|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 5, 2014 20:16:02 GMT
Multiculturalism just DOESN'T mean any of those things to me.
To me it's about many things - celebration of difference and individuality, coming together in mutual respect, sharing a genuine interest in other cultures.
Sometimes people become like 'groupies' and latch on to some culture that's not yours but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. In Britain for instance - especially in London - a lot of young white kids try to 'talk black' and it's often quite funny hearing them do it.
But what's better - to have a general respect for individuality and difference, to accept that 'one size fits all' isn't the right way to go, to allow freedom and tolerance or to turn into the twisted and narrow world view of the people who try to create hatred, prejudice, intolerance and repression?
I've been planning to write a piece on what multiculturalism means to me.
I can see I now need to start writing it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 20:26:53 GMT
You put that so much better than I could have, Lin.
Please do put that piece on multiculturalism up. I'd be really interested to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 6, 2014 12:39:36 GMT
There are a lot of misconceptions about multiculturalism and most of them are put about by people with their own hidden agenda of sowing conflict between people of different ethnicities, nationalities and religions.
Let's start off with a brief definition. The word 'multicultural' means being of more than one culture and either relating to or being part of the culture of different nations, ethnic groups or religions.
So let's say for instance that you're born in Britain or America but your parents emigrated from Ireland, Spain, Italy, Australia, China, India or Nigeria. You are born in the country, go to school there, speak the native language fluently and on the whole regard yourself as being British or American. People from other countries will certainly look on you as British or American as soon as you open your mouth.
Now let's see how your arrival impacts on the culture of the host country. You may use different expressions, like different types of music, eat different food, be of a different religion from the majority population.
Does that mean that you are less British or American than someone whose ancestors moved there a hundred years ago? And what exactly is it that makes you 'different?'
How long does it take the descendants of immigrants to be accepted as no different from any other member of the native population? Two generations? Four? Never?
And on that basis aren't all non-Maoris foreigners in New Zealand, all non-Indians foreigners in America, all non-aborigines foreigners in Australia?
And if you go back far enough what do we see? Wave after wave of either invasion or immigration, that's what. One of the most ridiculous ideas that Hitler ever had was thinking that the Germans were a 'pure race.' They've got Slav, Mongol and goodness knows what else in them and he had Czech and Jewish and various other types of non-Teutonic blood in him.
From the time of the Beaker People onwards (around 2000 B.C.) all the inhabitants of Britain have been foreigners - Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and so on.
Is it wrong for blacks like Ashley Cole and Daniel Sturridge to play football for England? Germany have had a few players of ethnic Turkish origin like SCholl and Ozil to say nothing of Slavs like Podolski, Grabowski and various others of equally non=Teutonic stock. John Carew was black and played for Norway.
Is it wrong for cricketers like Nasser Hussain, Moein Ali and so on to play cricket for England? Or Hashim Amla and Ashwell Prince to play cricket for South Africa?
If so, why?
Nationality is about the country and ethnicity is about your racial composition. Culture is a mixture of things - your nation, your ethnicity, your religious beliefs, even your personal preferences.
I've seen white musicians belting out rap music and black ones singing traditional English folk music. I've seen white Americans singing the blues and black Americans singing country music.
Let's briefly describe the opposite of 'multiculture' which is 'monoculture.' This comes from farming and refers to growing just one crop in a particular area. Now just as in farming relying too much on a single crop can lead to disaster (remember how the failure of the potato crop caused huge problems in Ireland in the nineteenth century) so in the same way if you use the farming metaphor and extend it to society it's the same principle.
How many genuinely 'monocultural' societies are there in the world? Papua New Guinea? The Amazonian Indians? The Hottentots and Bushmen?
Unless you live in virtual isolation from the rest of the world it's impossible to sustain any kind of monocultural set-up. If you listen to music these days it can come from anywhere in the world; films are international in their appeal and Hollywood and Bollywood between them dominate most of world cinema; books are written in every language under the sun; and the internet has made the whole idea of cultural separation not just almost impossible but downright silly.
So let's look at what multiculturalism IS and then at what it's NOT.
1 Multiculturalism means recognising that different cultures can flourish and co-exist harmoniously within the same society without either culture destroying the other or even wanting to do that.
2 Multiculturalism means tolerating different points of view, different customs, different types of behaviour
3 Multiculturalism means accepting that the differences that divide people do NOT have to be a problem
4 Multiculturalism means preserving ALL the cultures and allowing them to interact with one another or to have a little enclave within which they follow their own traditions with NO disrespect to other cultures NOR any attempt to impose their own cultural values on other groups with different values
Multiculturalism is NOT:
1 An attempt by immigrants to destroy the indigenous culture of the country
2 An attempt to enforce the values of the immigrant population on the indigenous people
3 An attempt to engage in a vast programme of myscegenation and inter-racial sexual activity
4 A conspiracy to establish a 'one world government' and turn everyone into a giant melting pot (I've read that 'theory' on quite a few neo-Nazi websites and in quite a few far right books but it's as nonsensical now as it was when I first came across it as a teenager)
Now I'm going to briefly say what I feel about integration. There are two ways of going about that process and from what I've read and heard at one stage when my parents were growing up there was some kind of attempt to try and force the immigrants in Britain to 'integrate' in the sense of giving up their culture and becoming completely Anglicised. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with the idiots who want to ban hot cross buns because 'they might offend Muslims.'
The better and rational way is to follow the path of diversity and tolerance. We're different and we bring lots of individual things to our countries and without the cultural enrichment of our immigrants we'd be much poorer mentally, emotionally and spiritually.
But ultimately the globalisation of the world means that ALL cultures are facing challenges and it's better for us to try and keep as much of our diversity as possible in the face of the homogenised Coca-colonization we're being subjected to all the time.
Multiculturalism is a positive GOOD; monoculturalism is a recipe for backwardness and failure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 15:20:47 GMT
I have a few things to do, but will be back to this thread later on.
Thanks for putting up your thoughts, Lin.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 6, 2014 15:47:43 GMT
Dearest Lin, Meine Schwester! I have a special affection for you and love you very much. Being real means being honest and in some matters I'm very "tribal" like perhaps some of your Roma relatives.
Well I guess I can connect better with gypsies who envision themselves as a nation without a nation. I really wish they had their nation. I guess it'll never happen. Another part of me can recognize a beautiful person in the no return world of multiculturalism and give him/her a well deserved hug.
I would never dream of pushing my culture down the throats of others which is another reason I don't support multiculturalism, which is mish mash of all heritages, and I respect and encourage people to live among those of their own ethnicity and heritage.
I'll find the articles which describe how monolithic White communities and enclaves are targeted for intergration and forced to have their community schools replaced with the multicultural teaching system, which is a major reason why the US education system has deteriorated so much. In Germany multiculturalism is being forced too.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 6, 2014 16:40:49 GMT
I accept that the existing multicultural areas can never be taken back because multiculturalism is irreversible. Or maybe the multicultural areas will develope a new nationality of their own and become great nations again.
I think one thing that scares a lot of people is the concept of "nationalism". There are certain hate filled wackos that really make nationalism look bad and I don't want to have anything to do with them. Some Whites simply don't know how to do nationalism, which is nothing more than building a society on a shared culture and ancestry. I'd like to redefine these drunken, hate filled skin heads as something other than "nationalist" because they could never build a nation.
I've learned a lot about ethnic pride from people of other cultures and races, who refuse to assimilate into multiculturalism. There is nothing hate filled about the Roma who consider themselves a nation without a nation and hope that their descendants will maintain their cultural and ethnic heritage.
I have a very good relationship with Muslims who see me as an allie across the ethnic, cultural divide in their attempt to protect their children from the dumbed down moral relativity that promotes destructive life styles. The Muslims I've known agree whole heartedly with my suspicions that Al Qaida and other bigots who call themselves Muslims are very likely financed by international financers, call them what you will plutocrats, globalists, the Illuminati, the Bildenbergers, whatever. These "secret rulers" in the Western world promote multiculturalism. They also profit from wars and finance the provocatures who bring war. They don't always win though. Their scheme to start a war between the US and Nasser's Egypt by having the USS Liberty attacked and the crew killed failed miserably. They must be stopped and put out of business completely.
Muslims as a rule don't support Sharia rule anymore than Christians nowadays support the inquisition or the crusades. Some Muslims are scared by the schemes that the internalionalist profiteers have for their people and are duped into supporting the wacky extremists who are IMO secretly financed by Western one world government globalists.
A major world war against the Muslim world would bring the one world government scheme much closer. To achieve this revolutions must be financed to bring down the governments in the Muslim world that will not get involved in a world war and replace them with the nutty extremists that will. Fortunately people are waking up and refusing to support this.
Hitler was also financed by these international profiteers as was the Russian revolution. Imagine if the mafia could choose their enemies and build them up to discredit them. They would certainly choose nutty extremists who babble about the evils of the "Italian race". I sadly still meet Germans who think it's all the Jews. JP Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies and the majority of the globalist plutocrats don't have a drop of Jewish ancestry. And the minority in this cartel that do have no interest in the Jewish religion and have financed the persecution of Jews as well to drive them into Palestine where they could obtain asylum with their non Jewish cohorts, if their schemes are ever exposed and they have to flee. It seems like a growing portion of them are confident that their power will never be broken and thus Israel has also become expendable and may be also targeted for destruction while this cartel shuffles it's assets around to profit from this as they always do.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 6, 2014 17:24:52 GMT
Anna, you keep confusing multiculturalism with globalisation.
Globalisation favours homogeneity and multiculturalism favours diversity.
It is NOT a mish-mash of all heritages; it is a kaleidoscope in which each part has its value.
Do you think Romani folki are all the same? We have tribes and nations within our community; the two main groups are the Sinti and Roma and within each natsiya (as we call it) there are vitsas (tribes). Part of my heritage is Basque Cale and part Kalderash. As such I have a bit of both Sinti and Roma in me. My mother married an Irish gadge and I married an English one.
Of course I try to keep the language and ways going with my children but to be honest the old nomadic life is bloody hard and more and more of us have had to give up. It's not only prejudice against us by gadges but it's also the sheer hardness of the life. Yes, I love to wander and wish I could do it more often but it's not that practical these days.
Most British Roma live in settled homes; more and more of us are losing the ability to speak even Romanichal (the Anglo-Rom dialect that's a mixture of Romanes and a lot of English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and other words all mixed in together) let alone a pure Romanes dialect.
The Roma in Sulukule all speak Turkish as well as a dialect of Romanes that I found quite hard to understand so we chatted in a mixture of Romanichal and Turkish when I met them.
Far too many puyuria gadges (an untranslatable expression that means something like 'non-gypsy gypsy groupies') look on Romanis as being some sort of romantic and picturesque living tableau to feed their fantasies of escape.
The reality of life for gypsies is quite different. It's hard, often a struggle to survive and you have to learn to multitask and develop a whole range of skills.
I'll write more later but that's a start simply on my own ethnic group.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 6, 2014 18:35:37 GMT
Anna, you keep confusing multiculturalism with globalisation. Globalisation favours homogeneity and multiculturalism favours diversity. It is NOT a mish-mash of all heritages; it is a kaleidoscope in which each part has its value. Do you think Romani folki are all the same? We have tribes and nations within our community; the two main groups are the Sinti and Roma and within each natsiya (as we call it) there are vitsas (tribes). Part of my heritage is Basque Cale and part Kalderash. As such I have a bit of both Sinti and Roma in me. My mother married an Irish gadge and I married an English one. Of course I try to keep the language and ways going with my children but to be honest the old nomadic life is bloody hard and more and more of us have had to give up. It's not only prejudice against us by gadges but it's also the sheer hardness of the life. Yes, I love to wander and wish I could do it more often but it's not that practical these days. Most British Roma live in settled homes; more and more of us are losing the ability to speak even Romanichal (the Anglo-Rom dialect that's a mixture of Romanes and a lot of English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and other words all mixed in together) let alone a pure Romanes dialect. The Roma in Sulukule all speak Turkish as well as a dialect of Romanes that I found quite hard to understand so we chatted in a mixture of Romanichal and Turkish when I met them. Far too many puyuria gadges (an untranslatable expression that means something like 'non-gypsy gypsy groupies') look on Romanis as being some sort of romantic and picturesque living tableau to feed their fantasies of escape. The reality of life for gypsies is quite different. It's hard, often a struggle to survive and you have to learn to multitask and develop a whole range of skills. I'll write more later but that's a start simply on my own ethnic group. Oh certainly I'm aware of the Sinti gypsy who greatly outnumber the Roma gypsies in Germany. I posted on Gibby's forum that it would be an insult to Gypsies to say they lack diversity and they would have every right to be offended, if they choose to be offended! It's also an insult to Whites to say they lack diversity, but that's a "politically correct statement" nowadays and multi-culti activists always repeat it and probably will never stop until all people are one color.
Oh yeah the nomadic life must be hard. I never suggested that gypsies were supposed to stay committed to living like that.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 6, 2014 19:53:43 GMT
I've never heard an advocate of multiculturalism suggest either that whites lack diversity or that they should lack it.
Sure, a few nutjobs will say things like that; they're the mirror image of the neo-Nazi types who think all non-whites are scum.
But most people who support multiculturalism do it because they want to preserve and extend diversity.
I'll post a link to Nathan Glazer's recantation of his previous hostile views on multiculturalism and his gradual realisation that it was NOT a bad thing after all (or at least only partially so).
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 6, 2014 19:55:42 GMT
www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/1997/05/i_was_wrong.htmlBOOKS READING BETWEEN THE LINES.MAY 15 1997 3:30 AM I Was Wrong 0 0 0 Nathan Glazer comes to terms with multiculturalism. By James Traub We Are All Multiculturalists Now By Nathan Glazer Harvard University Press; 179 pages; $19.95 Nathan Glazer, the Harvard social scientist and core member of the group known as the New York Intellectuals, appears to be haunted by second thoughts. This may be a sign of irresolution. In a review of Glazer's latest book, We Are All Multiculturalists Now, in the Weekly Standard, Dinesh D'Souza accuses the author of "cowardice," of mollycoddling the multicultural left in order to make life in Cambridge tolerable. It's true that Glazer is not the combative soul that, say, Norman Podhoretz or Irving Kristol is. Glazer is a gentleman, always ready to concede, at least rhetorically, the sincerity of his opponent's feelings. (He wrote a nice review of my book, City on a Hill, in the New Republic.) But Glazer is also too honest to disguise his own misgivings, and his new book, painful and awkward and sometimes confused, is the record of a reality--the reality of race and racial identity--that has resisted the categories he has tried to impose on it throughout his career. 38000_38673_brodner_glazer Like the rest of the crowd that gathered around the fabled Alcove 1 in the City College cafeteria in the '30s, Glazer started out as a Trotskyist. His radicalism, however, did not last long. In the afterglow of the war and the recovery from the Depression, Glazer and most of the other New York Intellectuals came to see America as a great success story. At the heart of their optimistic liberalism was the recognition that the country had opened itself to impoverished Jewish immigrants like themselves, and that the immigrants had in turn embraced the democratic values, the secular rituals, and the faith in individual achievement that made them Americans. "The complete identification of the overwhelming majority of persons in each group of Americans in spite of discrimination is assured," Glazer wrote in a 1954 article in Commentary, one of the favorite journalistic forums of the ex-radicals. Glazer expanded on this theme in his best-known work, Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City, published in 1963 and co-authored by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The book's central point was that, contrary to both the fears and the faith of the '50s, mass culture was not eradicating ancient distinctions of religion and ethnicity. Its unspoken premise was that every ethnic group until then had found its own distinctive path to success. Blacks had, in effect, recently arrived at the head of the line; they had problems, but so had the Irish and the Italians. "New York will very likely in the end be an integrated area," Glazer wrote. Then the world turned upside down. There were riots, and the brutal reception of Moynihan's report on the black family, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville teachers' wars, and open admissions at City College. In the foreword to the 1970 edition of the book, the authors admitted they had assumed that blacks would behave as, and see themselves as, one ethnic group among many. They hadn't imagined that blacks would want to be treated as something wholly new, a "racial" group. The authors wrote that they were "saddened and frightened" by the implications of this choice, and they blamed the white intelligentsia for legitimizing it. It was race, along with revolt on campus, that pushed Glazer and his crowd to the right. In 1975, Glazer published Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy, a book in which he attacked affirmative action and decisively broke with contemporary liberalism. Affirmative action, with its promise of government intervention to overcome the effects of discrimination, represented a willful refusal by blacks to accept "the main pattern of American history," the pattern of ever-expanding inclusiveness. But when the book was reissued in 1987, Glazer wrote an introduction full of rueful reflections. It was becoming clear, he wrote, that blacks weren't being assimilated as others had been. Perhaps affirmative action wasn't so very willful after all. "The underlying force that keeps the system of numerical quotas and goals strong is the actual condition of blacks," he wrote. Glazer didn't think affirmative action was the answer, but he cautioned against an "all-out assault" on the policy. We Are All Multiculturalists Now should be read as a book-length postscript, an agonized reconsideration. Glazer is the last person one would expect to applaud the kind of ethnic chauvinism and myth-mongering that often go under the name of multiculturalism, and he doesn't. "I feel warmly attached to the old America that was acclaimed in school textbooks," he writes. But Glazer concludes that his side has lost--hence the title. He cites the ubiquity of the multicultural curriculum in the schools and the blithe acceptance of it even by teachers and administrators with no ethnic or ideological ax to grind. Multiculturalism, he finds, though with only the most anecdotal evidence, has been institutionalized. Glazer appears to be conceding that the postwar liberal faith was misguided, and that the pluralistic community he envisioned in Beyond the Melting Pot has not--and perhaps will not--come to pass. But that's not quite so. Glazer observes that while the multicultural curriculum is being propagated in the name of the new wave of immigrants, the immigrants themselves want to succeed on more or less the same terms as the European newcomers of 75 years ago. We Are All Multiculturalists Now has a hidden subject; it almost seems hidden from Glazer himself. Toward the end of this short book, Glazer observes that it is blacks, not immigrants, who have pushed hardest for the multicultural curriculum. And when Glazer asks why this is so, he finds not the obscurantism of black academics like Leonard Jeffries or Asa Hilliard, but the hard fact of black experience, and "the fundamental refusal of other Americans to accept blacks, despite their eagerness, as suitable candidates for assimilation." This is, for Glazer, an almost subversive conclusion. Conservatives, including Glazer himself, have routinely called on blacks to behave like immigrants. Now he is saying that blacks want to follow the ethnic pattern, but can't--and that multiculturalism is the result of that frustration. It is this recognition that accounts for the strange air of passivity and gloom that dominates the book. Glazer has reached a cul-de-sac. He's no more comfortable condemning multiculturalism than he is condemning affirmative action, though he believes in neither. He is forced to say, instead, that multiculturalism isn't the end of the world. That's certainly true, and it's a useful corrective to all the apocalyptic literature on the subject. But it puts Glazer in the bizarre position of accepting the teaching of self-esteem-enhancing myths, such as the claim that the Iroquois federation significantly influenced the framers of the Constitution. Glazer is right to think that even a steady diet of ethnic special pleading won't lead to Balkanization and intergroup warfare; but he's also right to wonder if he takes "too extreme an outcome ... as a test against which to estimate" the likely effects of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is guilty of plenty of midsize wrongs, including bilingual instruction, which often keeps Spanish-speaking students locked in their own form of isolation, and the reduction of history to therapy, as Arthur Schlesinger put it. But Glazer's underlying point is that abolishing the multicultural curriculum, even were it possible, wouldn't do much to diminish racial isolation; the dynamic works the other way around. This is not, for Glazer, a "problem" with a "solution." It is a tragedy. Glazer is still the neoconservative who wrote The Limits of Social Policy. He doesn't believe that any large-scale policy can increase residential or educational integration, or raise the low level of racial intermarriage. He doesn't believe that racism is the cause of black isolation, so he doesn't suggest that enlightenment is the answer. It's not easy to argue with either of these propositions. But Glazer's own logic leaves him with nothing to offer--except the admittedly specious comforts of multiculturalism. We Are All Multiculturalists Now is thus the opposite of Beyond the Melting Pot--a putatively neutral book with a profoundly discouraging subtext. And in the arc that connects the two one can read the downfall of what was once a sustaining faith. James Traub is a staff writer for The New Yorker and author of City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 8, 2014 22:57:17 GMT
I've never heard an advocate of multiculturalism suggest either that whites lack diversity or that they should lack it. Sure, a few nutjobs will say things like that; they're the mirror image of the neo-Nazi types who think all non-whites are scum. But most people who support multiculturalism do it because they want to preserve and extend diversity. I'll post a link to Nathan Glazer's recantation of his previous hostile views on multiculturalism and his gradual realisation that it was NOT a bad thing after all (or at least only partially so). I can well understand that many people especially in the so called 3rd world resent the colonisation carried out by a few wealthy people in the Western world and their minions long ago. I certainly condemn the colonisation.
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
I strongly believe that every community should have the right to say no to selling homes to people, who they feel don't harmonize with the community. Whether they're ex-convicts, sex offenders, people of very different ethnic and/or cultural heritages. Also the economic profiteers are in my eyes undesirable. The community, regardless of their ethnicity, should have the right to exclude these "wannabe immigrants".
I imagine it was a very harsh life for the gypsies when they lived as nomads. If someone from another ethnic/cultural heritage wished to joined them than that person certainly had a strong feeling of kinship with the gypsies and a love for them. There was absolutely no profiteering motive or "entitlement mentality" on the part of "outsiders" who wished to join their caravans and they didn't expect an easy life.
The "entitlement mentality" of certain groups that feel they're entitled to living quarters in ethnically monolithic areas and expect companies to fire workers under "affirmative action dictates" to hire them in order to meet the "quotas" is just wrong. It's the reversal of old school colonisation and every bit as bad and driven by amoral profiteering.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 9, 2014 23:44:15 GMT
Anna, there are so many statements you make that I simply don't recognise as being remotely true that it's hard to know how to respond.
In the first place liberalism means something entirely different to me from what it obviously does to you.
To me it's about freedom, tolerance and fairness; to you it's about imposing some weird kind of science fiction type of phoney equality, enforced myscegenation and so on.
I see conservatives and socialists as one side of the same authoritarian coin; liberals are the libertarian alternative to both.
Tolerance doesn't mean not taking stands for what you care about nor does fairness mean imposing some polyglot agenda on people.
Those are CONSERVATIVE or SOCIALIST ways of behaving and NOT liberal ones.
There is NO entitlement mentality in liberalism.
Conservatives think the privileged classes are 'entitled' to special treatment.
Socialists think that 'oppressed' classes are 'entitled' to special treatment.
Liberals believe in fairness towards everyone.
That's the difference.
Just as multiculturalism does NOT mean imposing values on other people so too nor does liberalism.
It's very tiring being confused with the PC mob!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 13, 2014 10:37:16 GMT
Here's multiculturalism in action and you get slapped and beaten if you say no to it!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2014 14:34:21 GMT
Very interesting thread.
Houston, where I live, is very multi-cultural. It probably because Houston is the petroleum capital of the world with most oil companies and engineering companies having offices and facilities here.
Restaurants are probably the most outward sign. Houston has an incredible variety of cuisine in all price ranges. When you're planning to go out for dinner, the first decision is what cuisine to choose. Within a few miles of my home, there are Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, South African, German, French, Turkish, Ethiopian, Indian, Spanish, Peruvian, Argentinian, and more Mexican restaurants than you can count. What better than a good meal to initiate a positive view of a particular culture?
Some years ago we vacationed in San Sebastian, which is in northwestern Spain's Basque region. That's an area famous for great restaurants. What I noticed though, is that almost all of those restaurants featured Basque food. They didn't have the international variety that we're so accustomed to in Houston.
Question for Lin: Is there such a thing as a well defined Gypsy cuisine? I don't recall ever having run across a Gypsy restaurant.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 3, 2015 16:40:18 GMT
Muhammed Ali spoke out against the "Multicultural Melting Pot" and Interracial Marriage.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 25, 2015 18:54:08 GMT
The multicultural melting pot mandates the elimination or destruction of all ethnicities by interbreeding. This is nothing more than repackaging of Marxist Communism and the Biblical Tower of Babel initiative.
It's understandable that people of all ethnicities resist this agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 25, 2015 21:28:46 GMT
The multicultural melting pot mandates the elimination or destruction of all ethnicities by interbreeding. This is nothing more than repacking Marxist Communism and the Biblical Tower of Babel initiative.
It's understandable that people of all ethnicities resist this agenda. That's just a total distortion of what multiculturalism is. In the first place that's NOT what it means; it's about mutual respect for diversity and individuality. Secondly it's got nothing to do with Marxism - I'm totally anti-Marxist as it happens but I support multiculturalism - and the Tower of Babel was before my time and in any case a myth rather than a historical fact. Now as someone who is a mixed-race person and who has married a white person so our kids are even more mixed race I find the whole idea either that people ARE or, more importantly, SHOULD be 'resisting interbreeding' - which is what you appear to be slagging off - because people are people. We are NOT separate species whether we're white, black, brown or various shades in between. We are all humans. Black, white, brown or whatever - we are all equally human and our offspring are equally capable of being healthy, well-adjusted and decent human beings. It's pure racism to regard 'interbreeding' as something bad; genetically speaking exogamy always results in a stronger strain than endogamy. I, speaking as a mixed race person who works hard to preserve both sides of my heritage and does the same with my children, find the whole idea that 'interbreeding' is necessarily bad or good. I also don't believe there's some kind of 'conspiracy' to make different ethnic groups interbreed; that idea is straight out of the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.' Most important of all, i see multiculturalism as a form of hope; it's about tolerance, mutual respect for our differences and all about mutual diversity without prejudice. Monoculturalism is about authoritarianism, intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. I oppose both positive and negative discrimination; I believe in maintaining indigenous cultures; but I also believe we can all learn from one another. The idea of some kind of weird conspiracy to force us all to become hybrids is straight out of the Nazi cookbook. It's insane and disgusting and totally false.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 25, 2015 22:47:49 GMT
Dearest Lin, You're a beautiful person and I love and care very much for you. It's great that you harmonise both sides of your heritage. You are a very strong and intelligent person and not everyone is capable of doing what you do. IMO gypsies are pretty well integrated in Europe despite some issues with poverty in Romania and other Southern European cities. I've never seen this, but my son visited a Roma community in Romania with his church group and helped them build a well. I don't think gypsies are a different race compared to say Irish anymore than Italians are.
My experience has been that all people who describe themselves as "biracial" or "mixed race" react or overreact very much to the topic of race. Only iamjumbo seems to be a notable exception among my internet friends and he doesn't betray hurt, conflict or hypersensitivity on this topic as far as I can see.
Multiculturalism doesn't lead to tolerance, but rather apathy and I would site Brazil as an example. Unwanted children are simply put out on the street to live with gangs in impoverished favelas or ghettos. Multiculturalism like the Tower of Babel replaces God with humanism, which is inherently by nature leftist liberal and also supported by industrial consumerism. It is driven by guilt complexes and the entitlement mentality. A dance macabre.
Attempts to abolish families in favor of Soviet Kolchoses have failed dismally. Multiculturalism is an attempt to destroy ethnic communities and it's failing miserably too.
Inbreeding would be incest and that's not the topic here.
Spike Lee may himself be of "mixed race" and my experience has been that these people are often especially critical of biracialism.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 12:13:49 GMT
Lin wrote:
It seems to me that no matter how clearly you put it, Lin, those who do not want to see it that way, will blind themselves. So ingrained is this racism in them. They will twist and turn the facts and reality around to support their own agenda(s). How many times have I seen you try and put the truth and what is actually fact out there and it has fallen on death ears? I have to admire you for keep on keeping on. Something that I just don't have the patience of anymore.
Those amongst us that are intelligent enough will see through the propaganda that a few insist on continuously posting about and that try to put out there as a reality. Instead of what it is, nonsense, and cleverly covered up issues of hate, that they themselves are drenched in.
|
|