Samuel Huntington, Political Scientist, Dies at 81

Pinguin What I think you fail to understand is the following: the poor Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. are the most visible face of Hispanics there only.

Its always the case, poor people of immigrant descent or a different culture are scape-goats, the same happens in Europe. For example in the UK, the Polish people were blamed with taking Brittish jobs but average Brittish citizen won't even do those jobs, the media sometimes likes to make people focus on foreigners, its easier than adressing the real problems of social inequality and poverty.

Originally posted by calvo This again proves my point that economic and educational status plays a far more important role in cultural integration or clashes. I don't know much about the history of Canada, but I could imagine that East Asian immigrants in the early 20th century were mostly poor and uneducated, and in the recent decades they have become more sophisticated. Most probably, Muslim immigration to Canada involved better educated individuals than those who migrate to Europe. ... On the whole, poor countries are generally considered to be "culturally distinct" to rich countries regardless of the similarities of their cultural base. A century ago, Italians and Irish were also considered to be of a "distinct civilization" by the Americans.

I agree that economic status is a factor in the integration of immigrants, but it's only part of the equation.

Originally posted by calvo I don't think that not being "in-the-fashion" to ccriticise East Asia would prevent people from doing so. If a group doesn't get along with the rest, people would criticise them, regardless of the trend because it is something spontaneous.

On this I strongly disagree. Sustained criticism of particular groups of people is not spontaneous. People are very much affected by what they hear, and by what they don't hear. If news about one group having trouble integrating is current, then anything that reinforces that idea is more likely to be registered and remembered than if news about that group of people is not current. Unfortunately, part of how the human brain works is to fixate on experiences that confirm expectations and to ignore experiences that don't confirm expectations.

The acceptance of immigrant groups by the native population is at least as important for integration as the ability of immigrants to adapt to the native population, and this part of the equation is largely outside the control of the immigrants. It usually takes some time if the group is new, it depends on the prevailing mood of the native population, it depends on how accustomed the native population is to accepting immigrants, and it depends on prevailing stereotypes.

Originally posted by calvo However, what I do observe in several European countries is that although East Asian immigrants might not mix with locals when they first arrive, their isolation rarely lasts beyond the first generation. The native-born generations of Chinese, Vietnamese etc in France, Holland, UK, and Spain, tend to adapt rather resiliently into the local society; and not all of these immigrants are from Hong Kong. On the other hand, much of the cultural clashes occurs with Muslims beyond the first 2 generations, issues such as the veil, school uniforms where girls have to show their legs, arranged marriages etc. These differences are rarely observed among East Asians or Latin Americans.

I don't know much about immigration in Europe, so I can only talk about Canada, but I think there's much less difference between the behaviours of ethnic immigrant groups (in terms of interaction, intermarriage, ghettoization, the integration of 2nd or 3rd generations, marriage practices, etc.) than there is perception of difference by the general population. In every ethnic group (indeed, in almost every family) there are some who integrate fully, others who integrate partially and others who don't integrate at all. One could find many examples to support whatever level of integration one wanted to prove, so preconceptions are extremely important.

The "West" is not an American invention. It is just a term that "Americans" not use properly, as always they do. The first mistake Americans do is the following. They say:

Originally posted by pinguin       The only difference between Western Europe, North America and Latin America is that the later is poor in comparison. That's changing though.

Originally posted by pinguin What Latin America also have is an heritage of the Ancient civilisations of the regions, like Mayans, Aztecs, Tiahuanacos, Incas and also of the tribal groups. Latin Americans are proud of theirs local indigenous cultures, and they don't hide them. However, 95% of the culture is Western, and the authentic Indigenous societies are minoritary.

I generally agree with you, but you're painting too much of an idyllic picture of Latin America here. You're ignoring there is a lot of racism; people are proud of their indigenous heritage when it comes to ancient ruins or folkloric things that do well with tourism, but apart from that most blanks and mestizos look down on the indigenous.

And also I think there is a difference between Mexico and the rest of Latin America; I think Mexico considers itself to be more indigenous than most other Latin American countries. Popular history in Mexico always identifies the Aztecs with Mexico and vilyfies that Spanish, indigenism is a kind of official ideology in Mexico (while at the same time they keep ignoring the real indigenous peoples). I think in this Mexico differs from most other Latin American countries though.

Originally posted by pebbles   You think it's all economics ?

Originally posted by calvo It's not ALL about economics, but economics does play an important factor. For example, Spain and southern Italy were hardly considered as "western" during the first half of the 20th century. Back then, the Northern European view of the Iberian peninsula was probably very similar to their view on Latin America. The French used to say: "Africa begins south of the Pyreneese". In many ways, Spaniards and southern Italians back then did live a lifestyle and share a system of belief more similar to Mexicans and Colombians than with French, British, or German. In the last 30 years things are changed a lot in these countries.

Originally posted by pebbles   What it boils down to is a technicality,it's a matter for those who measure it.   Ireland was an economic backwater for decades in post WW 2,but that country was never denied membership of " the West ".How are Italy & Greece more qualify than comparable corrupted Argentina of Latin America.   By the way,US views Europe & Latin America through a different spectrum.   I am more cynical,still believe there is underlying " bias " exists.

Originally posted by calvo Pinguin,  ...  and I frankly believe that "Western civilization" only existed from the 18th and 19th centuries onwards, the age of European domination. Western civilization might have taken inspirations from the Greeks, Romans, and Semites; but the Greeks and Romans certainly did not consider themselves as "westerners". In the late Roman Empire, the words "Orient" and "Occident" had completely different meanings; the former refering to the Greek-speaking Christian world, while the latter referred to the Latin-speaking pagan world. Nor could Medieval Europe be considered as "western civilization". Christian yes, but "Western" not yet. In many ways, modern "Western civilization" is more similar to medieval Islamic culture than to Christian Europe.

Originally posted by calvo Originally posted by pebbles What it boils down to is a technicality,it's a matter for those who measure it.   Ireland was an economic backwater for decades in post WW 2,but that country was never denied membership of " the West ".How are Italy & Greece more qualify than comparable corrupted Argentina of Latin America.   By the way,US views Europe & Latin America through a different spectrum.   I am more cynical,still believe there is underlying " bias " exists.     Pebbles,   I don't know where you're from nor what books you've been reading, but from many of your post I gather that you have a rather 19th-century "racialist" view of the world.   You seem to believe that what divides mankind the most is "race", or the U.S. definition of the world (which is different in Europe, Latin America, and the Arab world)