#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do you think that kids should learn about their own country instead of different countries
In schools they teach about the countries outside of their continent or are just somewhat close to their own country, but they hardly teach about their own county.
Yes
Side Score: 59
|
 |
No
Side Score: 66
|
|
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
May I ask why you have come to this conclusion. I'm hardly an arhant yet and I do sometimes behave in a way that is not exactly Buddhist conduct but I would say I know way more than a lot of other lay Buddhists. I have studied the Kadam Dharma, as taught by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, which is part of the Tibetan tradition in depth however I found these teachings perhaps don't resonate with me as much as the Zen/Chan tradition. I meditate often and read from the Pelikan's English translation of the Dhammapada although that is from the Theravada tradition. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I take pride in my country but no pride in myself and it is self-cherishing and pride which Buddhism discourages. This is because I realize, like how Buddhism teaches, there is no inherently existent self to take pride in. Furthermore I do not hate other cultures. I try not to hate anything as aversion is one of the three poisons which drive samsara. I do not hate other cultures I just think that they are inferior and find many to be barbaric. My spiritual life and my culture and patriotism do not get involved with each other. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
2
points
But you can be expected to rally against it. Whatever aspects of British culture you cling to are simply a tiny fragment of the whole package. One that was not always extant and will not always be. Its all an illusion, because, like anywhere else, there have always been many cultures within the British Isles, and they have always been affected by outside forces in one way or the other. And that's just like anywhere else. The countries that have fought against multi-culturalism have suffered greatly (N. Korea as the best modern example), whereas many that are embracing it, say, Canada, are wealthy and healthy. Tradition is only of value when it actually solves problems. When it fails to do so, or those problems are no longer an issue, it is just clinging to the past instead of embracing the ever changing world that is our inescapable reality. Side: Yes
1
point
The later part of your post is just your typical yogurt-knitting from the left. You seem to be one of those people who believe in being exposed to all kinds of people out there so you can get the full, rich "tapestry of life". Well I'd say it is more like, to quote Katie Hopkins, a soggy blanket. I do not want to be exposed to certain types of person or certain cultures, beliefs or ideas. If people want to have to celebrate their own cultures that's fine. But they can do it in their own country, not mine. Because this is Britain, not Poland, not Romania, not Pakistan, not Bangladesh etc. I do not want to embrace the world as it is in this "inescapable reality" because the frankly the reality is ugly. Side: Yes
1
point
I believe in being exposed to everything I can be at least once. It does not mean I will embrace it all, but I crave knowldge. The more you know about the world around you, the more you are prepared for it. And one should be prepared. Globalism has brought a lot of money and technological and cultural advances to the world. It brought you Buddhism. It brought this conversation. It is inevitable. If you aren't prepared for it, you will fall behind the rest of us who are. Your negativity is a crutch. Side: Yes
1
point
Please knit your yogurts some place else mister. Globalization also is inevitably going to result in my country having half it's population believing they're in the 51st state of America and the other half demanding the United Kingdom is renamed the United Caliphate and forms the Eurabian Union with other sharia states in what used to be Europe. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Fighting against change is not wrong when the change is so clearly a negative one. Islamization and Americanization are two very hideous things. Islam and American culture do not belong on our soil. They can keep their sharia and you can keep your "black Friday" and all of that malarkey. Side: No
1
point
But that's the thing: Not all Muslims support Sharia, and not all Americans support Black Friday. Not only that, but who are you to say which cultures are "wrong" or "negative", and which ones aren't? And who are you to deem which aspects of a specific culture are "wrong" or "negative", and which ones aren't? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I and many others will continue to rebel against the foreign hordes. We can always dream of Britain's glory days when foreigners were queer folk, far away from us, before they were other here demanding sharia law and talking in their native tongue in their masses everywhere as if we wont be offended. Side: No
2
points
0
points
You do realize that Britain was one of the first Western country to stop slavery? As civilized people it was our duty to take over these barbaric lands and to try and teach the savages to live like decent human beings. For example in India the thuggee murderers where present, sacrificing people to the Goddess Kali. We put an end to that barbaric act. Side: No
1
point
Being one of the first countries to stop slavery does not somehow justify their occupations within Africa and India, but your comments on "civilized people" and "barbaric lands" just shows how little you have learned from your countries barbaric history of genocide and brutality. You consider yourself superior to non-whites, as your posts have indicated. "For example in India the thuggee murderers where present, sacrificing people to the Goddess Kali. We put an end to that barbaric act." Their kill-count is NOTHING compared to the amount the British killed during your occupation. That is a pathetic excuse. Side: Yes
1
point
I do not think Britain is better than other countries based on skin colour. It is not at all about skin colour, if you had payed attention you would have realized. India was a shit hole when came into the picture. It was a decaying empire of foreign invaders with many tiny little states emerging. We unified it. We contributed much to India. For example they had no railways but we changed that. Furthermore they were clearly incapable of governing themselves because look at the anarchy they descended into in 1947 when we left. Even after the partition there has been so much tension in India like with the Sikhs and the Tamil tigers. Furthermore the thuggee murders were far different to the deaths we caused. Those deaths were no honorable deaths on a battle field. It was not war it was slaughter. Slaughter in the name of a backwards cult in a backwards country. Side: No
1
point
"India was a shit hole when came into the picture. It was a decaying empire of foreign invaders with many tiny little states emerging. We unified it. We contributed much to India. For example they had no railways but we changed that. " Parts of India were impoverished, parts weren't. The railways you cite as benefiting India was created only via essentially slave labor and THOUSANDS of deaths. Hardly charitable. "Furthermore they were clearly incapable of governing themselves because look at the anarchy they descended into in 1947 when we left." So you are claiming that because Britain irresponsibly left a power vacuum, that means they weren't able to govern themselves? Can you please elaborate, because that does not make sense to me. "Even after the partition there has been so much tension in India like with the Sikhs and the Tamil tigers. Furthermore the thuggee murders were far different to the deaths we caused. Those deaths were no honorable deaths on a battle field. It was not war it was slaughter. Slaughter in the name of a backwards cult in a backwards country." Yes, anywhere as big as India has a culture of ethnic and religious conflict. I don't understand how that supports your case. So you are saying that the significantly smaller number of deaths were unacceptable because they were not "honorable" (that's a bit of a joke), but the tens of thousands of deaths by British conquerors were acceptable because they were "honorable"? Seriously? And you realize they thought your country was backwards as well, right? That you are simply being an elitist, looking down upon other culture as not having any worth because they did not/do not adhere to your cultural norms? I mean your personal take on your culture includes justification for borderline genocide. That is incredibly backwards. Side: Yes
1
point
"Everything else about Asia seems rancid to me." Are you really claiming that an ENTIRE continent, home to the majority of the human race, is "rancid to you", based on a mere 16 years of life experience? This, coming from the guy who claimed that "Asian food" is just "rice and noodles". And to think, you claimed you aren't prejudiced. Side: No
0
points
2
points
First off, you just called the largest continent on earth a "country". Second, you just generalized the majority of the human species under overly-vague absurdities. Third, you clearly know next to nothing about Asia, seeing as how it is the most diverse continent on the face of the Earth. Side: No
1
point
2
points
1
point
There are many takeaway and restaurant places in Britain due to the multiculturalism which I hate and I have had to eat their food, much to my displeasure on many an occasion. Every thing seems to come with rice or noodles. I hate it. Stir fry is just a load of noodles with the rare morsel of chicken and some bean sprouts and mangetout mixed in. Curries tend to be a small amount of meat, usually chicken; the most boring meat on a ridiculous amount of rice, covered in some disgusting sauce. Side: Yes
2
points
EXACTLY what I am talking about. You have tried "take out" from a few local places, therefore you clearly know so much about Asia and its cuisine. How can you seriously think that is sufficient experience from which to judge a continent? I do not mean to be ageist when I say this, but for your sake, I truly hope you realize as you grow older that you do not (and, like most of us humans, will not ever) have enough experience from which to judge and generalize millions upon millions of people and their culture. I know we all feel like we know everything there is to know when we are in our teens, I know I sure did, but it is important to be open to this realization in the coming years. Side: No
1
point
Well if you're going to call me racist, I'm going to call you ageist. I'll have you know I know way more about the world, current events, history and geography etc then your average adult who can't even point to Asia on the map. Most adults don't know Islam from Sikhism, Hinduism from Jainism, the Burqa from the Niqab, gamelan music from Tibetan singing bowl music but I do. Side: Yes
1
point
"I'll have you know I know way more about the world, current events, history and geography etc then your average adult who can't even point to Asia on the map. Most adults don't know Islam from Sikhism, Hinduism from Jainism, the Burqa from the Niqab, gamelan music from Tibetan singing bowl music but I do." We all feel that way when we are in our teens, but we have no means of knowing if that is true or not. And recognizing that individuals in their teens are more self-assured of their own intellect and experience is not ageist, though I have admitted one of my comments could be considered ageist. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Now that I know you are referring to the United States, when you say "native culture" are you referring to the culture of the Native Americans? Because if so, multiculturalism is not what has eroded it, colonialism is. If you are not referring to Native American culture, then there really is no "Native culture", nor is there an "American culture" really, since our nation was founded upon (and then proceeded to be developed by) multiculturalism, all throughout our history. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm not referring to the United States. I have no idea why you would assume that I was American. Even if I was America has no culture of it's own so I wouldn't have said that. I am from Britain which does have it's own culture that is being clearly destroyed by the arrival of foreign cultures that have been introduced through immigration and globalization. Side: Yes
Well, can you tell me which countries you learnt about in history class? From what I can remember, in high school I studied Roman Britain, Norman Invasion, Tudors and Stuarts, the World Wars and the Cold War. The only time I remember studying foreign history was for my GCSE when we studied, as an option chosen by our teacher, the vietnam war and the great depression in the US. Side: No
1
point
I'm doing GCSE History right now and only one of the four modules we are doing is on Britain. The others are Cold war, from the American and Soviet perspective not British, Germany 1918-1939 and the USA 1919-1941. History in the younger years is ethnocentric but GCSE History is the opposite really. Side: Yes
You started school when you were 4 years old. That is 10 years of solely learning about British history. The fact your teacher chooses international options is not surprising. Presumably you knew the curriculum that you'd be following before you chose history as your option. Side: No
1
point
Yes but History never gets in-depth or interesting until you reach GCSE level anyway so it was 10 years wasted. There was so much of British history we skipped. Most of what we focused on was Royal History which is interesting but is hardly the hole picture regarding British history. We barely even touched on the British empire. Also now I remember we spent a lot of primary school learning foreign stuff and now we are in our GCSE years we are spending the best years of our School education on boring old foreign stuff. Side: Yes
1
point
Oh and here's another example of painfully politically correct multiculturalism in the education system. For our English Lit (at least for the exam board AQA) the novel our teachers choose for us to read have to be multicultural. The teachers have a choice in my school between some tedious American classic or some weird book about this weird Nigerian girl that no one's ever heard of. Even then half the short stories in are anthology for Lit are multicultural. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
We have open borders with Europe and have a lot of immigration from the poorer countries in Eastern Europe. According the the EU laws they have equal rights to people that live here. This usually doesn't cause a problem in most countries. However, in the UK you receive benefits without having paid any social security ever. So the problem is that there is an opportunity for people to immigrate and start claiming benefits. A lot of British people complain about this.. in reality though the majority of immigrants actually come to the UK to work rather than claim benefits. Side: Yes
1
point
My objection to immigration has nothing to do with benefits. It has to do with the fact that I want Britain to stay as Britain. At the rate of immigration we're going at with us being the minority in our own country Britain may as well be called "India #2" or "Pakistan #2" or "Jamaica #2". They do not belong here. They belong in there own countries and now people with genuine British blood often seem to consider these foreigners as superior. None of the foreigners seem to have the manners to try and integrate into our society. They rudely form their own communities and keep themselves to themselves so therefore cannot contribute anything to the society. Side: No
My objection to immigration has nothing to do with benefits. It has to do with the fact that I want Britain to stay as Britain. At the rate of immigration we're going at with us being the minority in our own country Britain may as well be called "India #2" or "Pakistan #2" or "Jamaica #2". They do not belong here. They belong in there own countries and now people with genuine British blood often seem to consider these foreigners as superior. I see. Well the British culture is changing all the time. Even without immigration we are adopting new cultures and ideas. Perhaps foreign imports should also be blocked? Foreign TV? Anything "anti-British"? But no, that's silly. Ultimately to deny something because it is different to what we are used to is simply not acceptable outside Nazi Germany. None of the foreigners seem to have the manners to try and integrate into our society. They rudely form their own communities and keep themselves to themselves so therefore cannot contribute anything to the society. Many integrate - of course. Don't be ridiculous. There isn't even an argument. Side: Yes
0
points
I see. Well the British culture is changing all the time. Even without immigration we are adopting new cultures and ideas. Perhaps foreign imports should also be blocked? Foreign TV? Anything "anti-British"? But no, that's silly. Ultimately to deny something because it is different to what we are used to is simply not acceptable outside Nazi Germany. There's a difference between censoring anything from the world outside of Great Britain and allowing our great nation to degenerate into a cesspit filled with Islamist Pakistanis, pick pocketing Romanians and thuggish Slavic types. Many integrate - of course. Don't be ridiculous. There isn't even an argument. The majority don't. At my school the Nepalese kids keep to themselves and the Polish kids keep to themselves. They all hang out together, communicating in their own language as if they are still back home. If they feel only comfortable with their own people and want it to be like their home country then why on Earth don't they just go back the way they came? I am not at all being ridiculous in saying this. I'm sure you know very well they like to be with their own kind. Side: No
1
point
1
point
No you've got it wrong. They don't keep to themselves because we disparage them. Most of us only disparage them because they keep to themselves. If they did make an effort to integrate and didn't keep to themselves then we wouldn't disparage them in the first place. I am not racist. I do not dislike people of other races I just dislike the fact that foreigners are destroying the culture of my country and rudely make little effort to integrate. Side: No
1
point
" Islamist Pakistanis, pick pocketing Romanians and thuggish Slavic types." No no, that is indeed racism right there. It is also a mindset that will actively prevent people from integrating as well. Cultural integration does not happen immediately, and when people such as yourself respond the way you are, it leads to an atmosphere where it does not happen at all. It takes a few generations for true cultural integration to occur, but you seem to want it to happen over night (sociologically speaking). Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Because our culture has moved past Misogyny and Homophobia and other evil, outdated things. Whereas the backwards countries where many of these immigrants from haven't. The Muslims for example have no sense of animal rights due to the horrific halal killings they commit on animals. It is because of this I judge their cultures to be barbaric. Furthermore British food is so much better than Asian food. Asian food is shit like noodles that taste of nothing. As for African food most African countries don't seem to even have a notable cuisine. American food is just crappy fast food really. Italian food like Asian seems to based upon bland starchy carbohydrates. Side: No
1
point
Globally, British food is considered some of the most bland food in the world, while Asian food is considered some of the most flavorful. This is what I am talking about: You are used to your culture, so you declare it the best. You don't even seem to be familiar with the cultures you are talking about, just a few snippets of religions (Islam is not "Arabic Culture") and a shallow understanding of cuisine. Side: Yes
1
point
Globally, British food is considered some of the most bland food in the world That's Americans and other nationalities who know nothing of British food and assume we live of tinned eels. How is Roast Beef with a Yorkshire pudding and Golden roast potatoes and vegetables, draped in gravy at all bland? How is a Cornish pasty bland? How is haggis (it has a bad reputation but it's very flavorsome) bland? How is a beef Wellington bland? Or Stake and Ale pie? The list goes on. As for Asian food it is not flavorsome at tall. Rice tastes of nothing. Noodles taste of nothing. The few Asian things that are flavorsome taste like vomit. For example Thai green curry; it tastes vile. Also Asians are crap at desserts and British desserts are delicious e.g. Victoria sponge, Dorset apple cake, Devon honey cake, spotted dick (despite the crude name it's nice), battenberg, Eton mess, Chelsea bun, banoffee pie, bakewell tart, gypsy tart, trifle and of course scones with tea. Islam is Arabic culture as virtually every Arab is a Muslim. There is nothing culturally appealing about some desert dwellers, scratching their sand covered, heat rashed arses riding around on camels to their many wives who have to wear a prison. Side: No
1
point
" How is Roast Beef with a Yorkshire pudding and Golden roast potatoes and vegetables, draped in gravy at all bland? " How is Kim Chi bland? How is Szechuan Chicken Bland? You clearly have no experience with Asian food if you think it is all "rice and noodles", so to compare it to British food is absurdity at its finest. Islam is a religion, not a culture. Arabic culture exists without Islam, and Islam exists without Arabic culture. Nice job finishing it off with more racism, though. Side: Yes
1
point
Their religion clearly is a massive part of their culture so you can hardly say that their religion and that their culture is separate. Yes it might be true that Islam is not necessarily Arabic as you can indeed get Persian Muslims, Pakistani/Indian Muslims, African Muslims, Turkish Mulsims etc which are no way ethnically nor culturally Arab. However Arabic culture clearly is inseparable from Islam. Side: No
1
point
"Their religion clearly is a massive part of their culture so you can hardly say that their religion and that their culture is separate. " Most Muslims are not Arabic, and plenty of Arabs are not Muslim. Those Arabs still have culture, do they not? To claim that Arabs who are not Muslim are somehow not of Arabic culture is ridiculous. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
British culture is being destroyed by foreign cultures in many ways. First of all there are more foreign people in our capital city than native British. I think it is ridiculous that we are a minority in our own country. An example of our country being destroyed is that many people seem to prefer foreign cuisines such as that shit from India and China to actual British food. Also American mannerisms are polluting us like that pathetic violence and aggression whilst shopping on "black Friday" or whatever name you have for your shitty holiday. British life seems to be increasingly like driving home from an Irish pub in a Japanese car en route to a takeaway place to get an Indian curry or Turkish kebab before watching some crappy American sitcom and popping over to a German supermarket to buy a French bottle of wine. There seems to be no room for British culture in the people of Modern Britain. I am sick of people favoring foreign culture because they are all inferior to our own. Side: Yes
I am sick of people favoring foreign culture because they are all inferior to our own. Well fortunately we don't have to like everything you like just because you label it British. Britain is a place of choice. Not a place where everyone must conform to your perverse standards of what British is. If you need to walk your bulldog down the street with a union jack plastered across your chest to prove you "contribute" to British culture, then fine. The rest of us have personalities and this dictates our likes and dislikes. Side: No
1
point
I'm not saying people should be forced into conforming behaving in an entirely British way because that would be impossible. It would be nice though if we actually were taught patriotic values in schools and to appreciate our culture for what it is. In my school for some reason we learn a lot more about Brazilian culture than British. In fact I can remember one History lesson pretty much teaching us to devalue British culture. Furthermore we are being forced into doing foreign languages before we we have even learned decent English grammar, which we never really do learn. Side: Yes
1
point
No. Race has nothing to do with this. It is a matter of culture. It wouldn't matter to me if someone was of a different race as long as they have adapted to British culture. But this rarely happens, most expect us to adapt to them. I want to see us being taught what Britain has to be proud of. The fact we had the largest and greatest Empire in history. The fact that we thwarted the vile Krauts on two occasions. I want us to learn about all of the shit we've invented. I want to learn how beautiful are architecture is. How lucky we are to live in a country with free health care. I want Food-Technology classes to feature British food more. I want us to celebrate stuff like the Queen's jubilee more in school. I want the whole country as a whole to celebrate the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Side: Yes
2
points
0
points
2
points
0
points
0
points
There you have it guys. You've been officially "bitched" by a 16 year old British critic of cultures found around the world, with the notable exception of San Francisco. I see no possible recovery from this crushing condemnation. Submit now or suffer further humiliation. ;-) Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
"I know plenty who you most likely couldn't outsmart to save your life ;)" See my previous post on self assured-ness of teenagers :P You have been to one city within one of the worlds largest and most diverse countries, and you wrote off the entire country (population 330 million). You have convinced yourself that you know everything there is to know of the world, whilst having minimal experience. Please, be open to the realization that none of us knows everything there is about the world, and be open to the value of other cultures. Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
First off, valuing other cultures is not inherently politically correct. Second, one is not racist just for not appreciating another culture. One is racist for saying things like "Asia seems to be a continent of third world countries, poverty, Islamists, terrorists, yellow shirts and communists.", or "allowing our great nation to degenerate into a cesspit filled with Islamist Pakistanis, pick pocketing Romanians and thuggish Slavic types." Side: Yes
1
point
What you are talking about his exactly what Franco taught then. It isn't a school's responsibility to educate someone about how great anything is. Schools teach facts. It wouldn't matter to me if someone was of a different race as long as they have adapted to British culture. But this rarely happens, most expect us to adapt to them. This your cognitive distortion I'm afraid. You are prejudice so you only notice examples that confirm your prejudice. The fact is that many do integrate. Side: No
0
points
This your cognitive distortion I'm afraid. You are prejudice so you only notice examples that confirm your prejudice. The fact is that many do integrate. Hypocritical much. You only see what you want to see. Only what furthers your left-wing, bleeding heart liberal opinions. I am not prejudice because that's where you form a subjective opinion on something before actually viewing actual evidence or facts. However my judgement is based on facts. I know that many of them simply don't integrate which is why I judge them. Side: Yes
0
points
1
point
15 actually babe and my experience isn't limited as I've come across an abundance of foreigners and have heard of many others experience. I daresay you and atrag would describe anyone who isn't a liberally minded small person like yourselves to be prejudiced. I call it like I see it and I see rudeness from foreigners in not bothering to speak to natives or adapt to our society. Side: Yes
2
points
If you are young, then your experience IS limited. The "abundance" is incredibly limited as well, as it is still (at most) a couple hundred within a specific area. And where is your evidence that I would describe any non-liberally minded person as prejudiced? Have I done so to Amarell, harvard, David, etc? No, you are just mad that people are calling you out on your racism and prejudice. Side: No
1
point
1
point
I have not shown you disrespect due to your age, I have simply pointed out that you believe your limited experience is sufficient to judge millions. I would be saying the same thing to almost anyone, but it simply stands to be more staggering due to your limited experience. But please, go ahead and try to diagnose me with your clearly sufficient knowledge of psychology, without knowing anything about me :) Side: No
1
point
First you say that non-Brits are the minority in London, then you claim you are the minority in all of the U.K. Are you really trying to claim that people who are not of British/Welsh/Scottish decent make up the majority of the population of the U.K.? If so, I'd love to see some figures on that. The rest of your post is just a tirade against globalization, which can not be stopped. Getting angry about it won't do you any good, and declaring your culture to be superior to all others is rather xenophobic and jingoistic. Side: No
1
point
Sorry I meant to say "minority in our own capital", not "minority in our own country". We are not the minority in all of the UK but we are the minority in the most important place in the whole of UK which is stupid. Less than half of the population of London are white and even then many of the white people will be foreigners, such as Eastern Europeans. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Many of them simply can never fit into British society. The Muslims in particular. The Burqa or Niqab has no place in Britain. Disparaging females and hating homosexuals has no place in a modern Britain. Also many of them refuse to make the mistakes towards becoming British. The Nepalese at my school who only talk to each other, for example. How can they ever be British when they refuse to have much to do with British people? Side: Yes
1
point
"The Burqa or Niqab has no place in Britain. Disparaging females and hating homosexuals has no place in a modern Britain." Does freedom of religion have no place in Britain, now? As for the anti-women and anti-gay sentiments, those are not shared by all Muslims. "The Nepalese at my school who only talk to each other, for example. How can they ever be British when they refuse to have much to do with British people?" And how many generations of their families have been in Britain? Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
It is hardly as rude as you declaring your culture the best then describing them in a rather racist manner. If they have only recently arrived, then of COURSE they are going to stick together. You are not recognizing the reasonable amount of time cultural integration actually takes. Side: No
1
point
You're not listening. The reason I am describing them in this manner in the first place is because they were rude and made no effort to integrate in the first place. How many times must I say this? If they hadn't decided to stick together then people wouldn't be like this. Regardless of how much time integration takes their hardly going to make it if the only people they ever talk to are those of their own culture. Side: Yes
0
points
You are being rude because you have an unrealistic expectation for their rate of cultural integration. You can call it rude all you want, it does not change that you are being entirely unrealistic. No culture has integrated within one generation of immigration. "Regardless of how much time integration takes their hardly going to make it if the only people they ever talk to are those of their own culture." You don't understand how generational cultural integration works. I'll give you an example: My girlfriend is a first generation Indian American. Her parents immigrated here, and only speak with Indians (for the most part). They are in a new land, surrounded by unfamiliar customs. Their children were born and raised here, so they adopt American customs and norms. THEIR children will, for all intents and purposes, be completely American. Side: No
1
point
If they can't integrate then that just furthers my point that immigration is bad. It is because of their obvious inability to integrate that so many Ghetto type places of immigrants are building up my country, particularly in London where they have taken over most of it. The worst group for these ghettos being the Muslims who hate our guts despite them clogging up our health service, some of them at least surely taking our benefits and many of their kids relying off our state education system. Side: Yes
2
points
Again, they CAN integrate, it just takes more time than you are happy with. You do realize that Britain as you know it was caused by Immigration, right? Of course, that was more of a violent type led by Norman conquerors to overthrow the Anglo-Saxons. All of our ancestries, all over the world, are created, to one degree or another, by immigration. And how do you define a ghetto, exactly? And are you implying that immigrants are incapable of being self sufficient? Side: No
1
point
Most English people are not of Norman descent or even Anglo-Saxon. It used to be believed that English people were predominantly of Anglo-Saxon descent. But despite the fact that the name England derives from "Angle" that belief is fallacious. DNA suggests that the majority of English people are mainly of Celtic blood from the native Britons who lived here prior to the foreign invasions. It is likely only the ruling class changed but most people remained being native Briton. Also the Normans and Anglo-Saxons where just over the pond from Britain really so where much less out of place here than say a Muslim immigrant. Therefore integration was much easier in those incidents. Muslims and people like that can never integrate. Side: Yes
0
points
I was referring to the culture brought by Anglo-Saxon's and Normans, not the genetics themselves. British culture as you know it was not based on some long-term native peoples, but by multiple different groups immigrating to Britain. So at what proximity does immigration stop being acceptable to you? Saxons (who descend from Scandinavians) are acceptable as "over the pond", yet you complain about Slavs, despite their proximity to the Saxon ancestors. And if Muslims can (and have) integrate into the United States, why could they not integrate into Britain, exactly? Side: No
1
point
Saxons where not Scandinavians they were from what is now Germany. Please get your facts right sugar, honey, sweetie pie :P. This was before Germanics morphed into the horrific Krauts that they were in the 20th century and still are now. Slavic countries are quite far away from North West Germany where the Germanics came from. They have much less in common with us than Western Europeans. They have clearly been polluted by years of fascist-communist rule. Their men are hot though I'll give them that. Most Slavic immigrants people I know are rough, rude, mean, insult Britain yet using our education system and they are chavs. Most of them seem to be of such a low intellect they are not capable of low end, manual jobs like fruit-picking and brick laying. Muslims can not integrate into society as their beliefs and values contrast to ours. Your average Briton is not likely to be for example actively homophobic, nor likely to be explicitly sexist or sympathize with killing animals inhumanely. However Mulsims tend to have opinions on the contrary. Furthermore many Muslims have the never to expect us to change to suit them, not vice versa, despite them being the foreigners here. They expect us to adopt sharia law and live their lifestyle. Side: Yes
2
points
The ancestors of Saxons come from part of what is now considered Denmark, which is most certainly Scandinavia. You will notice I said the ANCESTORS of Saxons, not Saxons themselves. If you are going to be condescending, make sure you are at least right. At least you followed it up with more racism, however, so that makes it better. Next, there is no such thing as "Fascist-communist rule". Those two groups have been at violent conflict for a long, LONG time. "Most Slavic immigrants people I know are rough, rude, mean, insult Britain yet using our education system and they are chavs. Most of them seem to be of such a low intellect they are not capable of low end, manual jobs like fruit-picking and brick laying." He says, after a whopping 16 years experience. My god. "Muslims can not integrate into society as their beliefs and values contrast to ours. Your average Briton is not likely to be for example actively homophobic, nor likely to be explicitly sexist or sympathize with killing animals inhumanely. However Mulsims tend to have opinions on the contrary. Furthermore many Muslims have the never to expect us to change to suit them, not vice versa, despite them being the foreigners here. They expect us to adopt sharia law and live their lifestyle." You ignored my question. If they can and have integrated into the United States, why can they not in Britain? You are just repeating claims I have responded to in the past, which accomplishes nothing. People change when cultural integration occurs, so why can that supposedly not happen in Britain as it has in the U.S.? Side: No
1
point
Nope Saxons where from Germany. If you'd done some research you would have realized that Saxony is in fact in Germany. Communism under the Soviet union was fascism. Stalin was just as totalitarian and just as fascist as Hitler. If not more. Lots of people view Fascism as being extreme right, the opposite of communism which is extreme left but this is fallacious. Communists go so far and so extreme they are just a fascist as any far-right person. He says, after a whopping 16 years experience. My god. Judge me by my tender age if you wish. But everyone in Britain knows that's the jobs the Poles end up doing. Whether they are 12, or whether they are 90. It is common knowledge. My tender age helps me understand the low levels of intellect of these people as being at school means I know that all of these Polish kids do shit on every single, fucking Assessment we do. One kid even failed his Food-Tech exam. How can anyone be so retarded they can't pass a subject as piss easy as Food-Tech? You ignored my question. If they can and have integrated into the United States, why can they not in Britain? You are just repeating claims I have responded to in the past, which accomplishes nothing. People change when cultural integration occurs, so why can that supposedly not happen in Britain as it has in the U.S.? Well they haven't migrated to the USA yet. You guys detest them as much as we do. Side: Yes
2
points
"Nope Saxons where from Germany. If you'd done some research you would have realized that Saxony is in fact in Germany." For the THIRD time now, I never said the Saxons were from Germany, I said their ANCESTORS were. As in the people that immigrated to Germany and become the Saxons. "Communism under the Soviet union was fascism. Stalin was just as totalitarian and just as fascist as Hitler. " No, not at all. Communism under the U.S.S.R was Authoritarian Leninist Communism. The fact that it was as authoritarian as Fascism does not mean their ideologies are the same. Communism as an ideology IS on the extreme left, and Fascism as an ideology IS on the extreme right. " My tender age helps me understand the low levels of intellect of these people as being at school means I know that all of these Polish kids do shit on every single, fucking Assessment we do. One kid even failed his Food-Tech exam. How can anyone be so retarded they can't pass a subject as piss easy as Food-Tech?" Actually, it does the exact opposite. It means you have had limited life experience, and thus you believe that the small population of ethnic groups within your school is sufficient to judge millions of people. You will find, as you get older, that it most CERTAINLY is not. "Well they haven't migrated to the USA yet. You guys detest them as much as we do." Tell that to my neighbors, they will be very interested to know that they apparently have not immigrated to the United States. Tell that to the 2+million Muslims that live in the United States. And no, not all Americans "detest" Muslims. Only the ignorant ones do. Side: No
1
point
I have just checked the Wikipedia page which has confirmed that the Saxons WERE from Germany. It did not mention Denmark at all. I know you're not saying they're from Germany but you're wrong because they are. Communism as it was carried out by the Bolsheviks is indistinguishable to fascism to me. They are both totalitarian and both evil. Either way it has kept the Slavic countries behind and polluted them. The fact is in Britain at least the Slavic people do take up the jobs reserved for the bottom dregs of society. This is not even a bloody stereotype it is a fact which you are the first to dispute. I've heard that lots of Americans do exhibit the logical belief of Islamophobia. The name makes it sound ignorant but it isn't. Through out history they have pillaged and destroyed like all religious people. Religious people in general are stupid and violent. Side: Yes
1
point
"I have just checked the Wikipedia page which has confirmed that the Saxons WERE from Germany. It did not mention Denmark at all. I know you're not saying they're from Germany but you're wrong because they are." For the FOURTH time, I never claimed that the Saxon's were not from Germany. Are you intentionally ignoring what I am actually saying? "Communism as it was carried out by the Bolsheviks is indistinguishable to fascism to me." Again, you are referring to Totalitarianism, as opposed to the ideologies behind the parties we are referring to. Yes, both are totalitarian and both were indeed "evil". This has not made the Slavs bad people. "The fact is in Britain at least the Slavic people do take up the jobs reserved for the bottom dregs of society. This is not even a bloody stereotype it is a fact which you are the first to dispute." Alright, let's have some fun: Provide statistics regarding the occupations of U.K. citizens of Slavic descent. "I've heard that lots of Americans do exhibit the logical belief of Islamophobia. The name makes it sound ignorant but it isn't. Through out history they have pillaged and destroyed like all religious people. Religious people in general are stupid and violent." Having an issue with a religion is one thing. I hate Islam as a religion, with a burning passion. Using that as an excuse to hate PEOPLE is when it become ignorance. I hate Islam, but I have met plenty of wonderful Muslims. "Religious people in general are stupid and violent." Statistically speaking, you are unbelievably wrong. I am the last person to defend religion, especially the ironically named "Enlightened" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and, in a sense, Hinduism), but the overwhelming majority of the adherents of these religions are not "violent" at all. I sure remember my militant atheist days as a teenager :P Side: No
Actually this is not a yes or no issue. Yes students should be taught about their own country's history and how it affects them and the rest of the world today. However, it should be recognised that the teaching of the histories of other countries will inform the pupils about the world in which they live, broaden their outlook, enable them to make more informed decisions and judgments about world events. Side: Yes
|
2
points
If you are referring to the United States, then American History is taught at almost every level of our educational system. The same goes for Europe, though they spend a lot of time teaching about neighboring countries (since European history is a bit more collective than U.S. history), and many Asian countries, specifically Korea, Japan, and China, spend significant amounts of time teaching about their political and cultural history. Out of curiosity, what made you think that kids are not taught about their home country's history? Side: No
I didn't say that that kids are not taught about their own country its just that most schools talk about other countries more than they do their own. When I was in Middle school we only had one grade that taught us some U.S history. All the other grades taught us stuff from Europe, Asia and so on. Even now we don't learn all that much in our own county and all we learn is for other counties so that is one reason why I had made this debate in the first place I hardly know anything about my own country and yet I know more about places that I don't think I would ever need to know. Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
United States overall curriculum places more emphasis on our our history than almost any other country in the world. Your personal experience may differ, but we offer more self-centric history classes at almost all levels of education than the overwhelming majority of countries. It is possible that the schools you went to offered them as electives instead, however. Side: Yes
Like I had said it could be different in other places yet to where I am from in this country they hardly even talk about it. There is no electives to which this subject is available and they only teach about other countries. There might be some talk about it but they don't really teach us anything new. There is a lot to talk about for this country and yet they don't. Side: Yes
1
point
But the thing is, that isn't true within the United States. If your local curriculum is like that, then that is one thing, but that would make it abnormal by national standards. On top of that, compared to most places, there really isn't that much to talk about for our country, considering our history only really dates back to the 18th century. Side: Yes
At first I have been to almost all the states in the U.S and I also went to a lot of schools in this country and they all was pretty much the same. None of them even taught a little of this country history, But there is a lot to talk about our history if we get into all the details and people can learn a lot about this country. Side: No
1
point
2
points
It is hard to tell how comprehensive your Middle School curriculum experience has been, but judging American education standards based almost entirely on Middle School curriculum isn't overly legitimate. In depth history classes generally take place Sophomore, Junior, and Senior year of high school, though many Middle Schools do teach classes with a good amount of American history in them. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
