Originally posted by Vienna
So it's logical to say that the whites are in actual fact the minority and are the oppressed.
MULTICULTURISM or INVASION????
You perceive acceptance of other cultures as an invasion, yet I don't doubt that if people of your ethnicity moved to a country that was not where a majority of them were born, and they were not accepted with open arms, you would be the first to cry "foul". Your statements seem to project rather a racist bias.
Originally posted by Vienna
At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London. The demographics show that white people in London will become a minority by 2010, and we could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.
Even if there was no influx of ethnic minorities into London, it wouldn't make "white" people breed faster. Currently, the "white" birth rate is in decline, so regardless of who is moving in, "white" people in London are reducing their numbers on their own. Even if there was zero immigration and emigration, instead of becoming a minority, "white" populations would simply decline to the point where there is no longer a suitable number of people to maintain a healthy gene pool.
Originally posted by Vienna
Every people under the sun have a right to their place under the sun, and the right to survive.
Yes, but there is no mandate for people to reproduce. You seem to be confusing the two.
Originally posted by Vienna
If people predicted that Indians would be a minority in India in 2100, everyone would be calling it genocide.
If Indians were becoming a minority in India due to slow or negative reproduction rates it would not be "genocide", just the way the population trend was going. This is the current situation in London, so why should the analysis be any different?
Originally posted by Vienna
Can anyone give an example where multiculturalism in this world is flourishing?
Interesting, you craft the question so that you can impose your subjective definition of "flourishing" once someone submits an example. Nevertheless, multiculturalism flourishes almost everywhere, since almost every population on the planet is composed of different ethnic groups, and most of these people go about their daily lives peacefully. Frankly, most of the examples you give are not of multiculturalism not working, but situations in which two or more ethnic groups do not apply the principles of multiculturalism. In fact, in most of the scenarios you describe this is readily apparent, and in the few left, your examples are not even valid. See analysis below.
Originally posted by Vienna
Here are some examples where "multiculturalism" is NOT flourishing
Rwanda (Hutus & Tutsis)
Zimbabwe and South Afrika (Whites & Blacks)
Balkans (Split along religious, ethnic and cultural lines)
Northern Ireland (Sectarian tensions)
Indonesia (Separatist Muslims in Aceh and Ambon attack Christians)
Singapore (Chinese minority attacked)
Israel and Palestine (Land dispute between two cultures)
Tensions in these cases are primarily caused by ethnic groups attempting to stay disparate, neither willing to accept the other, i.e. not attempting to even practice the ideas of multiculturalism.
Also, it's spelled "Africa", a rather egregious error for one so keen on pointing out spelling mistakes.
Originally posted by Vienna
United States, Australia and United Kingdom and other western nations (Ethnic separatism on the increase)
No proof provided, and I don't think you'll be able to find any from a reputable source either.
Originally posted by Vienna
India and Pakistan (Kashmir dispute and religious tensions)
What's the root of this conflict? Separatism. Those who shared certain beliefs separated from India to form Pakistan, and thus, any disputes between these two countries can be traced back to this division. Again, not a failure of multiculturalism, but a failure to apply its ideas.
Frankly, your posts read more like a "debate training dummy" than a serious platform. You over generalize, make numerous logical fallacies, misinterpret data, and make practically every debate mistake possible. You might want to try harder next time, or simply give up if you are not willing to put forth the effort. Also, I note that when evidence is presented that contradicts your ideas, you quietly abandon them, rather than admit defeat. Rather mature. (
For the humorless, that was a use of sarcasm.)
Originally posted by Craig Smith
Multiculturalism asks that one accept different cultures/races IN THE SAME SPACES or same political spaces. Your "post" is a sidestep of the issue.
How exactly does my post sidestep that issue?
Originally posted by Craig Smith
Further, "multiculturalism" will produce one world race and thus reduce diversity dramatically.
Multiculturalism only asks that one simply accept different cultures. Who you breed with is your own choice.
You stated that multiculturalism will produce one world race. I stated that multiculturalism does not dictate whom one should breed with, just that one accept other cultures. No "sidestepping", or "sleight of hand", I simply pointed out your incorrect assertion.
Originally posted by Craig Smith
Second, your definition of globalism is not universally accepted.
Nothing is universally accepted. However, those publishing
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language support "my" definition. What do you have to support your assertion that the definition I posted is flawed?
Originally posted by Craig Smith
Third, rate of posting and thinking differs among users. It might be too much for some and too little for others, but where I come from, generating a few pages of articulate text is not considered a time-consuming labor.
That strikes me as odd for two reasons:
1.) I doubt that all of your posts combined would fill one page if it was composed of single-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman text. You seem to simply blurt out a malformed idea in a sentence or two, and consider it a "post".
2.) Correct grammar and incorrect arguments do not combine to make an articulate post.
