Assimilation OR Multiculturalism?

[Scott Mayers]

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

I am opening this to discuss the differences between our Multiculturalism and the general contrast of Assimilation through the American system. I personally have contention with our Canadian system as it has evolved to constitutionalize us as necessarily "Multicultural" without most understanding what this implies.

I cherish the American constitutional first Amendment that particularly attempts to separate religion from being allowed to participate as a justification for law creation in contrast to our own, derived from the British system, that grants a right of our governments to impose special laws that privilege such religious thinking.

Multiculturalism differs from Assimilation in this particular distinction between the American's First Amendment and our constitution that grants special privilege to specific cultural, ethnic, or religious groups.

Most prominent is the fact that in our system, our governments are allowed to create laws that encourage segregation for those who desire conserving their power based on plural and purist interests (a preference for a favor to keep one's inherent genetic or economic groups strong through a type of 'pure' breeding mentality in exclusion to one's individual choices). While I can see how our system has helped give certain groups who have traditionally been biased and especially impoverished, the hidden intent of this is to preserve specific historically privileged and established classes distinct and conserved for all time by allowing them to create laws that protect them uniquely apart from the rest of society. But recognizing that they can only do this by emphasizing other special pluralities in the same light, they prevent dissension of these large yet other plural interests by appealing to their interests too. To me, this is a kind of agreement among the extreme groups who prefer conservative ideals to prevail by appearing as a diverse group of people who are all loving and neighborly. Yet the reality is only intended to agree to capitalize on building walls and assuring that the individuals of our society who would naturally assimilate from being empowered as the majority they would naturally evolve towards.

For instance, what I do like about certain present conditions from Multiculturalism is how our aboriginal populations are improving through some of these laws. However, what concerns me is that while this may help NOW, in the long run, it will only foster a future of Nationalist who will eventually demand their own capacity to rule with a strictness of conservative beliefs that favor their ingroup to the exclusion of all others. In other words, our society in the future in this system will only become more and more divisive, discriminatory, and exclusionary against all others who opt to do things like choose to marry outside of their races not preserved by the historical protections granted by our constitution.

Before arguing on, I want to see how others here may interpret this and to see if they either share this concern or if they can, convince me why this is NOT the case.

Thank you,

Scott.

[Freddy]

The idea of multiculturalism is a little like communism. It looks good and fancy on paper, but It isn't really compatible with natural human instinctual behaviour.

It's likely a idea some brain dead hippy thought up while he was stoned out of his mind and tripping on acid.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

It was devised and expanded by both the Liberal and Conservative parties as they were the ones who placed this within our constitution. I'm doubting your relationship to "hippies" as I see this as a very conservative concept. Multiculturalism also only preserves specific traditional or largely pluralistic groups that have strong identity and definitely wouldn't welcome the "Hippy" movements regardless. For instance, our preservation of the duel languages (French and English) and the laws that favor public funding to both a general secular school system AND the Catholic system via our laws and taxes.

I also see this being supported by the conservative parts of even those like the NDP as their base support is dependent upon the large plural conservative groups who are simply unable to compete distinctly UNTIL they hope to take over politically. I'm seeing our political ideals being robbed by the interests of groups based on culture over logical distinctions such as poverty. That is, we place an emphasis to favor things like religion, tradition, ethnicity, and overall, inherent factors rather than individual capacity to choices or logical classification. I can't "choose" to be of a culture here except in 'thought' as only the genetic or economic factors we inherit from birth are given priority. And it discriminates against the individual who is born external to these favored biases.

[Freddy]

It was devised and expanded by

---SNIP---

the individual who is born external to these favored biases.

You do know PHT, JT father, a huge contributer in the advancement of multiculturalism in Canada. He enjoyed Smoking huge amounts of pot, and likely experimented with other drugs. He was elected largely by a young hippy baby boomer population. That also liked to smoke large amounts of pot and experiment with other drugs.

It's not a secret Pierre liked to party and enjoy himself.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[Scott Mayers]

You do know PHT, JT father, a huge contributer in the advancement of multiculturalism in Canada. He enjoyed Smoking huge amounts of pot, and likely experimented with other drugs. He was elected largely by a young hippy baby boomer population. That also liked to smoke large amounts of pot and experiment with other drugs.

It's not a secret Pierre liked to party and enjoy himself.

Perhaps. But smoking pot doesn't make everyone think alike. I never considered the Trudeau's as "Hippies" anyways. At least, I understood "Hippies" as a more liberal than Liberal belief since multiculturalism is more akin to the state of the American South's Confederate conservatives as it supports a segregation policy over an integrated one.

The Trudeau's ideals favor multiculturalism over assimilation for the Eastern provincial problems between Ontario and Quebec as though they represent what all Canada is. It is the preference to conserve the Canadian traditions of the original establishment of our country that gives them the likely impetus to support this idea. Unfortunately, as we still see to this day, it only amplifies the distinction of Quebec but forces the rest of Canada to have to comply to those like the Trudeau's who have an unusual familiarity that embraces both those cultures with ignorance to the rest of the provinces.

I'm guessing that they figured that by placating to Quebec that things would eventually enable all of the relatives of those who have family in both Quebec and Ontario to reconcile. But they are in severe error to think this will work for all of Canada by enabling laws that grant segregated protections. What it does instead is to reinforce the distinctions by the extremes. Also, by adapting it for all plural groups in position of plural popularity, it also isolates cultures that would naturally have integrated given time in a unified principle of assimilation instead.

I see our future as bleak as we divide into more purely defined groups that both keep them segregated and restrict access to outsiders. This is the kind of precursor to all past civilizations that embraced this ideal that eventually leads to extreme Nationalists in the future. Germany was one such example. But by the time of Hitler, it was too late for natural assimilation to which lead to the Holocaust when they realized they could no longer unite their differences by that time.

Our only hope is to alter the Constitution to appeal to the American idea that removes any preferences for religion and culture as a predefined function of society. Even the States embrace multiculturalism to some extent. But it is a balanced approach and remains a function of the non-constitutional portions of their policy making. In time, the U.S. has proven able to preserve both a non-cultural national pride AS WELL AS freedom for those who may or may not want to segregate. But our system will crumble because we are so disconnected with one another that we are socially unable to unite as a whole and consider its truest minority as the individuals that make up all of us independently.

And with the U.S. forging forward, they'll be able to take great strides to overcome our economy without the hassle of our social problems in our system. There IS a reason that they gave up on Manifest Destiny! They don't need to 'own' us via our people as resources, but only the earth beneath our feet as they take advantage of our inability to collectively operate as a whole to address creating a productive and sustainable economy.

[Freddy]

Perhaps. But smoking pot doesn't

---SNIP---

address creating a productive and sustainable economy.

To sum it up, It's a stupid idea. Yes I agree.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[Michael Hardner]

Can you have some examples where this has had 1) a real effect, and 2) a significant effect ?

I see multiculturalism as largely symbolic, as is the melting pot model. I don't see any large effects on the whole, other than maybe more politeness towards cultural differences. All in all, the society will change and the subgroups will change too - with little impact from policy.

[Freddy]

Giving Quebec the tools to distinguish itself from the rest of Canada, and freedom to chose its own policy could have been a huge factor in keeping that province inside the union without any bloodshed being spilled.

[Scott Mayers]

Can you have some examples where this has had 1) a real effect, and 2) a significant effect ?

I see multiculturalism as largely symbolic, as is the melting pot model. I don't see any large effects on the whole, other than maybe more politeness towards cultural differences. All in all, the society will change and the subgroups will change too - with little impact from policy.

I did mention that I DO see some contemporary advantages even with my concern. I have noticed that in countries that, for instance, impose a constitutional religion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) that an opposite effect seems to occur where the general population tends to be less religious AND yet think of their 'church' as a form of secular institution. But the 'real effect' (1) of creating a state with a multiculturalism mandated in law can reinvigorate division even if the opposite may be intended where especially those that favor them even where previously in some minority only gain a norm in those communities to both favor their ingroup more while disfavoring some or all of the outgroups where even none existed before.

It fosters a nationalism based upon lines of one's inherent race, ethnicity, religion, and historic culture, which is hard to reverse. Although I can't speak of whether Germany prior to the World Wars literally imposed such laws, it gives a good example of how their society then divided among each other on these lines. The 'native' or 'aboriginal' population in times of great struggle there recognized that by fostering nationalism of the 'German' people was what was needed in order to unite and strengthen their pride. Of course this was what initiated the National Socialism which to me represents a high degree of concern to why great division among populations create the backdrop of extremes. Even though the party through Hitler fostered 'assimilation' when in power, their means of such was to actually force an assimilation of others to their particular group interests and 'weed' out those who don't follow suit. This cannot occur in a state that has a prior norm of 'assimilation' in the form of a "melting pot" where no one is literally forced to assimilate to one particular group but is in law a means to simply grant people the power as individuals to opt to intermarry and choose their own ideas of what is their 'culture'.

In our country, while our 'aboriginal' people are at present not empowered, multiculturalism fosters a pride in them as a distinct nation within the federation that if it works, in some future time, they too may act similarly as the "German aboriginal" did from the World Wars era. In Quebec, a similar relative "aboriginal" of the French Catholics also shows how such distinction only fosters the same likelihood of groups to be more empowered to bide their time to strengthen their in-group powers until they could be powerful enough to command their own nationalism in the future. Notice that while it is from without (Canada at large) fosters Multiculturalism, the province of Quebec acts internally to try to enforce a nationalist assimilation and hints at how they too would behave if they had the power federally to command the government.

None of these may appear to you as sufficiently 'real' to you yet. But even as a whole, our country's divisions thus far only makes us weak as a whole on the international level. It makes us vulnerable to the economic conditions we are finding ourselves in today because when a particular party gets majority control in our federal governments, they do whatever it takes to use our multicultural laws to do what it takes to empower their own in-groups at the expense of all others. Nationalism is a (small 'c') conservative ideal to which all parties will resort to favoring one or some preferred group over all others. And by having such laws as ours, they are legitimized to do this by default.

As to (2), it IS significant. America actually benefits by our own divisiveness as it makes them easier, for instance, to capitalize on economic takeover of our resources. Notice how we are actually forced to trade with them in forms of pure resource exchanges without being able to successfully enhancing our own capacity in the manufacturing industries. Even 'free trade' doesn't protect us equally here.

On a more personal note, I used to have many friends that relate with me based on our common economic reality from various cultural backgrounds. Being relatively 'poor', many of these were aboriginal or Metis. Yet since the 80's, I found more and more division among even my past friends who have embraced their cultural identity and preferred to associate distinctly with their own. I have been perceived as somehow innately 'privileged' based on my own 'whiteness' to which lacked any actual merit. And so even in my own experience, I feel the effect of how fostering this nationalism only makes me as an individual isolated as I don't actually belong (nor want to) to any traditional nationalism.

[Scott Mayers]

Giving Quebec the tools to distinguish itself from the rest of Canada, and freedom to chose its own policy could have been a huge factor in keeping that province inside the union without any bloodshed being spilled.

Yes, I think that our historical formation was necessarily based on this and is the motivating major factor for multiculturalism.

[Michael Hardner]

Scott thank you for your thoughtful post.

I need more clarity as to (2). How does a weak national "pure Canadian" identity hurt us in trade negotiations ? I don't get it.

As to (1), I am dubious that the German example can be applied to today's world. Even Quebec is seeing that a narrow focus has its downfalls, and is opening up culturally by inviting French speaking immigrants in. I do business in Quebec, and have noted the French and French African immigrants that are now part of my Quebec financial client's team.

[Scott Mayers]

I already tried to post but found that I was not signed in and lost it.

Did I say, "pure Canadian" anywhere? By "pure" or "purist" etc, I was referring to how groups discriminate against things like inter-marriages or, in general, integration, as they segregate. If you are asking about Canadians as a whole, I think we need things like a single official language or things like laws that aim to integrate in acceptance of a whole country. When people are segregated as we are as a whole, this makes it easier for other countries who ARE more consolidated in principles of integration to use this as a means to deal with groups based on their selfish interests apart from others.

To clarify using a simpler example, if you have a household of a unified family, an outsider has a harder time if they want to take advantage of the individual's self-serving motives. In families where the members are divided among even each other, an outsider can penetrate the solidarity of the household by appealing to their individual members based solely on that individual's isolated concerns that default to self-interests. As such, it only makes it easier for an outsider to capitalize on the divisions.

This is what makes the U.S. a more powerful nation. Even while they have internal distinctions among their people, they act as a functioning whole with better unity because they are constituted to treat each person as equal in the laws they create. Our system does the opposite when they predesignate groups, not individuals, as the ultimate constitutional goal to prioritize.

Another way to explain this is how the police intellectually optimize their means of incriminating a group of suspects by segregating them in isolated rooms for interrogation. They can use their wisdom of each person's self-interests to manipulate them into turning each against the others for their unified goal of getting a conviction. This is the same with the idea of how a country like America can utilize our segregation in the same way to capitalize on our economy from under us by taking advantage of our distinct isolationism.

The German example applies in cycles of many societies throughout time. It is the nationalism to which I was referring to and to how in times of economic duress this leads to divisions which CAN and often DO lead to such extreme problems. But if you think this cannot happen here, I disagree. I also believe that we are engaging in our laws to actually support the very nationalism that can lead to another Hitler with ever more ease.

[Michael Hardner]

I already tried to post but found that I was not signed in and lost it.

Did I say, "pure Canadian" anywhere? By "pure" or "purist" etc,

No, but I found the 'native' designation confusing, obviously, in the Canadian context.

When people are segregated as we are as a whole, this makes it easier for other countries who ARE more consolidated in principles of integration to use this as a means to deal with groups based on their selfish interests apart from others.

Ok... waiting for the 'How'... let's see...

To clarify using a simpler example, if you have a household of a unified family, an outsider has a harder time if they want to take advantage of the individual's self-serving motives. In families where the members are divided among even each other, an outsider can penetrate the solidarity of the household by appealing to their individual members based solely on that individual's isolated concerns that default to self-interests. As such, it only makes it easier for an outsider to capitalize on the divisions.

Ok. Let's keep this very relevant example in mind for the discussion about free trade between families. For now, I'm wondering how Canada - a country founded on major cultural differences - needs to adjust its policies to improve its trade negotiations. The analogy isn't satisfactory to me for the topic at hand.

This is what makes the U.S. a more powerful nation. Even while they have internal distinctions among their people, they act as a functioning whole with better unity because they are constituted to treat each person as equal in the laws they create. Our system does the opposite when they predesignate groups, not individuals, as the ultimate constitutional goal to prioritize.

If you're following the NDP & Trade Deal thread, you can catch how these deals play out in a political environment as typified by MLW members. There is a lot of "us" and "them" that gets thrown around but the divisions are absolutely along political boundries.

Maybe there's a case to say certain ethnicities have specific political leanings, I guess. Does that play into your idea ?

If anything, the US seems to have more of an "ethnic" aspect to trade and economy due to the large cultural impact of illegal immigration etc.

But if you think this cannot happen here, I disagree. I also believe that we are engaging in our laws to actually support the very nationalism that can lead to another Hitler with ever more ease.

I wouldn't be so sure that it "can't" happen here. And in fact MLW members with a better grasp of history than me have stated (in the distant past) that we're in the exact types of situation that has led to severe politics in the past. You have a valid point, but I will still say that I'm dubious.

I'm also unsure what you mean by "engaging in our laws to actually support the very nationalism". I don't want to argue this, but I am curious which laws you mean.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm also unsure what you mean by "engaging in our laws to actually support the very nationalism". I don't want to argue this, but I am curious which laws you mean.

I mean our Constitution that preserves the distinction of the Aboriginal population, the laws that preserve the French language and Catholic Church advantages throughout Canada, not just for Quebec, and other Multicultural ideas there. Even religion is protected by law here without respect to all people equally.

I see Canada as an accidental nation built upon the historical foundation of English loyalists and French Catholics that stood against the ideals of the age of Enlightenment that produced the U.S. I don't agree with those people and the way they "reserved" the Native population like they are wild animals. And so I disagree with the whole concept of our continued ideas to preserve these groups distinctly. The English and French of those who benefit from this history aim to preserve multiculturalism because it both favors them AND keeps other groups, like the Natives, from their own ability to naturally integrate.

I'm still confused at the issue of things like Residential school abuses as this project was specifically designed by the religious establishment of those English and French. We don't seem to 'blame' or penalize the very ones responsible for this and instead transfer the 'fault' to the people at large. It is also feigned as a fault of the idea of assimilation or integration in an attempt to hide the very responsibility of the religious organs that are the true cause of the abuses.

I see the whole idea of "multiculturalism" as a means to create a smoke-screen of the ones who inherited the wealth of this nation at the expense of other groups they actually despise but feign a love for such diversity. As such, our Constitution and Multiculturalism is only a clever devise to preserve particular beneficial groups by enhancing an appearance of acceptance of certain other groups.

The purpose of multiculturalism is to forcefully segregate the population by law to enshrine conservative principles to prevent the progress of individuals who would eventually integrate and rule. It is also intended to distribute the costs of liability of those particular established groups who initially were the ones at fault against other groups to the tax of society at large and to simultaneously retain their gains.

[BC_chick]

I have 3rd or 4th generation Irish and Italian friends who are still proud of their heritage and never miss a chance to let it be known that they're "Irish" or "Italian" even though they've never even left Canada.

Nobody cares.

But if you're Asian, brown or black, you better let go of of all that mumbo jumbo the minute you're sworn in.

[cybercoma]

Exactly!

[Big Guy]

I suggest that the atmosphere on this board does not reflect the area in which I live. Our town is "quaint" and in many ways still in the 1950's as to the way people interact with each other. Here any permanent visible minority is very, very visible from the 2% from Asia to the 8% aboriginal to the thousands of seasonal workers who come in from Jamaica and Mexico for the tobacco and fruit crop harvests.

The permanent and temporary population get along very well with very little of the racism and prejudice that I see being spouted on this board. There certainly are a few red necks who do try to create problems but they are not anonymous. The majority either ignores or corrects these few bigots when they start their anti immigrant or anti Muslim rants.

There is no courage shown in preaching discrimination, bigotry, racism or misogyny while hiding behind an avatar. These cowards are restricted to this kind of venue because they either have been personally disgraced when spouting that silliness in the real world or fear to be held accountable for their hate mongering - or both.

Assimilation and Multiculturalism are both means for immigrants to adapt to a new nation - one slowly and the other more quickly.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suggest that the atmosphere on this board does not reflect the area in which I live. Our town is "quaint" and in many ways still in the 1950's as to the way people interact with each other. Here any permanent visible minority is very, very visible from the 2% from Asia to the 8% aboriginal to the thousands of seasonal workers who come in from Jamaica and Mexico for the tobacco and fruit crop harvests.

Interesting perspective, and one may conclude that "quaint" is synonymous with the white majority that gave rise to such terms as "visible minority" in Canada. Technically, the employment equal opportunity term "visible minority" does not apply to "aboriginals", another "quaint" term.

[Scott Mayers]

I suggest that the atmosphere on this board does not reflect the area in which I live. Our town is "quaint" and in many ways still in the 1950's as to the way people interact with each other. Here any permanent visible minority is very, very visible from the 2% from Asia to the 8% aboriginal to the thousands of seasonal workers who come in from Jamaica and Mexico for the tobacco and fruit crop harvests.

The permanent and temporary population get along very well with very little of the racism and prejudice that I see being spouted on this board. There certainly are a few red necks who do try to create problems but they are not anonymous. The majority either ignores or corrects these few bigots when they start their anti immigrant or anti Muslim rants.

There is no courage shown in preaching discrimination, bigotry, racism or misogyny while hiding behind an avatar. These cowards are restricted to this kind of venue because they either have been personally disgraced when spouting that silliness in the real world or fear to be held accountable for their hate mongering - or both.

Assimilation and Multiculturalism are both means for immigrants to adapt to a new nation - one slowly and the other more quickly.

I'm more strict against Multiculturalism because it is intentionally discriminatory in the most extreme way of our modern societies. But I'm not sure what you are saying in context above as you appear to be pointing fingers at some here you are not indicating with clarity. Multiculturalism is a quicker acting process but it is distinctly different from Assimilation and only works in the initial stages for some groups only. But as it sets in place successfully, it creates very real discrimination as these groups embrace their nationalism through time. This is already pre-established by those who put this concept in place, though, as they have purposely designed our constitution to conserve the traditional original people as a real priority. For instance, even the culture involving Royalty and our imperial houses are just such reasons. I am totally disgusted by our whole system with respect to crap like formal rituals that are indistinct from religion, intended to bias against all others who are non-Christian favoring, non-authority respecting, individuals. There is NO real distinction between our system and the American Confederates of the old Southern States. The only real difference is that our system was well evolved by our British Commonwealth roots and associations that cleverly knows better how to 'appear' friendly while stabbing you in the back.

[Big Guy]

I guess we should have first assured ourselves that we are working with the same concepts of what assimilation and multiculturalism represent. I remember in the 1940's and 1950's when the post war European wave came to Canada. They were demeaned as DP's by some locals (Displaced Persons) and resented by many. In a couple of years the ethnic groups became Canadians. On the weekend, the Polish, Lithuanians, Belgians, Latvians, Estonians et al would party at their local cultural celebrating events and on Monday would join the Canadians working in the factories and the towns.

The original wave tried to keep the second generation interested with Saturday ethnic schools, ethnic clubs and ethnic social functions. The younger generation was difficult to influence. In the third generation, most of the people no longer speak the language, have intermarried with other groups and show little interest in "the old country". I believe that one can maintain a sense of pride of origin and still fully embrace citizenship and loyalty to Canada.

[Scott Mayers]

I guess we should have first assured ourselves that we are working with the same concepts of what assimilation and multiculturalism represent. I remember in the 1940's and 1950's when the post war European wave came to Canada. They were demeaned as DP's by some locals (Displaced Persons) and resented by many. In a couple of years the ethnic groups became Canadians. On the weekend, the Polish, Lithuanians, Belgians, Latvians, Estonians et al would party at their local cultural celebrating events and on Monday would join the Canadians working in the factories and the towns.

The original wave tried to keep the second generation interested with Saturday ethnic schools, ethnic clubs and ethnic social functions. The younger generation was difficult to influence. In the third generation, most of the people no longer speak the language, have intermarried with other groups and show little interest in "the old country". I believe that one can maintain a sense of pride of origin and still fully embrace citizenship and loyalty to Canada.

The Assimilation ideal (or American Melting Pot) is the concept of allowing anyone to CHOOSE to integrate or associate with whomever you personally identify with NO influence by government (via the First Amendment). Here we mandate protections for groups based on race, ethnicity, language, etc that are NOT universal to all groups (where the smallest such 'group' is one person) and acts to both favor some groups and discriminate against others (often by what they leave out). For example, Aboriginals in Canada are given tax exemption for things like tobacco. Much of this is based on the presumption of it being an inherent property of BEING a genetic Native.

Laws are also often created to 'favor' a group for the statistical relationship to their plurality in an economic range. For instance, as a 'group' the Aboriginal population is the largest majority of poor people. So although certain laws that favor them as a group are feigned as being about this factor, it discriminates against those non-Aboriginals who may also have identical circumstances but get left out as 'sacrifices' for the class these outsider's presumed natural identity belongs to who may be presumably 'favored'. An impoverished white European male, for instance, is sacrificed by the other European whites who are in benefit as if the nature of the impoverished male is 'earned' based on his genetic association in common with the fortunate whites. They also get doubly discriminated by others even in the minority population they economically associate with as they too interpret the white male as certainly more likely to succeed by default.

There are also many other indirect means of abuse that occur within our "multicultural" system. The term itself too is deceptive. To Americans, this exact same system is called, Segregation. "Multicultural" appears to mean just what its root part-terms mean and so acts with clear deception. Also, our Canadians often falsely feign that the American system of "the Melting Pot" means a forced assimilation to annihilate the minority and make everyone into one ideal kind of person. While some certainly do think this, the principle is either voluntary OR, where they have made laws in force, are based on equal integration of peoples based on their 'group' based upon economic differences, NOT race or religion.

For instance, busing a random set of individuals in one economic community to another for schooling was intended to apply mixing ones' economic influences, NOT race. Some of a poorer school district is sent (bused) to a richer school and visa versa. Can you see that while America may have a lot of problems (they still have a hard time implementing busing by those resisting it, for instance) their overt separation of church and state includes religious-like ideologies that are things that include culture. They also remove Royalty because they clearly recognize this is only a form of dictatorship entrenched in law to privileged god-like peoples in systems like ours.

Can you see the distinction? Our system inappropriately addresses rational classified needs based on individual's real environmental conditions as due to cultural differences and so uses laws base on their genetically inherent conditions. The American system classifies real environmental conditions based on environment and tries to diminish genetic distinctions.