[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by hullexile

Yes agreed, but again there are degrees. Many of the working girls in Wan Chai are doing it for their families - not sure many western girls would go that far. Also 'the family' extends out to 4th cousins, umpteen times removed. Certainly not the case in the UK. I accept though that this is not all cultural, it also relates to the lack of welfare support available.

They might work in a "gentlemen's club" for their families, but probably not the same job you are alluding to in Wan Chai. Although I think the majority of them working in either situation aren't doing it for a family.
And I would not define my family that large. But that could be a cultural difference within the US (a shock to all of you out there that think all Americans are exactly the same). I find southerners define family more broadly than northerners.

[KnowItAll]

>> I find southerners define family more broadly than northerners.

Not to forget the Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Thai and Filipino), Mexicans, and even the Italians .... who can be considered Americans

[gilleshk]

Currently, it is estimated that about a third of America's population is either hispanic or non white. That would be about 100 million, the hispanics alone are expected to be 25% of the population by 2050. Already they make up half the population of Texas and California.

There is no such thing as a typical american anymore if there ever was...

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by KnowItAll

>> I find southerners define family more broadly than northerners.

Not to forget the Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Thai and Filipino), Mexicans, and even the Italians .... who can be considered Americans

True, but how many generations does that last after immigrating? Anyway, as gilleshk points out, it is dangerous to lump Americans into one group without being so specific that it ruins the case for generality you are trying to make.

[gilleshk]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

True, but how many generations does that last after immigrating?

This reminds me of a very interesting conversation I had about sports. This seems to apply very nicely to canadians also... It could be Olympic ice hockey or World Cup football

Wasps seem to fully identify with the mother country US/Canada and I've had more than one conversation where they are absolutely pissed off to see americans/canadians of other origin cheering for other countries. Their argument was that if you become a canadian or american, your allegiance should be to your new home who has wlecomed you bla bla bla.

Of course, we all know that many/most italian americans/canadians cheer for Italy in the World Cup for example and even hold parades after the fact.

Now some of the same fellows that were pissed off at this have permanent HK Id. Now one would think that going to rugby sevens, they would be cheering for HK over Canada for example right? I'm sure you can take a guess...

Anyway, my point is that however much many people would love complete assimilation, it rarely completely takes place... Way too much for immigrant parents' taste but not that many ever completely lose their identity.

I for one prefer when people try to hold on to what makes them distinctive while integrating to the new culture. It makes life a lot more interesting than being all the same.

[hullexile]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

They might work in a "gentlemen's club" for their families, but probably not the same job you are alluding to in Wan Chai. Although I think the majority of them working in either situation aren't doing it for a family.
And I would not define my family that large. But that could be a cultural difference within the US (a shock to all of you out there that think all Americans are exactly the same). I find southerners define family more broadly than northerners.

On the first point, well I disagree based on my conversations with many of them. Which "gentlemen's clubs" - if you mean the curtained bars, they are worse than the other bars as the girls have no choice over customers.

On the second point, agreed, I am generalising too far.

[jonnye]

Originally Posted by gilleshk

This reminds me of a very interesting conversation I had about sports. This seems to apply very nicely to canadians also... It could be Olympic ice hockey or World Cup football

Wasps seem to fully identify with the mother country US/Canada and I've had more than one conversation where they are absolutely pissed off to see americans/canadians of other origin cheering for other countries. Their argument was that if you become a canadian or american, your allegiance should be to your new home who has wlecomed you bla bla bla.

For the Brits, I believe this was known as Tebbit's Cricket Test...

Of course, we all know that many/most italian americans/canadians cheer for Italy in the World Cup for example and even hold parades after the fact.

Now some of the same fellows that were pissed off at this have permanent HK Id. Now one would think that going to rugby sevens, they would be cheering for HK over Canada for example right? I'm sure you can take a guess...

I don't think holding an HK ID (required by law) and being merely a resident is quite the same as being of 2nd/3rd generation immigrant stock. The question of passport would also come up surely?

Anyway, my point is that however much many people would love complete assimilation, it rarely completely takes place... Way too much for immigrant parents' taste but not that many ever completely lose their identity.

I for one prefer when people try to hold on to what makes them distinctive while integrating to the new culture. It makes life a lot more interesting than being all the same.

Not much to add to this one, except there has to be an element of compromise, and presumably part of the deal of entering a new society is to live to it's rules and laws (even when they might contradict those from where you've come from ...)

[gilleshk]

Originally Posted by jonnye

I don't think holding an HK ID (required by law) and being merely a resident is quite the same as being of 2nd/3rd generation immigrant stock. The question of passport would also come up surely?

Not much to add to this one, except there has to be an element of compromise, and presumably part of the deal of entering a new society is to live to it's rules and laws (even when they might contradict those from where you've come from ...)

So after how many years is one supposed to forget its identity or origin? I for one believe that it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Holding a passport or a nationality shouldn't need to mean you have to conform to someone's ideas...

Respecting the laws and adapting to the society is important but it need not mean turning your back on your origins. An arab moving to the US for example should feel free to dress as he/she pleases, speak and teach arabic to the children if he/she pleases and follow any cultural custom as long as it doesn't break US laws.

As I said, it makes for a lot more interesting and rich society.

[jonnye]

Originally Posted by gilleshk

So after how many years is one supposed to forget its identity or origin?

After exactly 1.5 generations by my calculations. By then, all thoughts of your country of origin should be eradicated from your mind. [just to be absolutely clear: tongue lodged firmly in cheek]

I for one believe that it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Holding a passport or a nationality shouldn't need to mean you have to conform to someone's ideas...

Well, I don't think I argued that point. I was simply trying to point out that a lot of ex-pats present in Hong Kong are simply temporary residents. The holding of an ID card is a legal requirement. It's no surprise that a Canadian ex-pat would cheer for Canada in the 7s against Hong Kong. It's ok though, I'm sure they cheered for Hong Kong against Australia and others...

However, if you've chosen to hold a passport or nationality of a country different from your origin this presumably means that you share those ideas, ideals, and aspirations of the chosen country? Otherwise, why bother?

Respecting the laws and adapting to the society is important but it need not mean turning your back on your origins. An arab moving to the US for example should feel free to dress as he/she pleases, speak and teach arabic to the children if he/she pleases and follow any cultural custom as long as it doesn't break US laws.

As I said, it makes for a lot more interesting and rich society.

Right, and I'm pretty sure that there is a freedom to dress and worship as one sees fit in many countries (you seem to be singling out the US and Canada for some reason?). In your example, so long as you're prepared to accept that the teaching of Arabic isn't going to be economically important in that environment, I don't think anyone is going to stop you. And, equally, to accept that everyone else has the right to dress as they please (even if it would be deemed offensive in your country of origin).

[gilleshk]

Originally Posted by jonnye

Well, I don't think I argued that point. I was simply trying to point out that a lot of ex-pats present in Hong Kong are simply temporary residents. The holding of an ID card is a legal requirement. It's no surprise that a Canadian ex-pat would cheer for Canada in the 7s against Hong Kong. It's ok though, I'm sure they cheered for Hong Kong against Australia and others...

However, if you've chosen to hold a passport or nationality of a country different from your origin this presumably means that you share those ideas, ideals, and aspirations of the chosen country? Otherwise, why bother?

Getting a permanent ID isn't a legal requirement and isn't really that much different than getting a passport.

As to sharing the aspirations, ideas etc... With dual citizenships and sometimes economical advantages and security of getting passports, it often has very little to do with philosophy. I don't think that HK people for example were too concerned about the love of baseball, cricket, rugby etc... when they massively applied for overseas passport in the 90's...