Reality Check: What are the limits of cultural diversity?

[Timsup2nothin]

That said, I don't think I would declare that restaurants must refuse service to Nazis, but I haven't thought that one through well enough to be able to say why.

I have no problem with suppressing self proclaimed Nazis, because as soon as someone openly expresses a willingness to use force to suppress others who are not themselves suppressing anyone they become fair game for use of force to suppress them.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I guess I wonder whether a willingness to use force is enough, or if someone must express an intention to use force. otoh, you could certainly claim that people advertising themselves to be Nazis in public are showing such an intention, and not just a willingness, and I don't know if I would argue. In Skokie the Supreme Court decided the Nazis could march on freedom of assembly grounds. To me, though, Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood is reasonably viewed as a threat (and the location did have a significant Jewish population), not just an expression of political views. For example, I think it's illegal to burn a cross in front of a Black family's home, because it's an implicit threat of violence. Merely displaying Nazi insignia in front of Jews could be viewed the same way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The thing is though that free speech should allow nazis to assemble and speak whatever they want.

And in doing so, other people can counter that with how wrong their speech is.

Otherwise you dont have freedom of speech.

Anything they want except for things that are illegal, such as hate speech against protected classes of people.

But that infringes on their rights to free speech?

Canada doesn't actually have "freedom of speech." We have "freedom of expression." But that freedom is granted as long as we don't use it for advocating hate or violence, or other things such as Holocaust denial.

Nazis and other bigoted people can say whatever they want in their own homes or cars. But if they get up on a stage, stand in the street, lecture to students, or pontificate hatred in a letter to the editor, that's hate speech, and is illegal.

 

[civvver]

Comon guys this thing is so overblown. Gays are a tiny percentage of the population, like 2%. Even if you are being generous the entire LGBT community is probably 5% max. You are unlikely to run into someone just through your normal activities unless you seek them out or run in those circles. It's really not a big deal, I think the issue is how much the media sensationalizes it and passes it off as "cultural diversity" when it's really not. It's a teeny tiny part of the population, like the amount of gay people on the show glee is ridiculous considering it's a small high school in Ohio. LGBT influence in daily life is so small, but it's exposure in the media and entertainment is drastically out of proportion. That's probably why many anti-gay people are angry.

What I'm trying to say is, people getting all riled up about it need to cool their jets, it's not a big deal and it's not overtaking the country as the new norm. But sometimes watching tv you wouldn't know it.

Instead I think we should focus on cultural diversity that actually matters, like why are many white people uncomfortable around black kids?

 

[bhavv]

Actually gays are approx 10% of the population, and 20% are bi.

 

[Flying Pig]

Anything they want except for things that are illegal, such as hate speech against protected classes of people.

I think you're driving at the right thing, but 'speech should be protected by law unless it is illegal' is an extremely dangerous way of formulating it. The state should not be the source of civil rights - civil rights are things we demand from the government as entitlements for being human, not things which we graciously accept on sufferance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even going with 5%, we are talking about millions of people. Failure to protect their rights is unconscionable.

 

[bhavv]

What about in my case of being repeatedly told that white people are all evil by my parents and other older Indian people while growing up?

Also:

'Never marry a white girl. She will only divorce you and take 50% of your stuff'

'OMG do you talk to white people while you are at uni?'

Erm yes?

'WELL NEVER TALK TO BLACK PEOPLE!'

Le me telling my brother about how clever one of my lecturers is, like a living encyclopedia ...

'Is he white?'

Yes?

'SO HOW DO YOU KNOW HE ISNT RACIST?'

.... (Because he isn't but you lot bloody well are).

Le cousin talking to me before starting uni:

'Im scared of going to uni'.

Why?

'Because there's going to be white people there, I've only ever known Asian people!'

Le cousin gets straight A's in gcses and a levels, a Law degree and becomes a barrister. Double you tee eff???

 

[.Shane.]

As for the Confederate flag - I've recently seen a video by the American Renaissance organization, in which it was claimed that the original goal of the North in the Civil War was to liberate Blacks from slavery AND to ship them back to Africa after that. While the South opposed the end of slavery, but also advocated for allowing Black people to stay, rather than transporting all of them back to Africa (either to Africa or to Northern factories as cheap labour) - as the Northerners supposedly wanted.

Is this true?

No.

The goal of the North was to keep the Union together. The goal of the South was to protect it's institution of slavery from a largely imagined bogeyman of "black Republicans" coming to take away their slaves. Ironically, in initiating the CW, they sealed the fate of slavery.

Northerners (being very general here) came around to the notion that the war had to ALSO be about ending slavery, given the high loss of life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

That was decades prior. But, yes, a segment of the abolition movement want to resettle blacks in Africa (Lincoln was a proponent of this for a long time), but that's a minority viewpoint and it was never Northern policy during the CW.

 

[Domen]

I've recently seen a video lecture, in which it was claimed that the original goal of the North in the Civil War was to liberate Blacks from slavery AND to ship them back to Africa after that. While the South opposed the end of slavery, but also advocated for allowing Black people to stay, rather than transporting all of them back to Africa (either to Africa or to Northern factories as cheap labour) - as the Northerners supposedly wanted.

Is this true?

And if true, then why was the plan of shipping them back to Africa not implemented?

I guess it was implemented, but only partially:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Here is the video lecture in question - titled "A Brief History of US Race Relations":

The relevant fragment starts at 13:30 - quotation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndtWvwk1Rvo#t=810

"(...) Now I'd like to turn to the abolition movement which I think is one of the least understood, or most misunderstood movements in all of American history. Most Americans today think that the goal of the abolitionists was to free the slaves and make them the equals of hwhites. This is not at all the case. The huge majority wanted to free the slaves AND then send them outside the United States in a process that they called 'colonization'. (...)"

=======================

Edit:

.Shane., thanks for your response, I haven't seen it yet while writing this post.

 

[.Shane.]

Domen, they're a white supremacist organization. I already gave you an answer. So, of course, they are presenting a very prejudiced/crazy viewpoint.

Best thing you can do now is unlink to them and not give them any more hits/views/consideration.

 

[Domen]

I know they are a hwhite nationalist organization, but it doesn't necessarily mean that everything what they say is factually wrong, does it? I found the description of Jamestown colony versus Powhatan tribes relations in that video interesting (though obviously white-washing Jamestown to some degree).

But to what degree is his description white-washing Jamestown colonists, I'm not sure.

He says that the Powhatan found the very presence of Europeans threatening to them, and that Europeans were friendly until they got attacked.

 

[Perfection]

Comon guys this thing is so overblown. Gays are a tiny percentage of the population, like 2%. Even if you are being generous the entire LGBT community is probably 5% max. You are unlikely to run into someone just through your normal activities unless you seek them out or run in those circles.

I dunno about you but I anticipate running into more than 50 people in my lifetime.

 

[Domen]

I doubt that gays are even 2%, perhaps much less than 2%. It also depends on country, region, etc. I guess.

For example among the Khoisan people of South Africa no gays at all were observed by cultural anthropologists.

Some populations may have a higher percent of gays than other ones.

 

[warpus]

why are many white people uncomfortable around black kids?

I've never heard of this thing.

I do know that men are often uncomfortable around kids, because people supposedly often freak out when they see a lone man with a child - presuming that he's a pedophile. I have never seen this happen firsthand either, but I have heard of it. White people uncomfortable around black kids? I saw a couple black children the other day - I didn't feel uncomfortable at all. I don't know where that's coming from.

I think you're driving at the right thing, but 'speech should be protected by law unless it is illegal' is an extremely dangerous way of formulating it. The state should not be the source of civil rights - civil rights are things we demand from the government as entitlements for being human, not things which we graciously accept on sufferance.

I didn't word it like that though, I just said you're free to say whatever you want, unless it's illegal to do so. Stating a fact, not making a statement on where rights come from or whatever.

 

[Domen]

why are many white people uncomfortable around black kids?

Are they? Maybe in the USA (or wherever this Doll Test was carried out):


Link to video.

 

[Perfection]

Maybe gay Khosians are good at hiding their proclivities from anthropologists.

 

[bhavv]

Oh, why are Indians so terrified of non Indians? As in my previous post.

 

[.Shane.]

I know they are a hwhite nationalist organization, but it doesn't necessarily mean that everything what they say is factually wrong, does it?

That's beside the point. You don't give a bad actor any attention or credence.

If you want to make these points, I suggest doing so from more legitimate sources as I'm not going to watch 1 second of their crap.

 

[Domen]

Maybe gay Khosians are good at hiding their proclivities from anthropologists.

Maybe, it's also possible.

If you want to make these points, I suggest doing so from more legitimate sources as I'm not going to watch 1 second of their crap.

OK, but please watch the "Doll Test" video that I posted. Why are such small children already so "brainwashed" ???

Was that test carried out in the USA (some of them speak Spanish but they could be Hispanic immigrants) ???

The most likely explanation is that these children have their opinions shaped by adult people around them.

So it seems that behind this facade of political correctness, Americans are still a very racist society.

There is a book written by a Polish journalist Marek Walkuski, titled "Ameryka po kawałku" ("America piece by piece"):

I have this book and Walkuski writes there, that although in public Americans (this mostly refers to white Americans) pretend to be very tolerant people and pose as such, if you engage with them in a more sincere discussion, most of them are about as racist and bigoted as their ancestors were in the past.

Anyway, Walkuski writes that even such a facade of political correctness is a good thing, no matter how artificial it really is.