Multiculturalism the known good
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
I think it was probably during colonial times. Apostasy has never been punished before the 1800s - I could only find one historical incidence of a fine during the Ottoman reign
Sure.
People are always separated by identity - until they are not
So has it been good for the whites since the Irish became white? How does it feel to know that the Irish were once treated like that?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
From France to Germany, from Austria to Holland, in the new spirit of pride in one's cultural and historical identity, the main parties now find it acceptable to stress that immigrants are guests who have to accommodate themselves to the cultural values that define the host society - "it is our country, love it or leave it" is the message.
Progressive liberals are, of course, horrified by such populist racism. However, a closer look reveals how their multicultural tolerance and respect of differences share with those who oppose immigration the need to keep others at a proper distance. "The others are OK, I respect them," the liberals say, "but they must not intrude too much on my own space. The moment they do, they harass me - I fully support affirmative action, but I am in no way ready to listen to loud rap music."
What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others.
The contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics? This leads us to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of the Other deprived of its Otherness - the decaffeinated Other.
The mechanism of such neutralisation was best formulated back in 1938 by Robert Brasillach, the French fascist intellectual, who saw himself as a "moderate" anti-semite and invented the formula of reasonable anti-semitism.
"We grant ourselves permission to applaud Charlie Chaplin, a half Jew, at the movies; to admire Proust, a half Jew; to applaud Yehudi Menuhin, a Jew; ... We don't want to kill anyone, we don't want to organise any pogrom. But we also think that the best way to hinder the always unpredictable actions of instinctual anti-semitism is to organise a reasonable anti-semitism."
Is this same attitude not at work in the way our governments are dealing with the "immigrant threat"? After righteously rejecting direct populist racism as "unreasonable" and unacceptable for our democratic standards, they endorse "reasonably" racist protective measures.
Or, as today's Brasillachs, some of them even Social Democrats, tell us: "We grant ourselves permission to applaud African and east European sportsmen, Asian doctors, Indian software programmers. We don't want to kill anyone, we don't want to organise any pogrom. But we also think that the best way to hinder the always unpredictable violent anti-immigrant defensive measures is to organise a reasonable anti-immigrant protection."
This vision of the detoxification of one's neighbour suggests a clear passage from direct barbarism to barbarism with a human face. It reveals the regression from the Christian love of one's neighbour back to the pagan privileging of our tribe versus the barbarian Other.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/07/26/3030861.htm
I blame liberals for all of this. If they had addressed issues of immigration, assimilation and integration in advance you wouldn't be seeing this right-wing backlash. Europe has always been tolerant and progressive, if not because of Hitler's Germany.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
The Irish were treated like dirt. You say people are separate by identity until they are not. Are you suggesting that the muslim population will eventually assimilate? Integrate in such a way as they become more secular and identify with the host society? Because this is what they are being asked to do.
"A key is provided by the reactions of the European right to Breivik's attack: its mantra was that in condemning his murderous act, we should not forget that he addressed "legitimate concerns about genuine problems" – mainstream politics is failing to address the corrosion of Europe by Islamicisation and multiculturalism, or, to quote the Jerusalem Post, we should use the Oslo tragedy "as an opportunity to seriously re-evaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere". The newspaper has since apologised for this editorial. (Incidentally, we are yet to hear a similar interpretation of the Palestinian acts of terror, something like "these acts of terror should serve as an opportunity to re-evaluate Israeli politics".)
A reference to Israel is, of course, implicit in this evaluation: a "multicultural" Israel has no chance to survive; apartheid is the only realistic option. The price for this properly perverse Zionist-rightist pact is that, in order to justify the claim to Palestine, one has to acknowledge retroactively the line of argumentation which was previously, in earlier European history, used against the Jews: the implicit deal is "we are ready to acknowledge your intolerance towards other cultures in your midst if you acknowledge our right not to tolerate Palestinians in our midst".The tragic irony of this implicit deal is that, in the European history of last centuries, Jews themselves were the first "multiculturalists": their problem was how to survive with their culture intact in places where another culture was predominant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/anders-behring-breivik-pim-fortuyn
Last edited:
Lucy there is reason I believe what I do . It is all the N.G.O.s in Haiti . Foreign N.G.O.s Not one of them asked the Haitians what they wanted , I think that is a crime against humanity my dear . It brakes my fucking heart . I listen to the Haitians with excitement for there future . What I never forget and what can't forget because of my own robbed future is that it is there future not some N.G.O.s from France or Switzerland . I don't get it Life makes no fucking sense to Me . It is all talk and no action . Fuck it you know what I am a man of action .
I am learning talking is fun though . kisses Lucy I am glad you give your insight . You are a thinking person and that I admire
I am learning talking is fun though . kisses Lucy I am glad you give your insight . You are a thinking person and that I admire
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Thanks Me-Ki-Gal
you want to talk about the Irish and how they corrupted and assimilated by Christianity . How they Had there own culture until the Roman empire assimilated them into the white mans ways. I think some of them still rebel to this day ( Witches that love May Day and don't see Me as a curse, I know there has to be one old Witch out there that has carried the remnants of the old promise of the seed and knows exactly what I am talking about , Holy Rood Baby In the Flesh . Walk thew the fire ) Where was I . I don't know . Lucy it don't matter that no body is Christian any more . The point is what is done has been done and revenge is human nature . It don't go away as much as we want to wish it away . It passes generation to generation and until there is retribution there will never be peace cause the victims families will reak revenge until they get it . It is sad cause it is an over reactive world. That is the sad part .
Isis, the mother of fertility, reassembled Osiris...and the cross has symbolized...hmm, sun-gods...my brain is turning into oatmeal...
The vast majority of immigrants do that, why should this wave be that much different? Unless they are made second-class citizens by discrimination or something.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
No I want to know if this is what Sam had in mind when she stated that people are separated by identity until they are not.
Sure. In fact if you look back 60 years you'll find that the question of assimilation of Muslims in Europe was a non-sequitor because at the time most Muslim immigrants were from wealthy educated and cosmopolitan families. The difference today is that many immigrants are the refugee-poverty-labour class and like the Irish, its a matter of moving up in society - the "alcoholic" Irish opened Irish pubs and the Americans integrated into their drinking culture - who would stand today in the Bronx and say out loud that the Irish are less than Americans?
PS I'm supposedly cooking at the moment so I'll read your articles and get back on them later
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I agree with this assessment. I do believe that the problem is the class of immigrants. I also think the brouhaha over the Danish-Swedish cartoons added a lot of stress to the situation.
And it is an issue that needs to be addressed with philosophical precision, if we are to get any clarity on it.
The modern multicultural situation and the challenges it presents shows that basing one's identity in either one's citizenship, nationality, race/color of skin, religion, worldview, background culture, sex/gender, age, socio-economic class, group membership or a combination of them, does not grant a safe sense of identity.
There was a time and place when basing one's identity on those things was enough, but this is not the case anymore.
I think that the liberals are not to blame for this. Like I said earlier, the Law generally doesn't address issues until they appear and are urgent and important enough.
- and many people are uncomfortable to talk about this, to the point that they come up with all kinds of rationalizations.
Nobody likes poor people - whether they are fellow citizens, or foreigners.
Oh very good articles both!!!! Thanks for the links I will follow this guy even though I cannot pronounce his name! How do you say Slavoj Zizek?
Yeah pretty good analysis of current mainstream culture in the west, I think I have touched upon some of the points he made - with regard to intolerance from the left of political rhetoric and religious ideology and the anti-right syndrome - I find his description of the culture of "the right not to be harassed" something that is epiphanic with me.
I like this:
We've seen an example of his Roma analogy in the London riots with Cameron threatening eviction of the households of adolescents involved in the fracas [and the resulting Gustav episode on sciforums]
He says:
But I say, is that what is behind the Swiss minaret controversy or the rise in popularity of Geert Wilders? One cannot "tolerate" something that one is in agreement with, the simple basis of tolerance [you go your way while I go my way and we agree to disagree] is difference of opinion. Where is the difference of opinion in the European approach to Islam or Muslims? Are they ALL not camping at the doorsteps of Muslim countries literally dying to bring democrazy to the masses? So "tolerance" is not the word I would use here
Further
Again I disagree. Like we discussed earlier, 60 years ago there was no question of assimilation of Muslims in western society - actually historically if you go to see, there has never been any issue of assimilation of Muslims in any society - and if "they" were more like "us" in the climate today, most people wouldn't really care [see the complete lack of dialogue on the same issue in the United States where the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are wealthy and/or educated and ask yourself why there is no real issue of Muslim assimilation there]. The issue is actually one of class and resembles more the treatment of the Irish labour in the US rather than the treatment of Jews in pre-WW Europe - we did not see this ghettoisation of Muslims in Europe until the immigrant class dropped to the refugee/poverty/laboour class.
More:
I'm not entirely convinced about this either but I haven't figured out why yet.
If you wish to know the cause and effect of multiculturalism, all you need to do is look at a family. What brings them all closer is what they have in common, such as their name and shared memories. What causes the children and/or parents to fight and the family to dissociate is where they differ in priorities. Multiculturalism is caters to where they differ leading to how they dissociate; dah. The idea of the melting pot, was to help create a common name, which is how you bring a social familty together.
The melting pot is like a stew. If you try to add all the ingredients in the same proportions it will taste like crap. There are certain main ingredients and pinches of other ingredients that will add flavor. You don't add as many pounds of salt as beef or nobody will eat the stew; dissociation.
The same liberal social policies that were able to dissociate the strongest social unit or the family is also at work in the social arena dissociating cultures, using a very similar template. They want the last ingredients addedt to the stew to have center stage; over salt.
If I was invited to a party, it would be rude for me to think I should be controlling the party, treating the host like I deserve to be boss. A guest is suppose to be appreciative and will try to contribute to the limelight of the host. But the liberal way is to have the guests, even those not formally invited to complain about the menu. The reality is, if you want to be a host of a party, you will need to foot the bill. The host is not a parasite but a provider.
Relative to cultures, those who assimulate to the host country are the acceptable guests. Once they are self sufficient within the melting pot and can thrown their own party, then as this new host they can influence the stew. This is based on enhancing the stew since it was the base. You don't go to the party empty handed and think it is your right to tell the host what to do. That will lead to dissociation. Noboby, even liberals, want salt stew, since it is the beef that has made this stew possible.
The melting pot is like a stew. If you try to add all the ingredients in the same proportions it will taste like crap. There are certain main ingredients and pinches of other ingredients that will add flavor. You don't add as many pounds of salt as beef or nobody will eat the stew; dissociation.
The same liberal social policies that were able to dissociate the strongest social unit or the family is also at work in the social arena dissociating cultures, using a very similar template. They want the last ingredients addedt to the stew to have center stage; over salt.
If I was invited to a party, it would be rude for me to think I should be controlling the party, treating the host like I deserve to be boss. A guest is suppose to be appreciative and will try to contribute to the limelight of the host. But the liberal way is to have the guests, even those not formally invited to complain about the menu. The reality is, if you want to be a host of a party, you will need to foot the bill. The host is not a parasite but a provider.
Relative to cultures, those who assimulate to the host country are the acceptable guests. Once they are self sufficient within the melting pot and can thrown their own party, then as this new host they can influence the stew. This is based on enhancing the stew since it was the base. You don't go to the party empty handed and think it is your right to tell the host what to do. That will lead to dissociation. Noboby, even liberals, want salt stew, since it is the beef that has made this stew possible.
I wish people(everywhere) would just drop the fallacious concept of race. It isn't even technically correct. A race is defined, in biology, as two subgroups within a species who don't interbreed. There isn't a single human "race" which comes even close to fitting that definition. Beyond that, the genetic differences between the two races are so minuscule that they can be safely disregarded as being relatively unimportant.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
That is solely your singular opinion, the fact is that most people for a long time have based their identity, if not partly, on all of those things and more. Without those things I would say that one can easily be sure that they wouldn't need an identity because they would be dead. What you mean to say, and I know this from your fascination with this subject in other threads, is that you do not feel a safe sense of identity based on this criteria. I would go so far as to say pretending to deny these as part of identity is a form of spiritual nihilism.
Signal: - and many people are uncomfortable to talk about this, to the point that they come up with all kinds of rationalizations.Nobody likes poor people - whether they are fellow citizens, or foreigners.
Actually its not simply that they are poor per se but because they are poor they are more likely to cling to cling to superstition and the lowest interpretations of their religion, shy away from integration. they are less likely to follow higher education and more likely to remain on the social welfare system and for some groups engage in crime. The Polish for example have gone to many other EU countries poor but they tend to fair better even as others complain that they take away manual labor jobs. They come from a better educational background, are your standard catholics and unlikely to remain on the dole.
Last edited: