Are you seriously suggesting that Mao didn’t talk a lot of bilge about peace, brotherhood and international solidarity? You know, all that noble sounding rot that progessives are always prattling about?
So someone’s direct personal experience is a myth? A myth? What an arrogant thing to say.
I suppose if I tell you that I had exactly the same experience you’ll tell me I was dreaming.
Who gives a crap about all that noble sounding rot? This isn’t a thread about peace and other concepts you’re hostile to; it’s a thread about multiculturalism. And Mao and Stalin were utterly hostile to the idea of multiculturalism: they wanted peace through the destruction of all opposing cultures. On this issue, you stand proudly beside them, not against them.
How many threats is that exactly? Over what time period? How many death threats do comparable people on the left get over similar time periods?
Does it bother you that you can’t make your points without shoddy reasoning?
One person’s experience doesn’t mean it’s a trend.
One hundred years ago did train conductors give instructions in multiple languages? Were ballots issued in languages other than English? Were students put in classes where English was not spoken?
Hell, 100 years ago teachers led prayers in the classroom. I’m against the latter and not sure about the former, but it is not true to say things are the same now.
Supporting multiculturalism means that you recognize there are different cultures and think they are valuable. But that goes both ways. For my own selfish reasons I want there to be Mexican, and Greek, and Tunisian, and Jamaican cultures so when I visit those countries I experience something new and different. But there are also English and American cultures as well, and those are also deserving of respect and have just as much right to be preserved. England would be a different country if some people queued at bus stops and others just elbowed their way to the front. America would be different if some day there were parts of it where we could not all do business in a common language that spans thousands of miles; there is no other country in the world where residents of such a large geographic area share a common, primary spoken language.
When I visit cities I gravitate to the ethnic enclaves and when I visit other countries I try and speak their language and observe their customs. On the other hand, when I visit a non-ethnic store or restaurant in the United States I want to be able to do my business in English. I don’t like the idea of creating language specific ghettos in the schools. I don’t support the idea of ballots in languages other than English. Speaking English is a requirement to be naturalized, and people born here should learn English.
Do you like the idea of creating language specific ghettos through the mechanism of the schools? Because when schools teach all subjects only in the local language, it takes kids about 1-3 years (IIRC) to become fluent enough that language doesn’t present a barrier to their learning of math, science, social studies, etc. And during those 1-3 years they fall behind their classmates in these subjects. As an alternative, if schools teach in a combination of the immigrant language and the local language, students can succeed in all subjects and take a little longer to become fluent in the local language. When they do become fluent, however, they’re not terribly behind their classmates.
I really want all students to get the best opportunity possible to succeed. That’s going to mean being practical, not doctrinaire, when it comes to educational opportunities.
Multiculturalism is the social equivalent of the free market. It offers society a variety of options that it might not otherwise have been aware of. Different cultures mix together and people can choose how to live their lives from different alternatives - presumably choosing the alternatives which they feel will give them the best life.
Monoculturalism is like a monopoly. You have to do things in a certain pattern regardless of whether or not that pattern works - it’s just the way people do it.
So a multicultural society is better than a monocultural one for the same reasons a free market economy is better than a planned economy - individuals are happier for having been able to select the alternatives which suited them best and society as a whole is better because it’s being run on the best options rather than the only available option.
A second advantage of multiculturalism is that it fosters a system of tolerating differences. People learn to live and work alongside other people who do things differently. They learn to accept the idea that just because somebody or something is different it doesn’t mean one way must be right and any other way is wrong.
And this is a social benefit because even in a monocultural society, individuals are going to have differences. But a monocultural society doesn’t have a system of accepting differences and this creates social strife when they inevitably appear.
I brought up Mao and Stalin because Der Trihs brought up Hitler, the point being that Hitlerizing a thread is every bit as silly as Stalinizing or Mao-izing a thread. There are far too many progs who arbitrarily link Hitler to any idea they don’t like.
And yeah, anyone who points out how moronic multiculturalism is must be very, very much against peace. :rolleyes:
And here you get another :rolleyes: . I believe people should be free to associate or not associate as they please without any manipulation or pressure from the state. Anyone who sees any similarity in that to Stalin and Mao is barking mad.
Considering the number President Obama gets, especially compared to what his predecessor got, I’d say you’re wrong.
Multiculturalism, is unavoidable. You know, you can live on the coast and be against hurricanes all you want, but if you don’t prepare for the eminent storm; you’re fucked.
So to me, it boils down to simple Darwinism. If you can’t adapt to your changing environment; you become irrelevant or a fossil so to speak.
Not the side of history I want to be on.
There is no reasonable doubt about this, Lobo. Palin gets death threats repeatedly, Ann Coulter can hardly make an appearance at a university without being threatened, the governor of Wisconsin got hundreds of death threats (many of them through Twitter), Republican state legislators in Wisconsin and their families have been threatened, the other day on the radio Neal Boortz read examples of the threatening email and letters he gets regularly … I could go on and on. If you’re really interested in cites, look 'em up yourself.
Meh. Cheap shot.
Some degree of diversity is unavoidable in any society above the most brutish tribal level. Obviously some degree of diversity simply has to be accepted, but at some point sooner or later diversity begins to undermine the sense of community. Multiculturalism, however, is a doctrine that denies basic facts about human nature.
I suspect you don’t understand Darwinism as well as you think you do.
Ya know, if you hate Multiculturalism so much perhaps you should just assimilate. That or sequester yourself away from all the horrible diversity.
Good point. If, as the OP claims, “there is almost dogma in Europe (especially in the mass-media) that multiculturalism is something everybody should strive for” then people would assimilate by being multicultural. Why should multiculturalists have to put up with monoculturalists living among them? Those monoculturalists should just learn to be multicultural like everyone else.
I’m sorry, in the universe based in reality the one making the assertion has to support it. How many death threats does Obama get? How many does Reed or Pilosi get? Find me comparable figures on the left and numbers of threats they get or retract your unsupported claim.
Here you make the standard conservative flaw in reasoning. *Stuff you heard about *isn’t necessarily a trend. If you hear about a welfare queen living high on government money, what matters if how many, if any, people are actually living like that. If .01% of people on welfare are abusing it work to fix that, but don’t just blindly cut it when 99.9% are using it for the right reasons.
I don’t bring my A game to refute the easy ones.
Do you not agree that if given long enough that “purebreds” (For lack of a better word) will be a thing of the past? If not, you need to brush up on your math skills.
Is a multicultural society definied by a bunch of monocultural people?
Of course not–only people who refer to peace in a list of “noble sounding rot.” Your words, not mine, earn you a snarky rejoinder. If you think peace is rot, then of course I’m going to say you’re hostile to it.
Oh yes, the three-headed monkey defense. I didn’t say you were with Stalin and Mao on every issue: I just said you stood with them in your opposition to multiculturalism. You, Stalin, and Mao all seem to think that your culture is far superior to all others and think that multiculturalism is a bourgeois (if you’re Mao) or liberal (if you’re Polecat) conceit. Of course you’re different from those two mass murderers in many ways; it’s just stupid to try to pretend you’re different from them on this one issue.
May I ask what planet people are living on that makes them think that multiple-culturalism in Europe is “dogma” that no one dares challenge.
On the planet I’m living on the PM of Germany and the former PM of the UK have both been extremely critical of multiculturalism The German PM specifically declared that multiculturalism had failed. I believe, though I’m not 100% sure that Sarkozy has also been extremely critical of it as well.
Furthermore, many newspapers in Europe are extremely critical of it and many political parties regularly excoriate it.
I’m sorry but the idea that multiculturalism is dogma that one dares not challenge in Europe is complete bullshit.
You might as well claim that Israel is a sacred cow that no one is allowed to criticize.