What is the ultimate goal of the multicultural movement?

Post Reply New Topic

^^

I take my hat off to you.

I think someone needs to post "the rules of discussion" again.

Last edited by Kjas on 17 Mar 2012, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So which non-White populations do you DEMAND 'mix' and 'blend' their countries out of existence,in the name of 'anti-racism',or are you ONLY Anti-White ?

Asians have Asian countries
Blacks have Black countries
but White countries for Everybody ?

Woah down cowboy....there is no need for this "either you for me or against me" kind of talk.
I agree there are racists and extremists of every race, but its not a non-white v's white problem. It is a humanity as a whole problem.
I just dont understand why humans feel the need to divide themselves into smaller and smaller groups...just does not make sense to me.
But as far as the race relations go....respect for both white and other races would go alot farther to solve this problem than polarizing yourself from other humans based on something so trivial as the pigmentation of one's skin. I has seen much evil done by whites as I seen by blacks and latinos, no race seems to be exempt from the insanity of hate, but the cure is not more hate, but respect on all sides.

as far as code words, you are on an aspie website. We dont speak in code.
You are clearly reading too much into what people say.

Wake up people!

" "Anti-racist" is just code for "anti-White" " is just code for "I have bizarre delusions that all white people feel solidarity with me even though I am a loser!"

It is true in England though that white people who make offensive statements are sometimes treated more harshly than Muslims would be for similar offences.

Yep

which is code for "I am brainwashed by hate media."

I think it has more to do with the stereotype of us being more offensive, we just try that much harder to overcome it.

It's also worth saying that thanks to colonialism and the creation of the commonwealth, people from exotic locations the world over and different races educated in British schools with commands over the English language greater than your own also immigrate freely around it. E.g, my high school English teacher, who was Indian, educated in Haiti then England, and taught me in Canada. Well, I mean what's relevant here is colonialism . . .

Races have historically mixed against people's will, in ways that didn't benefit all the parties involved . . . but the racial mixing really had nothing to do with the negative effects, it was really more of a cultural/economic domination thing. Racial superiority was defined by cultural superiority, on such unfair measurements as command over Western knowledge and the English language and interest in Western culture and religion . . . nowadays calling Western culture superior has been established as somewhat unfounded, but even so, non white people are occasionally more adept along these measurements than actual white people . . . suggesting that all details of culture and upringing are completely separate from race.

As another example, my English teacher had an Indian heritage, but she was raised in as if she were alternately Haitian, and British, and now she is Canadian. Race is also a completely separate consideration from nation and identity. She certainly meets the terms of belonging to any of these countries, measured by any objective qualities. Racially, she's incidentally not white.

Humans aren't dogs, that need to be bred carefully to preserve particular kinds . . . actually in the case of dogs, that tends to lead to defects and all sorts of stuff . . . but anyways, people have freedom to do as they please, unlike dogs, and we respect the personhood of people, unlike dogs. And when we try to regulate the way humans breed, the effect reeks of neo-nazis, Aryan justifications for the holocaust, genocides, racial segregation, gross human rights violations, oppression . . . because those things have all happened, with similar justifications. Their common link is that they all overlook the personhood of all people, and are grounded in the pseudo-science-y hokeyness of fearing the negative consequences of interbreeding.

Multicultural places tend to be more refined,sophisticated, and awesome. E.g., Toronto, New York, England, Hawaii. This in itself seems to refute what you fear the consequences of intermixing will be. In the US and Canada, there are plenty of small towns that have successfully segregated themselves, but driving through them is a bleak tragedy. They're like, Hicksville. They even vote Republican/Conservative.

Umm, I think we should carry this thread without any more references to the unfashionable ideals underlying Eugenics, as their inescapable associations with the colonial slave trade, the Holocaust, and other genocides should really be good enough reasons to be mistrustful of them. A discussion on multiculturalism really doesn't have to wander into these realms.

The problem with "multiculturalism" is that a society is ultimately a collection of people who share similar values, when you then import a bunch of additional people who have a completely different set of values, the very foundation of society is eroded. Furthermore, the European social democracy is based on a large degree of trust amongst inhabitants in order for the welfare system to work. Currently in my country we have a lot of immigration which is fine if said immigrants have labor or knowledge we require, however not so much if said immigrant essentially comes directly from an agrarian society and has never seen a phone or computer before.

Furthermore, there is a challenge vis a vis things like freedom of speech, gender equality and a few other values that we in the west tend to hold highly. An example would be the Muhammed drawings which resulted in threats towards our state from extremist Muslims living inside the country because the government refused to suppress free speech.

This is not about assimilation, this is about telling someone "Ok, you are in X country now, we don't care where you came from, but here these are the laws and you have to follow them and these are our values, you don't have to like them, but you have to tolerate them. It's not an issue of race, its an issue of cultural values and law.

There was a funny situation a few years ago, where a person went on a rant about how bad the country was and how if it didn't change it's path his supporters would kill one of our politicians. A person took offense to number one and said "If you don't like the country, go back to where you came from" and number 2 was treated more harshly than number 1.

Im actually visiting Toronto in a couple of weeks, and I'm sure it's awesome and I definitely don't think I will be disappointed, and the multicultural aspect I'm sure is part of what makes it great, I know I really dug Vancouver's multiculturalism, but personally, I wouldn't want the entire world to be like Toronto or Los Angeles or New York City.

IMO, North America is a different case than the Old World. The Old World has long-standing cultural, geographically based traditions that ARE indigenous in exactly the same way that the Native American cultures that were mostly destroyed by contact and colonisation were. In Latin America, the native culture basically fused with the European and African migrants into something new, so that's also a different case than the US and Canada.

Because North America's traditional cultures and people were tragically destroyed centuries ago (not completely but yeah), it's formed more or less a 'clean slate' where no group of people has any more right to be there than the next. It's also the same with Australia. The silver lining of this, is that it creates a very fertile ground for multiculturalism that doesn't work nearly as well in places where indigenous cultures, which include 'white' cultures in Europe, are still strong.

In Europe, Asia and Africa, it's different though. Keep in mind, I'm not a nationalist, I'm a localist. But - the Netherlands, for example, has been Dutch for a long time, well over a thousand years (even if they didn't identify as such exactly until the rise of nationalism). So, while I do consider Geert Wilders and his like pricks, the Dutch are perfectly within their rights to fear their culture being overran and in my opinion they do have the right to expect people who move to their country to at least learn their language.

Multiculturalism will cause Europeans either to be minorities in their own countries among people who have a culture incompatible to their own, or more likely, the culture will simply become a generic Americanised blend of everything without the soul of any of the original ingredients, and Dutch (or fill in the blank for any old world country) culture will be totally forgotten and extinct.

And yes, there is a double standard. I'm no 'white nationalist' but it IS true that because of white guilt, we do not expect African, Asian and Middle Eastern cultures to be pluralistic, because the term 'diverse' has more or less become synonymous with nonwhite. I however expect that eventually, if multiculturalism continues to be popular, it will spread to the rest of the world and the result likely will be a very generic America-like blend of everything with none of the substance of anything.

You should visit more of England before you claim it's "awesome". Northern England would be a good start.

His own statements debunk your claim that he believes all white people feel solidarity with him.

If you're going to make the argument that whites are experiencing genocide then you should probably leave Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA out of it.

Yeah making the claim of genocide is pretty ridiculous. Though I think there is a movement, mostly by guilty white people actually, to 'punish' white people collectively for their 'sins'. It's all pretty bizarre to me and in its own way, it's kind of backhandedly racist too.