Cultural Enrichment

When did this multiculturalism start. As far as I can tell premulticulturalism tribes were being eliminated by nation states.

And tribalism is already gone, taken care of by those nations.

Gangs are sort of like small armies. So we can then place this in a context of large armies, like the ones that have been playing checkers with the Middle East for centuries. Why is this not seen as multiculturalism? Why haven’t the people who complain about multiculturalism complained about, say, US foreign policy in Latin America, where US culture and desires were imposed on other cultures? Why do the anti-multiculturalists generally defend, say, the coloniztion of North America by Europeans, even though this was the mixing of cultures, the domination of other cultures and involved rape also. It’s like multiculturalism is OK as long as our team does it, but if it involves felafel stands in my neighborhood it is a crime.

Because all this really boils down to is ‘the globalised capitalist world makes me feel dislocated, alienated, and desperate for a sense of identity. Since I am white, and that’s not going to change, I’m going to make that my identity, and be racist in the name of protecting that sense of identity’. Basically, weakness+stupidity+lack of sense of self = opposition to what we call multiculturalism.

Start those threads. The OP has clearly shown in what direction he wishes to take this. You seem to be insisting on one particular facet of the subject besides it not being the one that has been put up for discussion here.

I’m residing in a mono-culture, and its dull. I like variety a tastes. It’s just that some taste better than others.

Two of the worst being American pop-culture and Islam.

Unlike the OP, I’m not so egotistical I feel the need to start a new thread in order to try to make one point in an argument from another thread.

A racist one?

And heaven forbid anyone disagree with the opening post in a thread and take a thread in a direction that actually, y’know, bears some relation to reality rather than just being the expression of racism.

The very fact you think that ‘Islam’ is just one taste is pretty daft…

I had trouble getting exactly what your view was here. I think it is meant as critical of the view presented, but I am not sure.

I have many concerns about globalization and the centralization of power. But some of this is inevitable given changes in technology. People are going to mix more, regardless of what power is doing behind the scenes. And many people will want to interact beyond their categories. We do this.

The kind of historyless hatred in Fent’s posts, with no acknowledgement of anyone’s crimes but those with darker skins or the wrong religion, is doing a lot of damage. It implies that that answer is to hate and separate out people who are less human than us, which is much easier than dealing with those with actual power.

I get the sense you have some agreement at least with this, but I couldn’t quite place your post.

If you can’t figure out that I’m critical of the view presented on this thread then, well, I don’t know what to tell you. I would have thought from all my posts that much was abundantly clear.

I don’t consider these people, however terrible their crimes, to be less human. If anything they are Human, all too Human. Dehumanising them is just one way of trying to deny that the capacity to do such horrible things is within all of us. Sexual consent does not really exist in the animal kingdom - if a horse sees a lady horse he likes, he will try to fuck it. He won’t go through some charade of promising the lady horse a bigger stable and a higher quality saddle and some exotic brand of grass. He’ll just try to fuck it.

That is not to trivialise rape, or at least that is not my intention. I’m just saying that applying such tags does nothing to confront and deal with the problem, it’s a psychological coping mechanism - we file these people under ‘less human’ or ‘inhuman’ and therefore give ourselves a reason not to think about them and the terrible things they did, and the possible reasons they did them.

There you go. You freely admit to changing the direction in favour of this “reality.” Ironic considering you claim to not be the egoist here.

Besides that, I’m still interested to hear your explanation of these rapes in “relation to reality.”

I’ll concede to that.

Yeah, I got it, just being cautious assuming.

I suppose I sort of agree. I certainly agree that that stuff is in me also. And seems to be there tucked away in other people also.

I don’t need to weigh in on what these men’s crimes were or what it says about them to point out that ‘we’ have treated entire nations of people as less than human in the kinds of ways that go into the rape mindset. Fent is using these incidents to reinforce a hatred, and keeps the whole thing out of any context that might humble the act of dehumanizing whole groups of humans.

Actually, multiculturalism does’t become a ‘policy’ until the 1970s. Furthermore, there are quite a number of programs of ‘positive’ discrimination today in favour of Aboriginals.
I wonder if you’d be equally condemning other countries/tribes/groups/peoples that have invaded others over the past few thousand years? Or is it only when whitey does it that it becomes a problem?

Actually, it boils down to letting who we want in the country. And a large population of Muslims in a non-Muslim country is potentially a recipe for disaster.Most religions and ways of life fit into Australia quite well. It’s only the Muslims that seem to have problems with it. Whether they can be re-educated into the 21st century and out of 7th century barbarism is the issue.

This Muslim problem isn’t even really a racial issue, it’s more cultural than anything. You’ve only deemed it racist because that’s what trendy lefties like yourself have been trained to say when white people have an opinion about others that don’t happen to be white. If you think whites are the only racists around, then you’d be ignorant. Do you know what the Japanese think of the Koreans, and those of Southern Asia? How about the Turks and the Kurds? But let me guess, racism is only a problem when whitey does it. Maybe you like to hang out in south-western Sydney for a while with ‘lebs’ and see where your trendy tolerance gets you. Give it a go, I’d really like to hear about how that experiment goes

This coming from a white Australian - :laughing:

Define ‘a large population of Muslims’.

Wow, like, it had literally never occurred to me before that non-white people could be racist. What a revelation!

Fuck off.

I see. You have nothing. You know I am right in that Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy. Whether you’re honest enough to admit this is another question.

Incompatible? That has been said at different times about all immigration. It’s far from perfect, but history has basically proven the multiculturalists right on that one. Particularly when the incoming culture has superior food and brings with it its fair share of pretty girls.

We don’t live in liberal democracies. Basically, your argument is everything you’ve been fed about nationalism, regurgitated without reflection. It’s also extremely funny to hear a white Australian complaining about immigration. Just like it’s funny to hear one lot of West African immigrants complaining about another lot of West African immigrants, or to hear British Pakistanis complaining about British Indians. A sense of tribal identity is quite natural and in most ways no bad thing, but mix it with globalised politics and you’ve got a recipe for some extremely silly conversations. Like the one you’re having with the person you assume that I am but in reality I am not.

:laughing:

Nationalism doesn’t play too much of a role in this problem at all. (Even if it did, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it). The issue is one of crime and a 7th century mindset. The Chinese, Indians, and most other people can fit in, but why not the Muslims?

Europe spent a considerable amount of time trying to separate the church and state, however, with Muslims, Islam is all-encompassing: It is political in nature and has little time for negative freedom. It is pre-modern in the sense in that its honour to Allah’s laws override all secular concerns. Import too many people with this mindset and huge social problems ensure.

You do realise that of the millions of Muslims in the West, those who became gang rapists are very much in the minority, don’t you? And that non-Muslim immigrants (and even - SHOCK HORROR - white people in the West) can also become gang rapists?

No. Oh, OK then…

I think you’ll find a lot of Muslims are more pragmatic about the stringent nature of many of Islam’s rules than you’re giving them credit for being. But it is a problem, how to mature Muslim culture in the West. I just think you’re choosing a particular stupid, thuggish and racist way of going about talking about it, which is doomed to fail. You’re just saying ‘it’s a problem, it’s a big problem, and they should all just fuck off somewhere else’, and grasping at any of the same, tired old defences of racist arguments that you can hear in any pub in any part of the world. It really isn’t very interesting, you’re telling me nothing I haven’t heard a million times before in a Murdoch-owned tabloid. Ironic, really, that Murdoch, an arch-globalist propagandist, spreads monocultural nationalism in all the different countries where he owns newspapers…

Holland never bombed Morocco, or Turkey, that did not stop enormous quantities of muslims from these countries from coming to work here.

Bombing is not the cause of imigration - work opportunity, money is.

False dichotomy - both are realities.
Such is the nature of man, he wants to conquer, and simply has no faculties to respect what he does not recognize as valuable.

The etiquette “human” is a great way of circumventing this problem - we can just pretend to recognize other members of our species by attributing some “human qualities” to them, falsely or not, but neither Nato commanders nor Imams have any business with this solution.

I was in the process of reading about the conquerings of Mohammed, when I found this beautiful piece of history:

“In the Hadith of Bohhari (1:282) it is written that at one point Mohammed had nine wives. As a prophet he had received this right in a revelation from God.”

The logic is awesome.

Come on SIATD. You can relativize things by saying that it’s really the fault of the west only to a point. I don’t think that Mohammed was a double agent for the CIA. I don’t think that if Nato would stop bombing muslims, they would stop reading the noble Qur’an.

Define ‘enormous quantities’.

I think reducing immigration to a single cause is nonsense, and I’m sure you agree. I’m just saying, if we left the Muslim world alone then there’d probably be less Muslim immigration to the West. We facilitated such immigration - we globalised ‘free trade’ so would get our hand on oil, and shipping routes, and for other reasons too.

I’m not sure Muslims are trying to take over the West, or indeed that NATO is trying to take over Muslim countries. No one wants to conquer anymore, it’s all about geopolitical influence these days. So I don’t think either are necessarily realities. I certainly don’t accept that this is ‘the nature of man’.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

It is, yes, but no more awesome than plenty of other religious traditions. I see medieval values in a lot of modern cultures - look at China for fuck’s sake, and yet people don’t complain about the Chinese so much because, as I believe I have made clear, they brought pretty girls and superior food with them. Muslims try to keep their pretty girls to themselves and there’s the whole fashion dispute too, and there are plenty of non-Muslims who also make very good curry.

HOWEVER, we were cheering that Muslim lad in the running the other day as much as we cheered any of our homegrown whitey athletes. So when people talk of fundamental incompatibility I think they’re kidding themselves. Are these challenges, which I’m not in any way denying the existence of, not the same that we’ve always faced? It isn’t surprising, geographically speaking and economically speaking, that they are the particular version that we’re looking at right now. The Muslim world starts on the other side of the Med, which is barely even a sea. It’s more just a trade route for ships (particularly after the building of the Suez canal). At one point, the Muslims controlled most of the Med. To remember a Europe without Muslims means going back a fairly long way, it’s not exactly a new phenomena.

I’m not relativising, I’m just pointing out a few things. I’m not seeking to apologise for Muslims or justify immigration, I’m just trying to be realistic about what’s actually happened in the world.

Depends on which Mohammed you’re talking about. There are an awful lot of Mohammeds. It’s one of those things that amuses me when they publish the ‘most popular name’ lists and Mohammed is sometimes top. It gives people this impression of there being a vast proportion of Muslims when in fact it’s just that 9 out of every 10 Muslims calls their son Mohammed. It’s that sort of misconception that the BNP thrives upon.

Probably not. The Qur’an is a bit like the Batman films, I must admit. There’s not much in there that is a recipe for a good society.