every one of your political views correctly. You are on here foaming at the mouth and gnashing your teeth, proselytyzing for a politically correct universal agenda, which you excuse and justify under the aegis Humanitarianism. Why, it's just a philosophy, right? Your bitterness at feeling like a reject is palpable.

Nothing is more important to you than pushing your own agenda and seeing that agenda everywhere. Even facts, dates and reasonable interpretations of literature are not excused for being what they are.

[HCabret]

When someone disagrees with you it scares you. Other people should not be allowed to even look at what scares you, should they?

Stop puling, you sickening baby, and stop telling people how they should feel. Stop making hypocritcal demands that others refrain from doing what you are doing, as in expressing political views. Only a churl insists this issue is not already heavily politicized worldwide. Each of your views is perfectly politically correct. Somehow that makes them non-political in your eyes. Must be because they are the right views. Isn't that correct? As long as one represents the good political views, they are not political, eh?

I could read half a dozen of your posts and then list every one of your political views correctly. You are on here foaming at the mouth and gnashing your teeth, proselytyzing for a politically correct universal agenda, which you excuse and justify under the aegis Humanitarianism. Why, it's just a philosophy, right? Your bitterness at feeling like a reject is palpable.

Nothing is more important to you than pushing your own agenda and seeing that agenda everywhere. Even facts, dates and reasonable interpretations of literature are not excused for being what they are.This is literature forum, not a political debate forum. Please close this thread.

[Logos]

Thread has been hijacked by numerous people with a lot of off-topic nonsense and personal insulting, therefore closed.