Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[Arrian]

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

-Arrian

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


There probably is something to that.

I'll agree there is something to it, but see my replies to chegitz as to why I don't think it's of primary importance.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by germanos
Yet this was in answer to your post where you spoke of immigrant exclusion of "arabs, turks and south asians", and how this has a direct correlation to their radicalisation.

But terrorism is not the only problem Europeans are having with Muslims. It is how they treat women (both in immigrant communities and locals), demanding Sharia, rioting, etc. Terrorism is a small, but attention grabbing, part of the problem.

[germanos]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But terrorism is not the only problem Europeans are having with Muslims. It is how they treat women (both in immigrant communities and locals), demanding Sharia, rioting, etc. Terrorism is a small, but attention grabbing, part of the problem.

Also in the fields you describe now, the turks and south asians barely cause any problems.

It's interesting though that you now switch to Islam as a defining factor.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
When I used to go on anti-racist marches 20 years ago with my Trotskyite buddies at the time, the police were allowed to kill black people at will, Asians would get their houses firebombed, and the state and media constantly reinforced negative racial stereotypes. That was real oppression - state driven, divide and rule. There was, however, no Islamic terrorism or demands for Sharia law.

Today, things are very different. The state and sections of the media are more likely to constantly accuse the white working class of intolerance and racism (as perhaps you are here) despite there being virtually no evidence of this at all (as was proved in a recent debate here). Ethnic groups are encouraged to see themselves as different, and always there is the emphasis of what seperates people, rather than what people have in common. We now have a bit of a problem with wannabe terrorists and calls for Sharia law.

This is the divisive model of multiculturalism, rather than one which promotes what people have in common. The state has played a part, but out of a misguided belief that promoting identity politics is a good thing. This mistake is now recognised by bodies such at the Council for Racial Equality (CRE) which has been critical recently of the failure of the identity-driven approach to a multi racial society.

Blaming oppression for today's problems is wrong. The situation has changed from the days when that analysis would have been a legitimate starting point.

Yup.

Remind us of the Jail statistics by ethnicity.

How is this evidence of racism? Do we have any reason to believe that crimes worthy of imprisonment are committed equally by all races?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by germanos
Also in the fields you describe now, the turks and south asians barely cause any problems.

It's interesting though that you now switch to Islam as a defining factor.

I was never talking solely about Arabs. The discussion was about Muslims.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Caligastia
How is this evidence of racism? Do we have any reason to believe that crimes worthy of imprisonment are committed equally by all races?

They indicate social problems, which may or may not be attributable to racism. It is not in itself evidence.

[chequita guevara]

Hence my point about radicalism in those communities much earlier in the thread.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


They indicate social problems, which may or may not be attributable to racism. It is not in itself evidence.

Right, but that's how you presented it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sandman
Huh? The French make a big thing of not being ethnically based.

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. Kind of like how Boston was very big in talking about liberal (left leaning in this context) causes, but was home to some of the more virulent racism you've seen.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.