Thread: Interesting Perspective on the State of American Manhood

Tolerance is another hot button topic but it comes with a more negative connotation when compared to loving acceptance. I pose a simple query to highlight this difference, would you rather tolerate a person of a different background or lovingly accept that person? Tolerance is a forced acceptance where even if you disagree you just deal with it which in my experience builds animosity. Many of our preconceived notions about somebody else stems from our own beliefs. So instead of teaching tolerance, lets teach people how to examine why they believe something so they can better understand themselves and in turn change their actions to be more accepting.

Best,[/QUOTE]
This brings to mind a conversation I had when I was much younger. I was talking to a young work colleague and he said "i hate (name of particular ethnic group omitted", I asked why and he said "because they are (name of particular ethnic group omitted)". I think the best we could expect from this young man is tolerance, certainly not loving acceptance.
From my standpoint as an Englishman, historically people from other cultures have come into the country and done jobs that others don't want to do or werent well paid, probably not so much so now, most of these people Integrated to a greater or lesser degree, but still retain(ed) parts of their culture. Provided that the multiculturalism that is brought to a country enriches it and doesn't have a negative impact then I am all for it.

Originally Posted by gugi

The problem is inherent in religion, it is almost by definition about what makes the followers of that religion special, i.e. different from the non-followers.




To me this sounds exactly as abandoning one's heritage in order to form a cohesive society.

Of course, this is something as old as our civilization - but it's the most primitive form of creating homogeneity. In its ugliest form it was done through things like ethnic cleansing, but there are also historical examples of less violent assimilation (more carrots and less sticks).

You will notice, though, that the hyphens from the big waves of immigration in this country have happened not so much because somebody was trying to form a multicultural society, but rather as a reaction to the oppression of the newcomers from the already established groups.

Yes, there is absolutely a compromise being made in my scenario. But for the most part, the people here came here of their own free will....for the most part. If they did not want to be an American, they did not have to arrive on our shores. The world is full of shores, I assume people that come here chose these shores for a reason. Ethnic cleansing is something done for far more drastic intent than what we are discussing here. You can resent the fact that a group refuses to conform to a culture or adopt its language and customs without feeling that you are superior to them and need to rid humankind of their existence. Quite the contrary, we're hoping they join those of us that have already made these concessions - carrots perhaps but no stick. And yes, there has always.....ALWAYS been a distrust of newcomers. If you were to look into it, newcomers were not any more welcomed in the original colonies than many outsiders are today. And the reasons were not very different from the concerns we have today. We may be a country of immigrants. But in spite of all of the grand sentiment, we have traditionally done so reluctantly. I see no problem with that. One of the reasons why adopting an American way of life was so important to MY family was to be able to fit in and be accepted.

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Wow, so this has turned into a debate about multiculturalism. Well, the fact is we are multicultural. We cannot turn that page back. So what are we gonna do about it? Act like a bunch of monkeys fighting over some bananas.

Most probably, unfortunately.

Welcome to the world of multiculturalism, I have lived all my life in a country that practices that. It has it's pluses and minuses and getting all the pieces of the puzzle to fit is a challenge. I am sure you will figure it out eventually.

Bob

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Originally Posted by Marth

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

What do you recon to my view of Blighty? I won't be offended :-)

Originally Posted by BobH

Welcome to the world of multiculturalism, I have lived all my life in a country that practices that. It has it's pluses and minuses and getting all the pieces of the puzzle to fit is a challenge. I am sure you will figure it out eventually.

Bob

Society that doesn't get any influences from outside world is very rare (and not probably very nice place to live). Societies change in time. Nowadays maybe faster than ever. New influences might be good or bad and the same goes with the old culture as well.

I do not believe a moment that the people of the old times were better or worse. Human nature doesn't much change. It's the society that changes. Folks back then were raised in times totally different from today.
The modern society has become a place where people have more free time than ever before in history. People have also more ways to spend their time and surely more and faster ways to tell the world what they are doing/thinking or whatever. It's called social media, real-life tv and whatever. And this whole chage in society is both good and the bad thing. Most things are better than ever, but there's problems now that didn't even exist back then. I guess it's always been so.

Ed
You're not wrong, I have my views as does everyone else!
Mine, are sometimes a contradiction, old fashioned, in the main, but up to date with others, it's all about personal belief.
It's such a vast topic, maybe I do sit on the fence, I've said before, keep quiet and appear a fool, or open your mouth and remove all doubt! That's me by the way, not directed at anyone!!!

I started to read this thread at the end, not the beginning, I think it's all down to respect at the end of the day, the world is too over populated to ever sort the issue out!

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Remember, it goes both ways. By using the label of religion you have made a division too.You have formed a line not the religion. The problem is inherent in mankind, religion just happens to be one of the ways humans organize themselves. It is no different than nationality, ethnicity, sport teams, KKK, skin heads, and so on.

Nope, I didn't bring the religion up - it came about because you suggested that a good way to correct divisiveness is for people to examine and change their core beliefs. My objection was that this can not work in practice, or can only work on the scale of thousands of years, and according to the historical evidence religion is a major impediment to it.
People used to kill each other all the time under the pretext of different religion or ethnicity. We don't do that anymore (it still happens but in really tiny amount compared to what it used to be) - it appears that is because multiculturalism and tolerance have began to be viewed as something desirable. I'm sure you know the middle ages approach to sorting out who doesn't belong - 'Kill them all, God will know his own'.

To me it seems that the real choice before us humans has been not between tolerance and love, but between aggression and tolerance, and we have definitely moved towards the later.
In this context I suspect that the 'real men' shorthand stands for some sterilized version of the reality, but in one way or another it's the loss of aggressiveness that is being lamented (after all that's one of the strongest effects of testosterone).

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

You can resent the fact that a group refuses to conform to a culture or adopt its language and customs without feeling that you are superior to them and need to rid humankind of their existence. Quite the contrary, we're hoping they join those of us that have already made these concessions - carrots perhaps but no stick. And yes, there has always.....ALWAYS been a distrust of newcomers. If you were to look into it, newcomers were not any more welcomed in the original colonies than many outsiders are today.

Yes, if we take a look at history without pink glasses it usually doesn't appear all that peachy. But the europeans who came over and found this country did not really conform to the local customs, quite the opposite. They didn't try to blend in, they fought to subject everybody else to their way of doing things. Even among themselves anybody who was different enough was at best expelled, at worst burned/hanged/drowned.

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, if we take a look at history without pink glasses it usually doesn't appear all that peachy. But the europeans who came over and found this country did not really conform to the local customs, quite the opposite. They didn't try to blend in, they fought to subject everybody else to their way of doing things. Even among themselves anybody who was different enough was at best expelled, at worst burned/hanged/drowned.

I'm not sure what point you're making the formation of a nation seems to never be very pretty. But in any case it seems to prove another example where multiculturism failed.