Immigration.

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Scaramouche, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    Only due to social constructs. who says i'm a citizen of a nation state and what makes them right? i understand the need for immigration laws etc., i just think where feasible people could be more hospitable.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    But its not simply a 'construct' its a point of fact and law. What you are doing is philosophizing about the idea of immigration but that doesn't make it a reality. Its like the idea of 'no currency', Its a nice thought but not a reality. In your scenario it would mean no borders, no immigration and no national control which I think is a pipe dream. I would go as far as to say that not only would it make the world less hospitable it would lead to war and strife.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    law = social constructs. i'm not saying that anyone be allowed to move wherever they want whenever they want, i was arguing with what i perceived as orleanders assertion that being born somewhere make you its steward. i know immigration laws are important, but i think we haven't found the right balance between sharing the wealth and keeping control.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I believe Orelander was asking why they don't choose to remain or return to their nation of birth. Brain drain is a problem in developing countries and it will only change when those who go west return and add to the development of their nations.
     
  8. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    Hence my response of why would they? why should they?

    or people lose this 'my nation' idea, and just help where help is needed. i mean who is more suited to making efforts to help people, those in the struggling nation or privileged ones? this is idealistic and far-off (if even reachable) though.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    It is if the Khmer didn't know how to do it ...UNTIL... someone learned it in western schools or countries. Knowledge is not just knowledge, Lucy. It's info and methods that one nation discovers or invents or whatever. If the Khmers invented it, fine ...their culture is progessing on its own and at its own pace without outside interference.

    But by bringing any of that info or knowledge or methodology into the country from somewhere else has, in effect, changed that culture through outside influences. You talk of preserving the Khmer culture, yet you've welcomed and you're excited about, changing that culture. Duh?

    Does he use western medical techniques and skills and medicines and equipment in his practise? Or does he use ancient Khmer medicines that have been passed down for generations, thousands of years?

    Lucy, a doctor can wear a colorful robe and walk barefoot, but if he's educated in the west and uses western medicines, etc., then he's been "westernized". Ain't no way around that fact, Lucy.

    And Lucy, there's nothing wrong with that. But to then turn around and say something like how wonderful it is to "preserve" the culture ....that's just wrong. They might be preserving PART of the culture, but not the medical part. See what I mean?

    Baron Max
     
  10. iHaveNoIdea Verified User Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    25
    Answer. (maybe?)

    I'm not very smart which you might notice if you read anything else I posted but...uh I think. It's not. Right or wrong. Simple answer. It's just there. It happens. Nothing special it is something that exists and thats the only thing we can truly, honestly prove.
     
  11. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    not in this post anyway.

    i think the question is supposed to be read as 'are the consequences of multiculturalism desirable or not'. also, its not something that just exists, its something peopel choose to do.
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I'm sorry Baron, these are the same people who built Angkor Wat. There was a generation who experienced khmer sophistication and historical knowledge but were killed precisely because they were capable and carried practical knowledge. Your idea of what it means to be 'westernized' is a testament of what is not understood about anything outside of the west. There are many countries that have the 'knowledge' but are in no way 'westernized'. India is a good example of this. There are many methods which come from medicine or philosophy that are NOT western based but still hold value even in a Western context. these ideas are even stronger among the indigenous population, educated or not. You are naive of life outside the West. You think that displays of 'culture' or 'knowledge' means the discovery of the wheel or other technology but culture it is much more than that. Even the West absorbed technological advances from other cultures and made them their own. This is nothing new. Knowing how to drive a vehicle has nothing to do with knowledge of the rules of the road. In China at the university there offers a choice between conventional western medicine and alternative. They know both. They are also able to distinguish between 'colonialism' and 'advancement', like Lee Kuan Yew and the development of Singapore. YOU ARE BEING ARROGANT! And naive.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    do you have a cutoff date or can i consider the premise from a less temporally challenged perspective as evinced from your examples and the consequent responses?

    /snigger

    by the way, hello adam
    been awhile
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Lucy, I veered away from the term "westernized" almost from the first time you challenged me on it. What I've been attempting, unsuccessfully, is to make you stop using the term "preserving" culture or to claim that the culture is the same as it was thousands of years ago! That, Lucy, is what's naive, not me or my thoughts.

    And our culture was changed by it, Lucy. How can you deny that? How can you deny that the Khmer culture is NOT changed by western medicine or whatever? Of course it's changed ...how could it not be changed. Oh, wait, it could remain unchanged ....IF... the Khmers never used that medical knowledge! But that is the only way.

    No, but if one wants to actually USE that vehicle, then rules of the road will be important .....and then the culture will be changed!! Roads will be added ...but you can't build roads without know how. So, ...the culture will have to change again to build the roads. Ditto for the gas stations. Ditto for the fuel distribution system. Ditto for the auto repair facilities. And tires?

    Lucy, you're clinging stauncely to this ideal of a unchanged culture or "preserving" a culture, but it's not like that .....and I think you know it. I think you just don't want to admit it. Lucy, I can tell that you're very fond of the Khmers and their culture, and I'm impressed by your loyalty. But being impressed or not, I still can't let you keep saying what is not true.

    Lucy, I've been mostly ignorant all my life. I didn't really realize just how freakin' ignorant I was and am until I retired and had a chance to do some interesting introspection ...and challenge my own ideas, principles, ethics, etc. Lucy, I was terribly ignorant ....and as I grow older and older, my ignorance only grows!

    Naive? No, I don't think so. I think that word might best be used on you for your ability to continue to view the Khmer culture through rose colored glasses.

    Baron Max
     
  15. iHaveNoIdea Verified User Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    25
    Well than I think that the consequences are undesirable Codan. But they should still have the right to come and decide whether to sink or swim not only have the choice to die without coming to a place that might give them a chance. The consequences are bad but they should still have rights and a human.
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I do not view Khmer culture through rose colored glasses. I have been here for five years and there is plenty wrong in the kingdom but I do recognize that Khmers who had left the country due to the Khmer rouge are keen to give back to their society, to help their nation grow. All of the skilled and educated were killed during the Khmer revolution so Khmers feel a burden of responsibility fill in those gaps. I am not making a case for unchanged culture as their culture has already changed. It was changed by war and a party killing machine. You seem to not have a clue of what I am saying. The Khmers who are here are trying to preserve 'what is left' of khmer culture but more importantly bringing back a certain expertise that would be impossible to gain inside the country save for what westerners bring through the UN and NGO programs. YOu are in no position to say what is not true since you don't know anything about Cambodia and what is true or not. You don't travel remember? Or at least you haven't in a very long time.

    Again you don't understand the difference between culture and expertise. The Koreans build bridges and roads and yet they are still distinctively Korean. Same for China, Thailand, Vietnam etc etc etc.

    They can modernize and still retain all that makes them who they are (their food, religion, customs and festivals, dress code, familial ties etc.)

    Khmer culture isn't identified with lack of expertise, as Angkor Wat is a testament to that, it is the loss during the war that has changed the culture by killing off those who knew how to do things.
     
  17. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    i'm not sure why you addressed this to me, but my understanding of what you said is this: you think multiculturalism is bad, but that people should be allowed to come so they're given the chance to contribute or detract from society. try and be more clear when you post if you want to get a point across.
     

Share This Page