Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

What happened in Afghanistan is the actions of a few radicals, so it can be excused, eh?

Then why did TIME magazine devote its cover and main story August 9, 2010, to the persistent and village approved mistreatment of women?

You may link here if you so desire to the cover and the article about how women in Afghanistan are treated in explicit rejection of multiculturalism. How many actions of how many few does it take to make such a rejection plain? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,...100809,00.html

Since no-one is excusing this, you might want to reply to what people actually say, instead of what you prefer to imagine they are saying.

Is rejection of multiculturalism limited to these types?

But these people are not necessarily rejecting multi-culturalism.

Al-Qaeda are- they are universalists who think everyone everywhere should conform to their extreme form of Islam, but I imagine many of those same villagers would reply "If you want to allow your women to be degraded into sluts, that's your business. You don't interfere with us, we won't interfere with you."

Some countries, like Malaysia, even make this national policy- there are separate, much stricter, laws for Muslims than non-Muslims in their own society.

If you're asking this question, you have to distinguish what you are talking about. An extreme multi-culti would say we have no right to condemn these actions, any more than we have the right to condemn Christians in Africa for murdering children for being witches.

If the person committing these horrible crimes were multiculturalists themselves, they'd have to admit they have no right to condemn us for allowing the gains of feminism in our own society- the rights of women to vote, work, initiate divorce or control their own reproductive systems.

Are there valid grounds for judging/discriminating between cultures and choosing one over another?

If all cultures are created equal, then how can you deny the right to execute those disagreed with (by however many) as a means of preserving cultural identity?

Therefore, I reiterate the thread title: multiculturalism, boon or bane?

My personal belief is that human rights triumph over multiculturalism- therefore Muslims or Hindus shouldn't be allowed to decide who their daughters can marry, anymore than Catholics, Mormons or Fundamentalists should be allowed to decide whether two gay people can marry.

I prefer our Western Enlightenment standards- the first country in Christendom to remove all discriminatory laws against Jews was Revolutionary France; when the Holy Alliance was established in Europe those laws were reinstated (which is why Karl Marx's father converted to Protestantism, so his son could attend University- no Jews allowed- blowback can be a b****h).

Liberty, Democracy, Equality, and Separation of Church and State- yeah, baby!

[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.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yep. I posted in haste and anger (I do that a lot, though I'm trying to get better-honest! )

Your efforts inspire my own.

[inked]

Well, I for one am delighted to see that multiculturalism does allow us to see that all the hype in America about the Gulf oil business is just anti-british xenophobism run amuk and not at all about any harm to the environment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...aign-ever.html

Now, there's a multiculturalism I can agree with! IT wasn't so bad and all the evil enviro-agendists jumped on poor old innocent BP and with the aid of hysterikal Amerikaners-yellow-rag-journalists tried to give Nobel prize winning Barack relief from his dismal performances (not yet up to the Nobel Prize, wot?).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

No; thanks, Rian, it was the first time I've encountered the term, though I'm familiar with the situation.

I was wondering about your comment re your husband. Was he a Mission Kid or a Military Brat?

He was a Missionary Kid (MK) and is now an ATCK (adult TCK).

We've had some rough times since our move to Arizona 3 1/2 years ago; moving, changing jobs and changing schools are high enough on the stress list, but add to that 5 surgeries (with major complications in my 2) and 2 car accidents, and yes, things have been a bit rough! so I've been looking into that more (his parents gave all their kids the TCK book - they're currently missionaries-to-missionaries, so to speak).

From what I knew of you and your family, I didn't think the TCK thing applied exactly, but I wondered if you might have heard the term/concept. In the updated version of the book, they've added in other types of multi-cultural situations, although the focus is on TCKs and ATCKs, which specifically involve parents in one country, kids growing up a significant time in another country while still being in a little bubble, so to speak, of their "passport country" (the country the parents came from and intend to return to). It's fascinating reading, and has been very helpful in helping me to understand him a little more. There are some very strong traits in common that TCKs and ATCKs have (and it's not all negative by any means - but the negative things help us understand more). For example, a VERY common way of dealing with problems is to ignore them and/or keep putting off dealing with them, because TCKs move so much that that was a very easy way of coping with problems (hey, just last out this school year and then we're gone!)

[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.

[Valandil]

I'm not inked, but I don't think the Mosque / Moslem Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero.

Mostly - I think it affirms and validates the actions of the attackers in the eyes of those who support them. In their view, not only will they have 'won' - but we've given them a roadmap. Nothing would be safe that they set their sights on. Take out the Sears Tower, the St Louis Arch, Mount Rushmore (name your favorite site) - and 10 years later, build a mosque there. Dangerous.

I do not think I am racist or filled with fear. I'm simply being rational, and I'm aware of what we're facing. I agree that Islam is a religion. I do not hate it, nor its practitioners - but enough has happened to make me very cautious. I think we're only smart to be wary.

Those who take up this claim that Islam is not a religion are preposterous. They undercut rational arguments that could otherwise bolster prudent action. It is indeed a religion. But it is one that still will resort to the sword when it cannot be spread by other means. The goal of Islam is an Islamic World. Studies have shown that when the Moslem population in a nation reaches 33%, there is a revolution - and a Moslem government is the end result. Is this the future you want? Is this fear-mongering by me? Or historical analysis?

I am not opposed to the Establishment Clause. But throughout America - many religious buildings are not built at particular locations for any number of reasons. I've even heard there is an Orthodox Church which was destroyed by the 9/11 fallout, for which the rebuilding efforts have been snarled in New York City red tape. But even apart from that - all kinds of church building efforts get rejected for all kinds of reasons. All across America. We simply find other solutions - and don't get locked into site selections that lead to provocation.

In America - we can generally do what we want. We have a lot of freedoms, and many rights. But the question we must constantly face is - when do the rights of one/some infringe on the rights of others? There's never an easy answer to that. So, it's good to be careful.

My biggest reason for opposition though, is the one I expressed first. The jihadists - those who planned and carried out the attacks, those who support them - and those who cheer for them and identify with them and who fail to speak up against their actions and condemn them - will see that they have won, and will be emboldened to keep doing the same kind of thing.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Mostly - I think it affirms and validates the actions of the attackers in the eyes of those who support them. In their view, not only will they have 'won' - but we've given them a roadmap. Nothing would be safe that they set their sights on. Take out the Sears Tower, the St Louis Arch, Mount Rushmore (name your favorite site) - and 10 years later, build a mosque there. Dangerous.

I think the very opposite. I think it only affirms the freedoms and rights the United States stands for and which the terrorists were attacking. The message bomb our buildings and we'll become an intolerant society where mosques are banned is a FAR better propaganda tool for the extremists then bomb our buildings and you wont break us of our most fundamental beliefs of equality and basic rights. The extremists will be able to say You see? The Great Devil is now forbidding the word of Islam! And youll have a jihad 1000 times worse then one based on attacking a culture that is clearly tolerant to them. If you were a young radicalized muslim considering joining the terrorists which marketing tool would be more effective to you? And anyway, it wont effect Al Quaeda one way or the other. Do you really think that if there was no mosque there they would be any less likely to attack any of the structures you named?

I do not think I am racist or filled with fear. I'm simply being rational, and I'm aware of what we're facing. I agree that Islam is a religion. I do not hate it, nor its practitioners - but enough has happened to make me very cautious. I think we're only smart to be wary.

I dont think you are a racist or filled with fear either but yes I most definitely DO think you are being irrational on this subject. The very same words could have been said 70 years ago when we rounded up thousands of innocent Japanese and put them into prisoner of war camps because, you know, you gotta be safe... And all those Japs look the same so you gotta do what you gotta do... We now look back at those actions with great embarrassment as a society and have vowed never to do such a thing again. Well be careful you arent making an exception in this case. Its too easy to do...

Studies have shown that when the Moslem population in a nation reaches 33%, there is a revolution - and a Moslem government is the end result. Is this the future you want? Is this fear-mongering by me? Or historical analysis?

Id have to learn toward fear mongering to be honest... First let me note with great disdain that people said essentially the very same things about blacks and about native americans at times in the past when they didnt want large populations of them coming together because of the fear of "revolution" by the mongrels or the savages who only know killing and violence and are incapable of peaceful coexistence...

The truth is most muslims have come to America BECAUSE of the freedoms it provides. Not to be secret sleeper cells or to find something more restrictive. Most american muslims will tell you even as bad as things are now for them in this country its still better than where they came from and they love being here. So they dont sit around quietly despising everything american and wishing for a much different society. If anything MOST american muslims reflect THE VERY SAME values as MOST american christians... Did you know that? A lot of the same issues are a big concern to both groups then they are to secular americans. So cries of am impending revolution are about as hollow as the ones youve heard in recent election years from non christians about a right wing christian revolution in this country. They are both bogus.

Most second generation muslims are like the second generation of any american immigrant. They quickly adopt the same values as any child growing up in america and have the same wants and dreams. They see themselves as americans who happen to be muslim. Not as muslims who happen to be in america.

And most of the radicals look DOWN on american muslims for being too "western" so what you want is MORE muslims who think with an open mind, to see things through the lens of our culture, not less. And the more you do things so fundamentally wrong like banning places of worship the less you have good muslims on your side.

In America - we can generally do what we want. We have a lot of freedoms, and many rights. But the question we must constantly face is - when do the rights of one/some infringe on the rights of others?

When others are actively engaged in doing something illegal and NOT before. Otherwise maybe we should round up all the poor people just to "be safe" because they tend to commit crimes at much higher rate then the rich after all.

I mean honestly I have to rub my eyes when I see normal healthy rational people like you whose opinions I respect saying these words because it so flies in the face of the fundamental rights of ALL americans. And I mean you talk about slippery slopes...

It is beyond me how anyone that says they take pride in being an american can turn around and talk about making exceptions to the right to freedom of religion because its either "too soon" or "too close to home" or "too dangerous".

People are acting as if Al Quaeda is trying to build a recruiting center rather than Americans trying to build a mosque. Theres a HUGE difference! Should we ban any christian building from being built in Oklahoma City because Timothy McVeigh was a christian?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Studies have shown that when the Moslem population in a nation reaches 33%, there is a revolution - and a Moslem government is the end result. Is this the future you want? Is this fear-mongering by me? Or historical analysis?

Hard to tell, since you don't either cite those studies or provide even a single example to back up your claim- something that people doing 'historical analysis' generally do.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Valandil

But it is one that still will resort to the sword when it cannot be spread by other means. The goal of Islam is an Islamic World.

A religion does not resort to the sword; people resort to the sword.

[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.