4 ms·

As a Trump supporter many of the comments resonated. In regards to upholding and celebrating American culture I always have this thought: Why do silicon valle

by PKop 10y ago

As a Trump supporter many of the comments resonated. In regards to upholding and celebrating American culture I always have this thought: Why do silicon valley types promote the concept of a "company culture" and feel it's important enough to base hiring decisions on, while demeaning those that want to uphold and sustain their own country's culture in the same manner? You hear it time and time again when a CEO stresses cultural fit as a prerequisite to hiring. To achieve this they: 1) Hire slowly so as not to dilute the culture, ensuring those that are hired assimilate and adopt the practices of the company they are joining 2) Have a standard, a bar, set a baseline of skills and ability any new employee must reach to be hired. But when any American citizen brings up similar rationale vis a vis immigration / maintaining their own culture by, for example, wanting to limit mass immigration of those from a culture / ideology that is drastically different from their own it's viewed as the most irrational thing in the world, even described as a "phobia" of sorts (when discussing the Islamic side of the issue). Are Indians criticized for valuing their culture? How about Mexicans? Are Muslims criticized for valuing theirs? Or are all these groups celebrated for their pride in their own cultures? I even worked with a liberal Canadian from Quebec, who argued passionately about his provinces fight to uphold their language and culture, while on the other hand would strongly denounce any reasoned argument I had on immigration / American cultural issues. It just seems like Americans who want to maintain what they value as American culture (complicated no doubt) are held to a completely different standard than others, and are viewed as the most hateful people in the world for holding these kinds of views.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Where does this idea come from that Democrats want unrestricted immigration? Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other president ever and stopped awarding new visas from the same countries that Trump's executive order applied to. He just didn't do crazy/potentially illegal like Trump is doing or has suggested doing like indiscriminately turning away green card holders or using the National Guard to round-up millions of illegal immigrants.
kderbe 10y ago
The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I think, a false premise. America is multi-cultural. There are American _ideals_ which can be preserved ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), but the country is too big and too varied for anyone to claim that there is a specific American culture, or that there has been since its founding. America is Indian, Mexican, and Muslim. Not "them", but "us". Maybe some Trump supporters disagree?
- rfrank 10y ago
  > The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I think, a false premise. I think that is the actual false premise. Baseball, apple pie, and all that jazz. American folklore, Blues music, American cuisine, American politics and all its silly quirks. The idea of no American culture is laughable.
brockers 10y ago
Your argument is exceedingly well reasoned. I would love to hear a countervailing opinion to compare it to. Can someone please post a thoughtful reply to PKop main point?
- gerbilly 10y ago
  Not a rebuttal, but another perspective. American culture, viewed from other countries, is an inescapable force diluting local culture and customs. For example francophones in Quebec make up less than 2% of the north american population. As a French Canadian, I support Quebec's right to pass laws to defend it's culture, before we become completely assimilated, lose our knowledge of our language and culture, and become a vacation destination celebrated for it's french influence.[1] If we ever, by some crazy twist of destiny become a french MAJORITY, then I would argue that the laws be abolished. But to equate the situation facing french Canadians with America, the most powerful country on earth, whose culture invades other cultures globally[2] is a false equivalence in my mind. Maybe we should be asking why real wages haven't increased since 1970, or where all the money has gone[3] how come it's ok for CEO pay to keep increasing, for huge corporations to pay almost no tax, instead of focusing on a Mexican immigrant legal or otherwise, who takes jobs for less than minimum wage that a natural born citizen couldn't live on anyway? In times of economic prosperity and double digit growth, you don't hear about defending 'culture' as often. I see it as a proxy for economic concerns and a convenient smokescreen that the ultra rich can use to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while we not only ignore the .1% and their increasing share of the wealth, but lionize them for their success. [1] True fact the english in the province of Ontario once outlawed the teaching of the french language in school. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17) [2] And no I don't think it's some evil plan. America happens to be the most powerful culture on earth, so it's culture naturally spreads. It just springs from the imbalance of numbers and of political economic power. People (especially the young) from other countries often want to imitate it. [3] Why is there a need for austerity? [4] http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/ http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
dboreham 10y ago
Um. Doesn't "American Culture" consist of things like being welcoming of all people? Being inclusive? Allowing people their own individual freedom? Not having a caste system? Lack of a social class system? So people who want to uphold these cultural elements of America are viewed as the most hateful people? Or perhaps we're talking about some different aspects of American culture here?
gls2ro 10y ago
There is a difference between jobs/skills and ethnicity. The difference is the choice: (1) One does not choose where one is born. And one cannot change that. (2) But one can choose what programming language one learns or what type of job and how one wants to do it. So from the first point it follows that a group of people born somewhere are protecting something they didn't had any part in creating. I'm talking here about ethnicity or maybe citizenship, but I think it can be easily demonstrated that the place one is born will affect one's believes (religion, culture, preferences, taste) most of the time involuntarily and unconscious. So to sum up: there is no moral high ground in protecting something that happened to you before your were born and saying that others are misfortunate because they were born in other place, as no one has a choice in that, And this is very different, in regards to discriminatory side, than a job at a company. The company is a choice, it is created voluntarily by the people working there. So it is the result of their nurture. Actually my reply is related to a more general argument about movement of people in the world and what is the basis of denying it. edit: formatting

by PKop 10y ago

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

Where does this idea come from that Democrats want unrestricted immigration? Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other president ever and stopped awarding new visas from the same countries that Trump's executive order applied to. He just didn't do crazy/potentially illegal like Trump is doing or has suggested doing like indiscriminately turning away green card holders or using the National Guard to round-up millions of illegal immigrants.

kderbe 10y ago

The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I think, a false premise. America is multi-cultural. There are American _ideals_ which can be preserved ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), but the country is too big and too varied for anyone to claim that there is a specific American culture, or that there has been since its founding. America is Indian, Mexican, and Muslim. Not "them", but "us". Maybe some Trump supporters disagree?

rfrank 10y ago
> The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I think, a false premise. I think that is the actual false premise. Baseball, apple pie, and all that jazz. American folklore, Blues music, American cuisine, American politics and all its silly quirks. The idea of no American culture is laughable.

brockers 10y ago

Your argument is exceedingly well reasoned. I would love to hear a countervailing opinion to compare it to. Can someone please post a thoughtful reply to PKop main point?

gerbilly 10y ago
Not a rebuttal, but another perspective. American culture, viewed from other countries, is an inescapable force diluting local culture and customs. For example francophones in Quebec make up less than 2% of the north american population. As a French Canadian, I support Quebec's right to pass laws to defend it's culture, before we become completely assimilated, lose our knowledge of our language and culture, and become a vacation destination celebrated for it's french influence.[1] If we ever, by some crazy twist of destiny become a french MAJORITY, then I would argue that the laws be abolished. But to equate the situation facing french Canadians with America, the most powerful country on earth, whose culture invades other cultures globally[2] is a false equivalence in my mind. Maybe we should be asking why real wages haven't increased since 1970, or where all the money has gone[3] how come it's ok for CEO pay to keep increasing, for huge corporations to pay almost no tax, instead of focusing on a Mexican immigrant legal or otherwise, who takes jobs for less than minimum wage that a natural born citizen couldn't live on anyway? In times of economic prosperity and double digit growth, you don't hear about defending 'culture' as often. I see it as a proxy for economic concerns and a convenient smokescreen that the ultra rich can use to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while we not only ignore the .1% and their increasing share of the wealth, but lionize them for their success. [1] True fact the english in the province of Ontario once outlawed the teaching of the french language in school. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17) [2] And no I don't think it's some evil plan. America happens to be the most powerful culture on earth, so it's culture naturally spreads. It just springs from the imbalance of numbers and of political economic power. People (especially the young) from other countries often want to imitate it. [3] Why is there a need for austerity? [4] http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/ http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/

dboreham 10y ago

Um. Doesn't "American Culture" consist of things like being welcoming of all people? Being inclusive? Allowing people their own individual freedom? Not having a caste system? Lack of a social class system? So people who want to uphold these cultural elements of America are viewed as the most hateful people? Or perhaps we're talking about some different aspects of American culture here?

gls2ro 10y ago

There is a difference between jobs/skills and ethnicity. The difference is the choice: (1) One does not choose where one is born. And one cannot change that. (2) But one can choose what programming language one learns or what type of job and how one wants to do it. So from the first point it follows that a group of people born somewhere are protecting something they didn't had any part in creating. I'm talking here about ethnicity or maybe citizenship, but I think it can be easily demonstrated that the place one is born will affect one's believes (religion, culture, preferences, taste) most of the time involuntarily and unconscious. So to sum up: there is no moral high ground in protecting something that happened to you before your were born and saying that others are misfortunate because they were born in other place, as no one has a choice in that, And this is very different, in regards to discriminatory side, than a job at a company. The company is a choice, it is created voluntarily by the people working there. So it is the result of their nurture. Actually my reply is related to a more general argument about movement of people in the world and what is the basis of denying it. edit: formatting