Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm not excusing anything; I certainly think a lot of the generalizations and conclusions drawn from some isolated instances about other cultures are absurd. I'm just saying, call a spade a spade, and not a rake. (Unless I'm mistaken, GM, you were taking a similar path when you retracted "racist" in favour of "xenophobic." Particularly since "racist" is about the most inflammatory slur that can be thrown currently in the political scene (at least in the US, not sure about the UK), we should be careful to only use it when it is accurate. Using such charged language indiscriminately against opponents is a standard tactic to silence discussion and impose an oppressive hegemony of thought. It's the tactic I object to, not the disagreement with inked.

Trying to discredit my point, by assuming that because I objected the rhetoric over inked's posts, I therefore agree with him (IMO, most of them are wrong, some are absurd, and many don't even really belong in this thread), also does nothing to help discussion, and leaves no room for anything except toeing a particular line. Not helpful. Meaningful discourse can only occur when we distinguish between different issues and ideas, rather than just lumping everything without distinction into either "mainstream moderate" or "conservative extremist."

Apologies. I didn't mean to say that you intended to excuse his racism. My point is that the unintended consequence of the semantics argument is to excuse his racism.

Deep down, there is no difference between xenophobia and racism. Nobody goes around saying "I'm a racist". Yet they exist. We all have the potential within us. It is our duty to, as you say, call a spade a spade, even if it is the worst thing to call someone.

Because if we don't, they will populate the discourse with their agenda. Oops, too late.

[GrayMouser]

My use of 'xenophobe' was to refer to the fact that the Frenchwoman in inked's link was as white as...well, a large lump of pastry dough anyway.

Is being anti-French racist? After Zidan's infamous head-butt in the 2006 World Cup many comments of the "typical dirty frenchman" type were made, even though he's ethnically an Arab.

How about anti-American? Iranian mobs used to carry pictures of Bush (and before that Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter) while chanting "Death to America"; now they carry pictures of Obama. Is that racist?

Feelings are often conflated, especially through ignorance-

At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.

"Go home," several shouted from the crowd.

"Get out," others shouted.

In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry -- were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque.

"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

"I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opin....html?page=all

Is this racism? Well, the automatic reaction was brown skin= Muslim= get'em!

But what if they'd been presented at the podium, (as several Indians were)explained who they were, and given an impassioned speech on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt and denounced the Not-mosque-not-overlooking-Ground-Zero as an example of Islamic hatred- undoubtedly they would have been wildly cheered.

I have a good friend who routinely denounces Muslims in terms that makes inked sound like the Archbishop of Canterbury- is he a racist?- actually, he's an Iranian Bahai.

It's a tough question, which is why it's not a term to be tossed around lightly.

[Rían]

Y'know, inked, I've been scanning through this thread, and your constant sarcasm is really a downer. You have a lot of interesting things to say - I've seen a lot of them - could you please drop the sarcasm and just give us your thoughts on the links? I'd sure appreciate that, for one, and I bet a lot of others would, too!

[GrayMouser]

Rian-

Wow- tough few years-hope it all gets better.

Yes, over the years I've met quite a few TCKs and their parents- they seem to have related character traits- light on their feet and quick to adjust, but they often seem cool and detached; lless emotionally-involved

Most of the kids I know in that category are kids of businessmen/women.
They generally go to overseas "American/British/European" schools which are pretty elitist.

The Missionary Kids I know seem to be much more...regular?

Though again, these are kids who have grown up in just the one place.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Most of the kids I know in that category are kids of businessmen/women.
They generally go to overseas "American/British/European" schools which are pretty elitist.

A number of the TCKs I knew were sent that road, too.

[inked]

Here's another report on the entire complex of providing aid to Muslims by Christian organizations around the world. It is from NPR (National Public Radio) and considers an international perspective:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129155780

Since it comes from NPR, I do not think one can allege a conservative bias.

[Jonathan]

Inked, I really appreciate that you took the time to describe the link and didn't just post it.

Not sure what you want to say with the article but I sure hope you still think it's decent to send aid to a currently very flooded Pakistan.

While undoubtedly acting as a Mother Theresa amongst a group of Jihadists is dangerous business, the very first sentence in the article seems quite narrow-minded and far-stretched:
"An attack on a Christian aid group in Afghanistan that left 10 medical workers dead a week ago underscores the perils of faith-based organizations that operate in Muslim nations and the perception that they are promoting a Western agenda."

I mean, one can easily leave out the religious words and refrain from extrapolating the perils of Afghanistan (one of the most dangerous countries on earth) to the whole Muslim world. One can't draw the solution only from the above reasoning that only faith-based organisations are targeted, even if that was the case. It's a fallacy.

Later in the article, one can however read that "there is no clear indication that faith-based organizations have been disproportionately singled out".

Organising aid in war-zones is dangerous. But I think the article obviously slants the danger to prove an (islamophobic?) point.

[GrayMouser]

Al-Qaeda, the group that claimed credit for the attack, anyway, specifically said the aid workers were killed because they were proselytising.

Sure, Islamic fundamentalists attack all kinds of aid groups- secular, governmental, NGOs- but I'm sure that there is an additional danger in being an openly Christian group operating in a Muslim area.

The same thing has happened to Christian missions operating in Hindu areas.

That these groups often provide aid at levels above what locals can provide makes them particlarly vulnerable to the charge of creating "rice Christians" -and indeed some groups do so.

This was also a problem in Iraq, where overly-enthusiastic fundamentalists , often operating (unofficially) under the auspices of official US civilian and military mssions, were criticised for bringing others working fon local aid projects under suspicion

[Insidious Rex]

Speaking of Muslims and Christians inked...

Im curious what your opinion on the ground zero mosque controversy is. Do you agree with the majority of americans who insist that we shouldnt tolerate any muslims building muslim stuff too close to the open wound that is Ground Zero in New York City? Or are you instead in favor of what the First Amendment states about religious freedom and agree that banning things based on religion is about as offensive as some of the hyperbolic posts youve made showing muslims being intolerant of christians in their countries? Do tell.

[GrayMouser]

Say what you like about George Bush (and I've said a lot) I always gave him credit after 9/11 for strongly repudiating any idea that this was a war against Islam in general. This was a principled stance at a time when it would have been very easy to demagogue the issue. Seems his successors don't have any such scruples.

There are attempts led by right-wing groups ( Tea-Partiers etc.) all over the USA to block the building of mosques, and the spokesman for the American Family Association ( a right-wing fundamentalist organisation)- reently called for banning all mosques in the country.

The new meme being spread on the right is that Islam isn't covered by the First Amendment since it's a cult/political group, not a religion.

[The Gaffer]

Well put IR.

I read this comment on another forum:

"In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003"

[The Gaffer]

I was interested to read how one of the major voices opposing the mosque has just voted down a bill to provide health care for 9/11 workers.

http://www.care2.com/causes/health-p...-9-11-workers/

It's good to have your priorities right.

[The Gaffer]

Also found this really good piece on how the story broke in the media. 2 minutes of your time well spent.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...mosque_origins

The proposition is that it was kept alive by a small group of right-wing bloggers and columnists, eventually got picked up by the New York Post, and then went like wildfire through the mainstream right-wing media.

The leader of the mosque building project is quoted as saying "We want to push back against the extremists,".

[GrayMouser]

The "Ground Zero Imam" that the mosque opponents are raving about (some demanding he be deported):

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a postentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, "I am a Jew," is placing his life in danger. Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism. You can read the full text of his remarks on the B'nai Jeshurun website, but here is an especially relevant portion:

We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic
faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to
love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I
have always been one Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of
the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...een-one/61761/

(The author of that piece, Jeffrey Goldberg, is a conservative American Jew who actually went to Israel and joined the Israeli Army)

Rauf was also selected by the Bush Administration as an outreach ambassador to Muslim countries, to go overseas and tell their people that America wasn't anti-Muslim.

[GrayMouser]

And in France, Sarkozy cracks down on Gypsies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wo.../20france.html

Also happening in Italy, Sweden, Germany and Denmark.

Signs of the times? The result of the recession, people facing high unemployment and economic uncertainty turning against immigrants and outsiders ?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And in France, Sarkozy cracks down on Gypsies.

Hm, I can't fault the French for wanting to expell people who stay in a country illegally, even though I don't think the action is very constructive. The travellers obviously have found ways around the existing rules.

Just last month there was much to do about a group of gypsies passing through our country. They took over somebody's field without permission, destroying his hay yield in the process. They promised but eventually refused to pay the owner. The city provided them water, which they didn't pay for either. And when moving on two weeks later, they left all their trash behind for the owner to clean up. Judging by their shiny and expensive-looking camper models, they were not a poor band of gypsies either.

You can't really fault a town for not wanting to play host to such a group. But then it's never the groups that pass through that don't cause trouble or damage to everyone that you hear about...

[inked]

"Is it time to return the Stars and Bars to the South Carolina State House?

I ask because I thought the rule was that an understandable revulsion to the memory of an emotionally-wounding time was enough to win out over a noisy, self-promoting group’s determination to advertise its views in a prominent, highly-symbolic area… but now I find that’s not so true, not so true.

So — Confederate flag at the SC statehouse again?

Because the people flying the flag there say they too have good, non-objectionable motivations for doing so — a reminder of heritage, honoring the dead, etc., etc. But previously we have shown skepticism towards their claimed motivations, and also decided their motivations were irrelevant — it wouldn’t even matter, we decided, if their motives were pure; the important thing was the Confederate flag was too hurtful to have near the people’s house of government.

Again, so I now find out this isn’t the rule anymore.

So if it’s not the rule anymore: Why can’t we have the Confederate flag at the SC statehouse?

Yes, I know, blacks (and others, including whites) consider it offensive and a nasty reminder of a national tragedy; but the spokesmen from Cordoba House have a response to such concerns, and that response is “F___ yourself, get over it already.” "
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/304852.php

I copy this particular linkage to answer the question of what do I think about the mosque near ground zero. Other than the allegation of attribution and its employment of the F*word, I agree with the above. This is what I think of it, because as a native South Carolinian, I have lived through the "concerns" over the Confederate flag. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they can take away the Confederate flag because of protests about "concerns" about racism, violence, reminders, et cetera, then they can block a mosque near Ground Zero on the same grounds - equal application of the same principle. Nothing to do with religion, race, or creed ... Just "concerns".

[inked]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hm, I can't fault the French for wanting to expell people who stay in a country illegally, even though I don't think the action is very constructive. The travellers obviously have found ways around the existing rules.

Just last month there was much to do about a group of gypsies passing through our country. They took over somebody's field without permission, destroying his hay yield in the process. They promised but eventually refused to pay the owner. The city provided them water, which they didn't pay for either. And when moving on two weeks later, they left all their trash behind for the owner to clean up. Judging by their shiny and expensive-looking camper models, they were not a poor band of gypsies either.

You can't really fault a town for not wanting to play host to such a group. But then it's never the groups that pass through that don't cause trouble or damage to everyone that you hear about...

Hey, Earniel, does that apply to illegal immigrants in America? The State of Arizona?

Here's a snopes.com fact-checked picture file of the lovely deposits of illegal immigrants ...
At any rate, I went to Snopes.com to check it out. Snopes verifies it as true and even has the photos that were in the email. Originally from 2007 (I discovered), the Snopes site has been updated as of 5-19-2010.

So, for good information regarding what is actually transpiring, with photo documentation see...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/restarea.asp

Just wondering if it's OK for France but not for the US states to address the issue!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hm, I can't fault the French for wanting to expell people who stay in a country illegally, even though I don't think the action is very constructive.

Hafta say, I would fault them. Perhaps its not as hypocritical as when the US does (give me your tired, etc.), but there's still an element of inhumanity to it.

[brownjenkins]

The obsession to hold on to the south was probably the biggest mistake in the history of our country. We'd be much better off today if we had let them go their own way. Trying to put too many cultures under one tent simply doesn't work with humans. The Europeans learned that a long time ago, and the Russians a little later, but we are still getting there.

In terms of flying a confederate flag, if they really still feel like the need to hoist it, then by all means let the do it. Much like with kids, sometimes the best way to teach is to simply let them do it. Once it ceases to be a point of contention, it will cease to have a point. Which goes for the Muslim center in NYC or any Christian building anywhere in the world. Symbols only have power for those who choose to give it to them, for the rest of us, they are all just relics.