Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sandman
Don't you believe history is composed of repeating 'generations', Odin? How is that different from Marxism?

I think there are cyclical changes in the mood of a country that creates the appearance of generations with repeating sets of collective personalities. There are tons of theories about cyclical historical trends so I don't see how that is controversial.

The main beef I have with Marxism is that I find Marxist historical theory to be simplistic and somewhat teleological. I adhere to Marxian economic theory and agree with some of Marx's sociological notions, however.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which is a bit silly after you see how Algerians and Arabs are treated in France. They may say one thing, but actually act in another.

Typical of a society that is so preachy, that it can't walk the walk. It's just like those US-states that have the most fundies, while at the same time having the worst divorce and teen-pregnancies rate.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let's assume for a moment that European society is inherently racist, purely for purposes of argument.

Then why don't Indians (excluding Indian Muslims) have problems integrating? These people are 2% of Britain's population, but responsible for 5% of its GDP - the new Jews, perhaps?

New Jews? Please, let someone think of that Indians are in fact a lost tribe of Israel and should immigrate to it. That'd be fun!
Hm. That would make Pakistanis kind of muslim Jews as well, which would be even more interesting.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I suppose that makes me an objective associate of radical Islam. I even support the right of pupils to wear baseball caps in class!

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You will notice that secularism is what Bruckner's article is actually about. Since Bruckner wants us, among other things, to enforce our values on people who disagree with them for religious reasons.

I happen to know a convert Muslim who wears the scarf on her own accord. And I know her enough that I'm sure she isn't coerced into it. In the UK (where she now lives, though she's French), she's free to teach.
Bruckner wants to curb her freedom to teach, as he's a staunch supporter of the headscarf ban. It's definitely secular. It might be "enlightened" with Bruckner's definition. Now, explain me how it fits your definition of enlightenment.

"Our" values, BTW? Opposition to silly headdresses wasn't on my list of values last I checked.

I suppose that makes me an objective associate of radical Islam. I even support the right of pupils to wear baseball caps in class!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I don`t think anyone is disputing that feeling excluded is conducive to extremism. What´s debatable is whether "multiculturalism", ethnic rights, etc, is likely to ameliorate feelings of exclusion.

This is what this thread should be about. I guess balance is everything. On the one hand, we need to have a society with a strong identity, and with values we are strongly attached to. We shouldn't be ashamed of our values of democracy, equality, human dignity etc.

On the other hand, we shouldn't be stupid and dogmatic about them. Currently in France, there's a problem with Muslim men who don't want their women to go to a male OB-gyn. However, once a woman is in the hospital, the hospital must treat her, which means these women will often get to be examined by a male OB-gyn.
The knee-jerk reaction would be to tell the chauvinist husbands to **** off, and not to change a iota. The pragmatic approach would be to shuffle personnel, so that there are more female OB-gyns in hospitals with many muslims. Both approaches have been tried (depending of the hospital). The results are a matter of appreciation: personally, I feel that our civilization is better served when more women have the ability to come to the hospital, as they aren't prevented from going by their brutal husbands.

Another thing where "multiculturalism" is practical is with school lunches. With all the various taboos about food around there (which aren't only religious: see vegetarians), you can't really have one menu anymore. So, you have a self-service, with enough choices that nobody feels excluded. At my uni-restaurant, for example, we generally have pork/beef + chicken/fish. Vegetarians can ask for vegetables only if they want. As a result, nobody is excluded from the restaurant, which actually helps integration.

In short, multiculturalism sometimes contribute to integrate minorities in mainstream society, as the society changes a bit to accomodate them along with the others. It sucks when it creates exclusives.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
In this respect, it is now quite clear that the leftists of all kinds are the objective associates of radical islamism; they fight together what they called "islamophoby" which defines any comment or criticism of anything with the slightiest islamic references or connections.

Funny, I've heard a short while ago that the LCR (far-leftists) was an objective associate of capitalism, and that we the Communist Party should focus on fighting them.

"Objective associate" is a wonderful insult to hurl about.

Hey, I can tell too that Sarkozy's an objective associate of anti-enlightenment, as his organization of the National Council of French Islam (CNCM) gives almost no room for liberal Islam in the mosques

This is fun!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Then why don't Indians (excluding Indian Muslims) have problems integrating? These people are 2% of Britain's population, but responsible for 5% of its GDP - the new Jews, perhaps?

What happened? How come they were immune to this racism which kept every other people down?

Exactly. This fact doesn't fit the 'Oppressed by teh evil racists' model, so it will probably be ignored.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
Exactly! That's why people who do not want to live under "enlightment policies" or whatever term we'll use for European law enforcement and culture should not move in here.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=107757

The guy was born and raised in the west. He is completely anti-enlightenment, as a genuine Muslim fundie. Where should we deport him*?
Where do we depot the countless Christian fundies who grace western societies with their anti-enlightenment positions?

Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?

My ad-hominem was toward an author I know well enough already, as I've read enough works from him. His article was perfectly unsurprising, and I have the same criticisms toward it than toward any other thing I've read from him: i.e, that it's opinionated BS which I happen to disagree with (and I even wrote an elaborate post afterwardsto explain it to you).




*answer: for this one, we won't have to, as he actually wants to emigrate to Qatar, which is NOT his country of rigin: he'd be one of those few migrants who actually move because of values instead of money - and only unperfectly so, since Qatar is less devout than some poorer Muslim countries

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In a democracy, che, unlike in your beloved communism, they are one and the same thing.

Bull****. The government and its people can vary widely on how they treat groups.

[aneeshm]

Let's assume for a moment that European society is inherently racist, purely for purposes of argument.

Then why don't Indians (excluding Indian Muslims) have problems integrating? These people are 2% of Britain's population, but responsible for 5% of its GDP - the new Jews, perhaps?

What happened? How come they were immune to this racism which kept every other people down?

Either they are somehow special, or one of our premises is wrong. Take your pick.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's a government and there's a people.

In a democracy, che, unlike in your beloved communism, they are one and the same thing.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Even if you get citizenship, you'll never be English or German. In an immigrant country like the U.S. or Argentina or Israel, if you get citizenship, you're an American or Argentinian or Israeli. You become part of the group.

This is absolutely wrong. Sarkozy is a French citizen, second generation immigrant, current candidate to the election of the next Président de la République. He feels, and he is, perfectly integrated.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hence my point about radicalism in those communities much earlier in the thread.

Well, my point was that whatever the reason, it cannot be claimed that the US has sorted out its social problems in this regard, and nor can the US point to the UK and accuse it of racism and blame it for reactionary radicalism. Not from any high ground, anyway.

However, prison stats are not the main point I have been making about oppression in the past, and division in the present.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
If becoming secular was the criteria for a state that it had reached the enlightenment ideals, you certainly believe that the USSR was enlightened. You are badly wrong; the ideals are mainly based of freedom of individuals (equality, opinion, expression).
Secularity is only an easy solution to grant freedom of religion.

You will notice that secularism is what Bruckner's article is actually about. Since Bruckner wants us, among other things, to enforce our values on people who disagree with them for religious reasons.

I happen to know a convert Muslim who wears the scarf on her own accord. And I know her enough that I'm sure she isn't coerced into it. In the UK (where she now lives, though she's French), she's free to teach.
Bruckner wants to curb her freedom to teach, as he's a staunch supporter of the headscarf ban. It's definitely secular. It might be "enlightened" with Bruckner's definition. Now, explain me how it fits your definition of enlightenment.