Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[Tessar]

I am going to have to agree... some further outlining of the point being made, as well as the reason for the particular link being posted, would be much appreciated rather than just a snippet comment and a link. Otherwise 'discussion' is moot. Pun intended.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ah, those Americans!

From this one example, it's clear that murder and sex cults are widely practiced national pastimes and cultural institutions, right?

Right?

[The Gaffer]

Quite.

[Tessar]

Please, I understand that tensions are high but the no personal attacks rule still stands. We are nowhere near the banning stages yet, however please remember that this is a debate not a battle of absolutes. Also if someone is presenting evidence that you do not agree with, you can always find a countering opinion/article to present, or simply ignore the person in question.

[The Gaffer]

There's no tension at this end, honestly Tessar. I already have Inked on ignore. Occasionally I see his tripe because someone else quotes it when they respond.

The thing it, people respond and he never engages with the debate. You can present countering opinion or all the evidence you like but he doesn't engage. It's hit-and-run trolling. And the content is nasty, misanthropic stuff.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hey, GMouser, you might know about TCKs - do you?

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?

My situation is different, basically the immigrant experience. My kids have grown up mostly in Taiwanese culture. Most of my foreign friends are in the same mixed-marriage situation, and thus our children are not true TCKs.

I'm friends with two couples where both parents came here as missionaries and ended up staying- one American Christian; one Canadian Bahai. Both of them have had some problems with their older kids- pioneers, only foreigners in their respective schools- but the younger ones seem to have made a smoother transition.

My Bahai friend is the only one whose kids are adults- both finished college in Canada; one living in the States and the other in China (same language she grew up with in Taiwan); neither likely to come back, though of course we live in a pretty backwater one-horse kind of place- most locals don't stay once they reach adulthood.

When our kids were younger a group of about four or five of us tried to set up a bit of a 'foreign' environment for them- we (all fathers except for one) made rules about only speaking in English to each other's kids; having story and movie sessions; celebrating holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving together.

My older son is more self-consciously 'foreign'; he uses his English ability and 'half-breed' looks to his advantage- the younger two actually look more Western but identify more as 'Taiwanese'.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

ah, the French! Why wait until they are married off at 5, 6, 7, or 8...

just do it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10799539

And, please note, this is THE BBC.

i really don't have to twist it or make it up, do I?

So let's unpack this- do the French marry their children off younger than others?

No, the average age for marriage is as high as in other European countries (mid-late 20s- higher than the US). The legal age was raised from 15 to 18 in 2006 -most US states are 18 with 16 - sometimes 15- if with parental or judicial consent- Jerry Lee, where are you now?

So what does this have to do with the age of French marriage at all? Is this trying to tie in with the young age at which some Muslim girls are married? Except the woman in question is, of course, not Muslim.

Basically it makes no sense whatsoever, even if intended as a sneer.

[GrayMouser]

PS, I take back "racist" in "Xenophobic Racist Rants" above- inked has never posted anything racist, and I apologise for saying otherwise.

[inked]

Medicine not wanted ...

USA
German
or British

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_afghanistan

[Tessar]

Did you read the article, Inked? The people who received the aid are not the ones who shot them, it was an insurgent group.

[brownjenkins]

Details are not one of Inked strongpoints, and he's about as racist as anyone could be from the pure point of the term, which is viewing everything solely from his own cultural upbringing, but that is a fault we all have to at least some degree.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Did you read the article, Inked? The people who received the aid are not the ones who shot them, it was an insurgent group.

Ah but their skins were all the same colour, don't you see?

Come on Tessar, this is getting ridiculous.

[inked]

Subtle commentary is not a strong point, obviously. The medicine was not wanted by the insurgents because it carried a multicultural message. Therefore, it was removed by the insurgents. All multiculturalism is not wanted, despite the bleeding hearts who insist it is the only way to whatever dys-utopia they have in mind. This is a very loud anti-multicultural statement.

I have yet to make a racist remark, though some seem to think that a fitting epithet for reasons quite beyond my ken.

On the lighter side, go here for a multicultural banquet, as it were -
http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/201...ect-sushi.html

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by inked

Subtle commentary is not a strong point, obviously.

Speaking of:

Originally Posted by Tessar

I am going to have to agree... some further outlining of the point being made, as well as the reason for the particular link being posted, would be much appreciated rather than just a snippet comment and a link. Otherwise 'discussion' is moot. Pun intended.

So I'll be clearer. No more just posting a link.

Originally Posted by inked

The medicine was not wanted by the insurgents because it carried a multicultural message. Therefore, it was removed by the insurgents.

Seems like the people who received the aid were grateful enough for it. It wasn't the people that were being helped who chased them down and shot the aid workers. You are making a generalized comment about the culture's desires based off of what an insurgent group is doing.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Subtle commentary is not a strong point, obviously. The medicine was not wanted by the insurgents because it carried a multicultural message. Therefore, it was removed by the insurgents.

Actually the article stated that the extremists killed the health workers because they accused them of prothletising not necessarily because they didnt want a multicultural Afghanistan. Seems to me this is more a discussion about the tragic heartless actions of a few radicals than a statement about culture (multi or otherwise) in Afghanistan. The fact that the hundreds (thousands?) of people they helped all accepted their help rather than rejecting it because of the aid worker's western culture, certainly shows that the majority "culture" in Afghanistan is NOT represented by the actions of these few extremists. To extrapolate otherwise just makes you look foolish. If you can make statements about entire cultures based on the actions of a tiny minority (or even one individual) then the concept of culture is meaningless. Especially when even that tiny minority didnt even site culture as their main reasoning for the heinous crimes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

I have yet to make a racist remark, though some seem to think that a fitting epithet for reasons quite beyond my ken.

This is true enough. Racism deals with ethnic origin, something I've never seen inked really comment upon. His objections (whether they are valid or not) generally concern the cultural values, practices, and ideas of non-Western societies.

To decry this as "racist" is to fail to distinguish between different ideas, and to blur boundaries until everything is just in a broad "things I don't like" category, which does no more to contribute to the exchange of ideas than inked's quip-with-a-link tactic.

[The Gaffer]

Now you're playing semantics, holding up the word "culture" to excuse his racism. Nice one.

[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."

[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

Is rejection of multiculturalism limited to these types?

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?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

(Unless I'm mistaken, GM, you were taking a similar path when you retracted "racist" in favour of "xenophobic."

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

But in this case, a line should be drawn between culture and race- inked would probably be welcoming and open to any good Christian Afghans or Arabs- he just doesn't like Muslims, and he probably dislikes, say, white-skinned Balkan Muslims as much as he dislikes black-skinned Somali ones, yellow-skinned Chinese ones or brown-skinned Indonesian ones- that's just the colour most of them happen to be.

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."

Who you calling "mainstream moderate" ? Them's fightin' words :evil: