codarac wrote:
91 wrote:
russell wrote:
^ I see nothing wrong about wanting to maintain the integrity of separate cultures, so we don't just all follow the same mindless MTV-pop-culture parade.
By culture you mean race right, ? I see a major problem, I see no value in what you are saying and I'm a social conservative. Are you saying you prefer a world where I cannot be with someone, simply due to their race?
I don't see russell suggesting applying a policy to the entire world.
Here's a question. If America goes several more decades without solving the race problem and becoming truly post-racial, how would you feel, in theory, about the country fragmenting into: one territory for Whites, one territory for Blacks, territories for Native American tribes, and a multiracial territory for anyone who wanted to live there?
Umm.. This already exists Dosent it? In practice rather than law. The problem is obvious though, what happens to the one who wants to move between them?
I think by culture we aqre thanking race, at least here in this thread. Russell has yet to illustrate why his idea is such a good one. When it did exist in the South, so many people considered it a massive shame on the United States. The economy of the South has spent the better part of a century attempting to remain backward rather than professing.
The question of racial tolerance is not one a state can afford to answer incorrectly. I grew up in a small country town, I know how entrenched racism can be, but even there I never saw someone of any intelligence recommend that people should be legally divided along such lines.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
12 Dec 2010, 7:34 pm
