Good post, Divergence.

The degree to which people from ANY culture will accept people from another race, religion or culture as “one of them” depends upon many different factors.

The bottom line is, that there is not a race, religion, or culture on planet Earth that wishes to be destroyed or subjugated in its own claimed territory by people from another race, religion or culture. That is a cultural universal. It is not just limited to “racist” white people.

The degree to which any race, religion or culture will accept others depends upon

1. Prosperity. People living on the edge of starvation are not noted for their tolerance of outsiders who trespass upon their territories to help themselves to the resources which the primary group considers vital for their own communal survival. One example of that was displayed in the brilliant David Lean movie “Lawrence of Arabia” where “Howeitat” “Sherif Ali” played by Omar Sharif shot dead Lawrence’s “Hazim” guide for drinking at a “Howeitat” well. Sharif tells Lawrence.

"He was nothing. The well is everything. The Hazim may not drink at our wells. He knew that."

2. The degree of difference between the cultural values of the different cultures. Where cultural differences are mutually exclusive, one culture must dominate the other. That is as immutable as the law of gravity. Provided that the minority culture accepts that some of their treasured cultural beliefs are considered wrong by the host society and does not attempt to practice them surreptitiously, then a high degree of acceptance can be obtained.

3. The degree to which any minority group steadfastly maintains its own cultural identity and maintains almost exclusive social connections within their own race, culture and religion, reduces the degree of acceptance and tolerance from the primary culture.

4. The group behaviour of the minority race, religion or culture is another very strong indicator of whether tolerance or acceptance can be achieved. Where members of any minority culture display vastly greater propensity towards criminal behaviour or welfare dependency than the primary culture, it is unlikely whether acceptance or tolerance can be obtained

5. Population birth rate differentials. Where population differentials between minorities and majorities are changing, either through birth rate differentials or immigration, there is not a majority race, religion or culture on planet Earth who would not be concerned about this.

Intelligence differentials. All communities layer their social strata according to intelligence, with the more intelligent usually inhabiting the upper classes. Even within close knit communities, little social interaction occurs between the different classes due to the differing intelligence levels and different types of intelligences. Birds of a feather just keep flocking together.

If social division exists even within close knit communities based upon intelligence. How much do you think any race, religion or culture will ignore the fact that another, less successful and not to bright minority does not measure up to their social standards? Could I submit that whites and Asians generally get along OK because people from these groups have generally identical intelligence levels?

We are bringing people into this country at such a rate that I understand that my unique and successful culture WILL be swamped unless I disregard my inclination to be tolerant and become intolerant. I don’t think that it is a noble idea self suicide my culture because some stupid people see tolerance as a moral absolute.

Furthermore, we are bringing people into this country who’s consider their racial, religious and cultural identity to be uppermost, who’s cultural values are reprehensible, who’s behaviour is unacceptable, and who are not very bright.

Could I accept a black Zulu as an Australian?

Yes, I could. Provided that the Zulu stopped calling himself a Zulu, adopted Australian cultural values, had a level of intelligence similar to my own, obeyed the law, was a productive member of society, did not live in Zulu ghettoes celebrating Zulu culture, and if his race was not in danger of outbreeding mine.

Failing that, he would have as much chance or being accepted as “Australian” has of being accepted as a Zulu.

Hi Divergence,
Thanks for your comments and reading material. I am interested in increasing my understanding of the world and I have taken your points on board.

I hope I have understood you correctly - I think the main thrust of your argument is that with too many people we destroy our environment and we have lower wages etc. So in order to avoid these things we should keep a lid on population growth. Also, people in poor countries are poor because their cultures don't allow them to manage their affairs in a rational way. And from these 2 ideas we should limit people coming from poor countries or refugees who come from cultures different to our own. I hope I haven't misrepresented your views.

I just want to say that I am not anti-US - I love its stated values of freedom, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. I love its people and its pop culture. What I have problems with is the hypocrisy of its government.

Along with the reduction of immigration, Peter Turchin also mentions that during the new deal era, although corporations initially rejected it, they came to see the benefits of paying more tax, working with unions etc - it created a much more stable society. They had become tired of dealing with social unrest, and feared revolution. It wasn't until the 1980s that a new generation started to dismantle, many of the reforms of the new deal. Things like tax cuts for the rich (Trickle down theory), Glass-Steagall, off-shoring jobs. So our reducion in wages, job security, welfare system are not just caused by migration - it has a lot to do with lowering taxes, dismantling social welfare, off-shoring and automating jobs for the benefit of corporations, not for the broader society. Our system is anti-social and pro-money. That is why stock prices in companies go up when they sack workers or send jobs off-shore.

Then there is the problem of people from poor countries wasting their wealth because of their backwards cultures - corruption, over-breeding.

Regarding over-population - when with the Catholic church allow contraception? Also we know that women if they are educated and given economic power, they will have fewer children. Win win!

These are real problems, but we have a part to play in the way things are. The US has used the CIA, NSA, and military to eliminate democratic governments (Mossadegh Iran 1950s, Lumumba, Congo 1961 the list goes believe me.) According to a self described economic hitman, John Perkins, they also use economic hitmen and jackals to persuade leaders of poor countries to take loans, if that doesn't work they assassinate them (Roldos, Ecuador). These loans make the leaders rich, but don't benefit the poor - they use the loans to build infrastructure to allow corporations to extract resources, but don't benefit the mass of people. Then when they can't pay the loan they insist of privatising water and other utilities.

We in the West are good at extracting resources from the poor. The US makes up 5% of the worlds population but consumes 25% of its resources. If you reject my explanation,(use of economic hitmen, threat of military force) how does that happen?

So yes,there is mass corruption in many 3rd world or developing countries, but it isn't only because of weaknesses in their culture, every culture has its strengths and weaknesses, but it has a lot to do with how our globalized economy works.

Yes we have always fought for resources. And I think in a world with more people and dwindling supplies of clean water, air, arable land, fish stocks we will have many more wars to come - remember Cheney, Cameron and other have said this "War on Terror" is open ended and will last decades. A decade in, and we aren't seeing a lot more freedom - rather the reverse (here and abroad), but we are seeing consolidation of corporate power. hmm.

BJelly,

Instituting an inquiry into the deaths at sea is like an inquiry into road accidents. There are different reasons for each incident and the statistics have been known even prior to 2008 are that roughly 4% of those getting on illegal boats will perish. Deaths at sea are in close correlation with the boats on the sea.

While there is an opportunity to make roads, cars and driving safer, controlling the criminals behind human trafficking is out of reach of Australians. The only proven option to prevent deaths at sea is to stop the asylum seekers getting onto these dangerous and illegal boats. Under Labor between 1200 and 2000 people perished at sea with no deaths at sea under the coalition since the pacific solution was implemented.

There is a saying that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. Similarly, the coalition's present policy is the worst solution except for all the rest.

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

A total of 58,000 (what are called) "illegal immigrants" in Australia have arrived by plane - and three in four of the 58,400 (what are called) "visa overstayers" came on tourist or holiday-working visas; one in seven arrived as students and one in 15 disappeared after being granted temporary residency.

These figures came from the Advertiser Newspaper 2011, during the Labor Government - and (the practice of entering Australia via airline, (with the intention of trying to stay here) occurred during Liberal Party periods.

However (both political parties), the media and many in the community have ignored this. The media has a lot to answer for, after all showing someone walking through an airport is boring and proving who is undertaking illegal entry difficult.

The countries where these people are coming from are shown on a map on the page.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050?nk=48da37fc4558948adb1aabe5f53915e5

Also political parties have taken advantage of refugees, who come via boat (which is very unsafe), for political point-scoring - and yet ignore those who come via plane.

I've spoken to people (living in Australia who'd come from well off European countries), telling me how living there was dull, grey, boring, lifeless.... and I was shocked. These countries look wonderful on television. I questioned myself later, on going to some of these countries on a holiday. So many people want to live in Australia - it's fantastic in many ways - however we can't take in every person from elsewhere.

I believe we can cut down on "business immigration", work towards assisting people here - and increase humanitarian intake - that being refugees. At the same time however we must not "devalue" poorer countries, which many are at present. We can help in the areas of foreign aid (which has been recently cut), advocate for basic democratic government and push for better human rights - to see these countries advance positively - and protect the environment worldwide.

An excellent interview on population can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zKeRzi6sk