Originally posted by: lighthouse
In America , reverse is true. Adaptation is usually by the citizens not immigrants. Both east and west coast has its own culture , so does the South . Chinatown, little Italy, Latin neighborhoods have been around in major cities for decades, Miami , NYC, LA , Texas all are very different from what one might think is America. Infact I am not sure one can define America as a singular culture, which is why Sopranos is as popular as Sex in the city was.
see when you want to enter a homogenous society everyone has to adapt, the local citizens as well as the immigrants. The immigrants consider it beneath themselves to adapt but have no explaination why they want to retain something they so wanted to get away from in the first place😆
Nope I would say all that you are trying to says ends up with
adaptation = imitation + tolerance (values forced by law)... but then it doesnt matter if you can or cant.. the discussion becomes pointless.. if you have to adapt...there is no culture involvement here... if you cant live like an island amongst people... uness u call that adaptibility,,,,btw american culture is an oxymoron...
Originally posted by: qwertyesque
Nope I would say all that you are trying to says ends up with
adaptation = imitation + tolerance (values forced by law)... but then it doesnt matter if you can or cant.. the discussion becomes pointless.. if you have to adapt...there is no culture involvement here... if you cant live like an island amongst people... uness u call that adaptibility,,,,btw american culture is an oxymoron...
I wouldn't call it "imitation". Adaptation is more to do with process of gradually adjusting to the environment/new conditions in order to survive. This is the essence of most of the web definitions I googled😉 Adaptation gives you better chances of surviving in a new/changed cultural system than imitation, which is nothing more than reactive behavior that has no meaningful orientation (googled again😊). Adaptation is slower process and has a meaning to it. You pick some new traits, keep some of your old ones and evolve into someone who is comfortable within their own skin as well as with the cuture/environment around them. When you adapt, you are accepted and you blend in. When you imitate, you are ridiculed and you stand out as a sore thumb😊
agree on your tolerance point here. one is going to adjust up to an extent their value system allows them to tolerate. That's where blending some of your own culture to some of the adpted culture plays a part...how much do you blend or are ready to blend.
I wouldn't call it "imitation". Adaptation is more to do with process of gradually adjusting to the environment/new conditions in order to survive. This is the essence of most of the web definitions I googled😉 Adaptation gives you better chances of surviving in a new/changed cultural system than imitation, which is nothing more than reactive behavior that has no meaningful orientation (googled again😊). Adaptation is slower process and has a meaning to it. You pick some new traits, keep some of your old ones and evolve into someone who is comfortable within their own skin as well as with the cuture/environment around them. When you adapt, you are accepted and you blend in. When you imitate, you are ridiculed and you stand out as a sore thumb😊
agree on your tolerance point here. one is going to adjust up to an extent their value system allows them to tolerate. That's where blending some of your own culture to some of the adpted culture plays a part...how much do you blend or are ready to blend.
hi garri, tell me one thing. What have you done to adapt to foreign surroundings which fall outside the realm of "tolerating indicrete behavior", and imitating the customs.. and styles of living..
Definitions are easier.. true adaptibility makes relevance only if the cultures are similar... If I go from mumbai to Nagaland.. I can adapt.. or to Madras I can adapt.. because the underlying cultures are similar... also you can adapt to a culture wchich is less mature but not to one which either doesnt exist or the maturity level is unknown...
see when you want to enter a homogenous society everyone has to adapt, the local citizens as well as the immigrants. The immigrants consider it beneath themselves to adapt but have no explaination why they want to retain something they so wanted to get away from in the first place😆
Correct me if I am wrong, but the main reason immigrants arrive in N America is Economic oppurtunities, be it Indians, Irish , English, German or Latinos. Jewish and few others may have had religious or political reasons to leave their birth countries but hardly anyone decides to uproot themselves and immigrate here because they hate their own culture or love american culture more. 😛
Originally posted by: Morning_Dew
A couple of days back I met one russian lady who , half her life worked in one of the middle east country and now recently move to Canada.
Her argument was , why muslims/ Sikhs living here don't leave their way of living behind. To her , when she was in middle east she was forced to cover herself (she was refering for not letting her wear mini skirts and half sleeves, face and head was already an execption) so she said , Canadian should impose such situation to those people too , to force them adopt Canadian culture and if they are not satisfied they can always go back to their countries.
What is your take on this?
Forced acculturation is bad...very bad. that's why she was not happy in middle eastern country where she was forced to imitate the local culture.
I strongly feel that Canada and US are doing the right thing. they are providing the immigrants opportunity to either assimilate their ethnic/native culture with canadia/amaerican culture or adopt a biculturalistic approach where one adapts the new culture along with keeping their native cultural values intact as well. these two methods are the least stressful methods to adapt to any new culture and are the reason why most people want to move to these two countries first as compared to middle east😊
You keep on saying that one adapts by imitation only. Here, you are implying that majority uses acculturation to adapt to American culture. This may be true for immigrants who came here in early 1960's or 70's where most of the ignorant immigrants immediately shed their culture to become "americanized" overnight…that is lot more stressful and ineffective than biculturalism or assimilation. I feel biculturalism and/or assimilation is a far better approach than acculturation and results in a positive outlook and a well rounded personality.
Thank god for small mercies...the Anthropology 101 really came in handy here😛
Gauri , your estimation of Indian immigrant demographics of 60s and 70s is anything but accurate. 😕
Originally posted by: lighthouse
Gauri , your estimation of Indian immigrant demographics of 60s and 70s is anything but accurate. 😕
where did you read "indian" immigrants?
the fact is that in 60's and 70's, americanization was not as prevalent around the international cities of the world as it started to be from 90's onwards. read the post within context.
Pre 1990's Indian immigrants have proven to be bi-cultural and are commited to their native culture having formed the bedrock of Indian NRI community as it is. The immigrants from 60's and 70's to the UK and USA/Canada are the ones who embody the model minority assessment and attract attention of most Indians and non Indians.. Within one generation they rose to the top of the economic ladder be it in medicine, science, academia, engineering, retail, hospitality including ownership of fast food restaurants and so on , without any resort to antiracist campaign while retaining their Indian ethnicity. More then 80% of immigrants between 1965 and 1979 came with advanced degrees, hardly ignorant as you put it. Their integration into the economy and their professions here didn't americanize them , but has made them focus on developing a network of religious institutions, cultural associations, and doing charitable work like raising money to establish health clinics in rural villages in India.The 80s saw a huge influx of chain-immigrants(sponsered relatives/family members) from Asia - including India that weren't as educated but were simply hard working and believed in the dream of making it big in America. Their arrival made Indian community more diverse and reflective of main street "India" in America with strip malls of desi stores and restaurants to cater to the growing Indian community of the 90's IT boom generation of immigrants.Indians in the USA/UK/Canada have tried fiercely to maintain a sense of ethnic self-identity against the assimilatory forces of their adopted land but it is now that they face their greatest threat of cultural erasure at the hands of their westernised children .
i feel most successful indian imigrants here have adopted bi-cultural approach...just like there chinese or vietnamese counterparts. the definition of bi-culturalism is given on previous page. u can check it on your own. i never questioned the educational qualifications or success rate of any immigrants here. i merely said that immigrants who adapted via bi-culturalism and assimilation are lot more successful and well rounded than the ones who acculturalized.
the debate with qwerty is whether you can adapt without imitating or not.
the topic subject is whether the country you imigrated to should force you to acculturalize or not.
the topic and the direction the debate turned in is definitely NOT about the acheivements of indian americans.....let's not lose the focus here😉.
comment:
p_commentcount