Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Not true. Most empires in history have been multi-ethnic. Mughal, USA, Rome, all mutli-ethnic. Most Empires collapse due to economic decline and corruption, not ethnic squabbles.



This is why there is racial tension today in the USA. If the majority weren’t a bunch of whiny sissies they would’ve learned with the blacks and Jews and blacks and Jews wouldn’t have formed insular societies. Remember, the blacks tried everything to assimilate, and whites rejected them. You can’t blame the minority for trying. In most countries, if the government doesn’t place race or religious based restrictions, people will happily live side by side. In Europe Catholics and protestants couldn’t live side by side without bloodshed, and yet it America they did quite fine. Evidently policy played a big role in diffusing tensions. The US government allowed for freedom of religion and association. If they had done the same for race, the nation may not be suffering the same issues of race, which aren’t even that bad.



Not necessarily true. The host culture was obliterated by diseases before the Europeans began settling in mass numbers. 90% of the native population died within 50 years of contact. If that had not happened, North America would look like South Africa and Kenya, where the locals would’ve simply outbred and overrun the colonists. And you are also wrong about native culture being obliterated. The Aztec and Maya languages are alive and well in Central America, and the fastest rising demographic in Canada and Latin America are indigenous people.



Most empires in history have been multi-ethnic. European imperialism (and even that had a multiethnic flavour, in a sad sort of way) in the last 400 years was an aberration. Most empires had platitudes of ethnos, colours, and even religious. Egypt has remained one nation for over 4000 years, and is still multiethnic, and multicoloured, in spite conquest by Rome, Arabia, Abyssinia, and Nubia.

   

So it's the white guys fault Sock? Without whitey all the non-whiteys would be living halcyon days in their own non-white paradises?

Spot the chip.

   

But we be the ebil debil we be.

   

Look behind you! An evil white guy!

   

fuck off....I looked and almost shit my pants.....there's a mirror behind me

   

And that's about as evil as it gets.......

I'm so evil I scare myself?

   

I don't believe in white-black-brown-yellow world.

It's so much more complicated than that. People who are smart realize this and use the divide and conquer tactics to gain political power. This is what's happening in the USA now. Instead of working on policies that move society forward, they squabble over race and bullshit.

There's no white solidarity. And there's not black solidarity. There's certainly no Brown or Yellow solidarity either. Some of the most violent and aggressive acts have been committed to by similar peoples with differing ideologies, not ethnicities.


On a completely personal opinion I find black nationalists, white nationalists, and other insert ‘ethnic origin here nationalists’ amusing. There's no such thing as racial solidarity. There are ebbs and flows, people who are white today might mix in and become brown tomorrow, and people who are black can end up brown or pale in the future. This is how history has always played out when people live in close proximity.

There will be no pan white nation; there will be no pan African nation, or a one Asia. We're diverse people. Even Russia’s romantic vision to bring all Slavic nations together as a Slavic juggernaut superpower failed miserably. But respecting our differences goes a long way. Not erecting policies to keep people needlessly apart based on class or race also goes a long way to help regional integration, understanding, and mutual respect. This is not support of multiculturalism, this it's a matter of human dignity. Whether it’s the hindu caste systems, asian ethnocentrism, latin American native oppression, apartheid, segregation, or Zimbabwean land expropriation, it’s wrong and has made things worse in the long term, than say simply allowing people to live and let live based on their own merits.

Why would I have a chip on my shoulder? I always like to play devil's advocate and try and feel what it could be like walking in someone else's shoes. It's all part of understanding why people do the things that they do. What drives, what motivates, and what leads people to make decisions, both individually and as part of a larger social structure.

   

Noble ideals Sock but we are dealing with human nature and a vast chunk of the world remains tribal or theocratic and sees the world as such. To ignore this is to avoid the reality of the issues that face social-engineering projects such as multicult. Projecting one culture or a myriad of cultures above a host-nations inherent culture will lead to resistance, resentment and a fractured society. That’s what is happening in western Europe right now.

   

ok. empires can be multi-ethnic, which usually includes the subjugation and domination of one group over the other. i wouldnt call the roman empire a "multi cultural state" because it meant the romans held power, the romans voted, and the romans killed, and the romans demnaded tribute from all other groups. you should read about how the romans treated carthage after its victory. its not like all of these various groups had equal standing in the roman empire. and once the central power faltered, it split along ethnic lines. america, like rome, started as a republic. a country garunteeing freedom, which was and is and anomoly in the history of the world. yet even still, you cannot dispute race being a divise issue. so blacks "tried" to assimilate...so what? that doesnt change the fact that people had issues with being multi-ethnic state. i could go on, and on and on about this. the end of immigration in 1924 made to cut out the italian and irish and eastern european immigration wave is one good example of the people who wanted to preserve the WASP culture of the united states.

actually in the united states there was huge social anxiety and fears about a growing catholic population. another reason why immigration was halted. they live in epace nowadays because the western world si almost completely secularized. people arent nearly as religious as they were hundreds of years ago around the time of the 30 years war.

again, diseases, destruction of numbers of natives were all a direct result form european migration. you cannot deny this. and i would love to see some proof that 90% of them were killed off within 50 years. i call bullshit on that. since europeans have been coming to north america over various times. 50 years from when? establishment of united states? its easy to be the fastest rising demographic when the numbers are so small to begin with. but either way that is irrelevant. do people equate the united states culture with that of the native americans? no way. they thing of cowboys and hollywood and hamburgers and whatever else.

and just like the blacks and jews, sure, some empires might have conquered foreign lands, and didnt just eliminate all of the populations, but that is not multiculturalism, that is domination by one group of another. im asking you to show me peaceful, equal coexistence!

   

Okay, jackass: name the one Founding Father who was not a Christian.

There were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Who, of those men, was not a publicly avowed Christian and a member in good standing of his particular congregational church?

Oh, and do provide proof past your usual impotent 'fail' comment.

   

What's happening in Western Europe now is fully the fault of the Europeans. The problem with European policy is that, it's really missing in action.

Bootlegga already had a few good posts on this, you can't invite x amount of people to your country and treat them as second class citizens, don't give them citizenships, and expect them to integrate simultaneously. France is a great example, they've been telling their former colonial subjects (immigrants) they are French, and that race, colour, creed and class make no difference, but then the reality on the ground is different. This is why there is resentment from 3rd generation immigrants. Because they're reminded everyday how French they are, but for some reason they are not being afforded the same privileges as the French who are, even more recent immigrants are treated better because they look a 'certain' way (like Sarkozy who is only 2nd generation).

Much of the phenomenon is to do with notions and expectations. We have preconceived notions of what to expect from people based on class, race, or ethnic origin. Stereotypes if you will. If people don't fit those stereotypes, it makes us uncomfortable. We have a sort of hierarchy we like to create, and people 'ideally' fall into it. When they don't, it is when our notions are shook.

For 2000 years, many Jews in Europe were traders, but the majority of them lived in poverty stricken ghettoes outside of Poland. The notion of a Jew was untrustworthy, money hungry, but also impoverished. After the Napoleonic wars, Jews gained wealth rapidly and integrated. Instead of being welcomed for being successful and bringing a positive addition to European culture, society, and science, they were ostracized and shunned. Jews are white. So why the hate? It is because predisposed notions of Jews failed to live up to their stereotypes. If Jews had failed, the fascists would’ve been vindicated much the same way white supremacists in the USA are currently feeling vindicated.

The same thing seems to happen in north America. We've divided ourselves not on class, but race (even though class trumps race, almost always).
We have conceptions of what to expect. In the USA it's simple, Asians are smart, whites are jack of all trades, Latinos who are brown and hard-working but poor, and blacks are poor, stupid and not to be trusted. There are mostly false notions. Sometimes backed by pseudoscience. Sometimes backed by ignorance. When blacks live up to their stereotype, there's a certain aura of vindication surrounding those who preach racial intolerance. When blacks succeed, and break notions, or societal expectations and norms, it makes people uncomfortable. When I studied American history (as an elective), the topic of lynchings was very interesting. I learned that it was mostly wealthy blacks targeted, not the criminals or rapists as those doing the killings claimed.

Canada has the same issue with natives. We consider them drunken alcoholics. When they behave that way, we simply shake our heads and say “see”; you need “us” to survive. Our justification for treating them a certain way becomes acceptable. But if within a generation they rapidly accumulated wealth, power, and land rights, our perceptions will change, they’ll be considered a threat. Societies are discomforted by former under classes gaining wealth. We are terrified our underclass will become and over class. Psychologically, we fear the worst, that they will treat us how we treated them.

Ultimately, friction is created when we create preconceived notions, ideas, cultural norms based on our own insecurities, and predispositions based on our own cultural and ethnic historical experiences. Some groups are open to each other, and are accepting of other cultures.

This is why governments, who wish to steer society towards a more harmonious result, encourage mutual respect and understanding. Also, being treated equally under the law goes a long way. Not all the way, but a long way. Having just laws that don't target specific groups is also helpful. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth did very well with its Jews until it’s resentful, greedy and expansionist neighbors destroyed the nation.

   

Mughal in India was multiethnic. Russia has always been multi ethnic. It has always had people of different origins, even in power. Even China was multiethnic and eventually become mono ethnic because the major peoples mixed each other up, the natural thing to happen when people live in close proximity. Ancient Egypt was multi-ethnic. No evidence of one group lording over another. I’m sure there’s many more that I can’t remember from the top of my head.

The Roman mentality is unique. The Chinese mentality is also unique. It’s almost bemusing when people apply European norms and viewpoints to other regions on the globe. Not all multiethnic empires were one people killing another. How do you think the Germanic tribes managed to install themselves into power in primarily non Germanic Roman provinces? Even today, people are constantly moving, mixing, changing, etc. Brazil is becoming stronger than ever, and even more ethnically mixed up. By your definition, now that blacks in Brazil are gaining power, the country should be disintegrating. On the contrary, it’s catching up to the 1st world.

I’ll write more on this later. It’s lunch time.

   

brazil is multi-ethnic, not multi-cultural. they have the same language, customs, history which binds them together. they are not open to mass immigration from around the world, and being forced to accept alien cultures.

again, in the case of india, its an empire, which through conquest took over and subjugated another population. russia is multi-ethnic because its borders are the remnants of an empire. and its not going so well. look, even today in chechnya separatists (surprisingly along ethnic lines) stormed the parliament in grozny. after living in russia for 15 months i can certainly tell you that russiasn are among the most racist people on earth, and are extremely conscious of who is, and who is not, a russian. tatars stay in tatarstan, and they answer to moscow.

and by what "definition" are you talking about? im not some racist white supremacist who thinks blacks cant function in society. the whole topic of this thread is multiculturalism. my argument is it does not exist naturally in the world, it is a product of force, from the top down. it is a result of mass immigration, which rarely bodes well for the host culture. an empire is hardly a good comparison to multi-culturalism, and it actually further solidifies my point that it can only exist with an iron fist to keep it in place.

   

and i agree on the lunchbreak!

   

Sock, have you ever spent any time in a Native community? I'm not going to dwell on your array of pre-conceived stereo-types but our Native populations are in crisis mode with regards to alcohol, domestic violence, poverty etc. Too often these issues are ignored because of political correctness or the notion that the nasty white-man is the root of all their problems.

I lived in Labrador for 3 years and I have also spent time in various Native communities in Ontario, north and south. Nobody from the government dare say anything about native governance or out of control crime on reserves. Just like we are now finding out that many Chiefs of tiny bands earn more than provincial premiers.

Sure, 1st Nations have suffered at the hands of BNA and post 1867 Canada, but nobody is keeping them down anymore. They have become a sacred cow and can flout our laws, run fiefdoms that we fund, receive preferential treatment in education and employment and generally behave badly without a murmur from the feds or the provinces.
These things are ignored because of failed policies such as multicult. Defending them just perpetuates the problems.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next