What is Multiculturalism and why it's bad

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah.. I sort of agree. It doesn't really make sense to say "white culture", unless you specify that you mean some small town with 500 people in it who are all Scandinavian or something.

But why say white culture then when it would be far more correct and descriptive to say Scandinavian culture, in that scenario?

Because if that small town is in Minnesota the chances of it really representing Scandinavian culture are also really slim. Part of what makes America complicated is that it tries very hard to maintain this aura of multi-culturalism with the 'Scandinavians' of Minnesota or the 'Creoles' of Louisiana. In reality the vast majority are so many generations removed that while they may be unique from other parts of America they are just as unique from the homeland of their ancestors, and probably more.

 

[Old Hippy]

Indeed, the US is a pretty assimlationist country. But that has little to do with the points I was making, which were not about new immigrant communities (nobody denies new immigrant communities have a distinct culture).

And I don't see what Civil Rights have to do with anything. I'm certainly not opposed to them...

I'm sure you are not opposed to them, but in talking about the US experience you are not actually talking about Multicultural policy so the points you were making have little to do with Multicultural policy, but just the way things turned out and civil rights is the US answer trying to fix things

 

[classical_hero]

Multiculturalism for the win.

Some commanding officers in the Australian Defence Force have been advising their personnel not to wear their uniforms to and from work and on public transport for safety reasons in the wake of increased terror alerts.

The move may be extended around the country at the discretion of individual officers, although it will not become official ADF policy, as it would be seen as a victory for the Islamic State (ISIL).

This comes as the Australian Federal Police asked the Abbott government to speed up the issuing of control orders, which allow police to place restrictions on people who are deemed to be a risk to public safety, in the wake of last week's terror raids.

An ADF commanding officer in Victoria told Fairfax Media that he had advised his juniors to consider wearing civilian clothes off base for safety reasons.

"It's not for us so much as for our families," he said. "I think most other [officers] are probably doing that as a precaution. There is a small number of people who support ISIL but those people represent a big threat."

The officer said that Defence had not officially recommended such steps as removing uniforms before leaving bases and barracks because it "did not want to give ISIL the recognition".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...or-threats-20140920-10jqse.html#ixzz3DxooU5GR

It's a sad day when people who protect your country are no longer safe in their own country. This is great news for those multiculturalists.

 

[Tahuti]

Non-sequitur. What do army uniforms, ISIS ultimately have to do with multiculturalism?

 

[aelf]

I'm waiting for CH to provide some kind of silver bullet for terrorism that has to do with multiculturalism, like kicking out all the brown people or something similar. But then again, when does he actually follow up any of his posts with some real reasoning or substance?

 

[Borachio]

Push him and he goes all sniffy, and tells you you're just stupid. If he deigns to notice you at all, that is.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm waiting for CH to provide some kind of silver bullet for terrorism that has to do with multiculturalism, like kicking out all the brown people or something similar. But then again, when does he actually follow up any of his posts with some real reasoning or substance?

That doesn't offend as much as the insinuation that people who support this country's multiculturalism are basically terrorists.

His kind does more damage to Australian democracy and way of life than any ISIS militant.

 

[aelf]

His kind does more damage to Australian democracy and way of life than any ISIS militant.

They're both religious zealots, so no surprises there.

 

[Traitorfish]

An unfair comparison; the ISIS militant at least puts his money where his mouth is.

 

[Yeekim]

Non-sequitur. What do army uniforms, ISIS ultimately have to do with multiculturalism?

Isn't it quite obvious? Australia having had no history of being a caliphate, ISIS supporters would most likely be radical Muslim immigrants (of first or second generation), or possibly local converts radicalized by them. Hence, if Australia followed a different mindset and consequently different immigration policy (say, like Japan), the threat of local ISIS supporters wouldn't be there.

This, of course, leaves several things to point out:
1) There having been no attacks on local military, it can be reasonably claimed the fear is simply not grounded in reality in the first place and can be dismissed as such. (Most likely true).
2) Even if such attacks had taken place, it could still easily be argued that overall benefits from immigration are well worth the risk. (Probably true, don't know Australia well enough to really have an informed opinion).

But pretending there is no connection at all seems either really disingenuous or really foolish...?

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't it quite obvious? Australia having had no history of being a caliphate, ISIS supporters would most likely be radical Muslim immigrants (of first or second generation), or possibly local converts radicalized by them. Hence, if Australia followed a different mindset and consequently different immigration policy (say, like Japan), the threat of local ISIS supporters wouldn't be there.

Australia having no history of being Ireland, IRA supporters would most likely be radical Irish republican immigrants (of first or second generation), or possibly local Irish-Australians radicalised by them. Hence, if Australia followed a different mindset and consequently different immigration policy (say, like Japan), the threat of local IRA supporters wouldn't be there.

edit: And that sounds glib, but at one point Irish immigrants invaded Canada from the United States, so there's that.

 

[gay_Aleks]

That's interesting, ISIS wants to turn Australia into a caliphate? Would that mean they'll also christen the kangaroos and the koalas?

 

[Yeekim]

Australia having no history of being Ireland, IRA supporters would most likely be radical Irish republican immigrants (of first or second generation), or possibly local Irish-Australians radicalised by them. Hence, if Australia followed a different mindset and consequently different immigration policy (say, like Japan), the threat of local IRA supporters wouldn't be there.

edit: And that sounds glib, but at one point Irish immigrants invaded Canada from the United States, so there's that.

That is an inventive parallel (and interesting historical tidbit), but I'm not sure what conclusions you believe should be drawn?

I'd think there would be a considerable Irish population in Australia since the very start of European colonization, so they couldn't really use immigration policies to effectively counter such particular "threat" (I am using "" because afaik IRA's terror campaign after Fenians, that is after 1870, has been solely focused on NI and England). Which shouldn't be a reason not to consider using those policies to counter different threats.

 

[aelf]

Isn't it quite obvious? Australia having had no history of being a caliphate, ISIS supporters would most likely be radical Muslim immigrants (of first or second generation), or possibly local converts radicalized by them. Hence, if Australia followed a different mindset and consequently different immigration policy (say, like Japan), the threat of local ISIS supporters wouldn't be there.

This, of course, leaves several things to point out:
1) There having been no attacks on local military, it can be reasonably claimed the fear is simply not grounded in reality in the first place and can be dismissed as such. (Most likely true).
2) Even if such attacks had taken place, it could still easily be argued that overall benefits from immigration are well worth the risk. (Probably true, don't know Australia well enough to really have an informed opinion).

But pretending there is no connection at all seems either really disingenuous or really foolish...?

Sounds like the problem could be traced back to the opening of doors to the white man. With no white man, there would have been no colonialism, no imperialism and hence no terrorism today in Australia.

 

[Yeekim]

Sounds like the problem could be traced back to the opening of doors to the white man. With no white man, there would have been no colonialism, no imperialism and hence no terrorism today in Australia.

Probably. This, however, is hardly useful for today's policymakers.
Unless you wish to take this to "no mankind, no troubles" direction, which I doubt.

 

[bhsup]

Actually, if history hadn't played out like it really did, chances are Japan would have taken Australia in WWII, which may have altered the entire course of the war, leading to a Japanese Australia today. That means potentially home grown Japanese terror groups like Aum Shinrikyo may be operating there.

 

[Traitorfish]

That is an inventive parallel (and interesting historical tidbit), but I'm not sure what conclusions you believe should be drawn?

I'd think there would be a considerable Irish population in Australia since the very start of European colonization, so they couldn't really use immigration policies to effectively counter such particular "threat" (I am using "" because afaik IRA's terror campaign after Fenians, that is after 1870, has been solely focused on NI and England). Which shouldn't be a reason not to consider using those policies to counter different threats.

But that is not why we would regard a call to exclude Irish immigration on grounds of national security as ridiculous. We would regard it as ridiculous because we understand that damning a whole population because of the politics of a minority is unjust and unreasonable. The Irish, we know, are like anybody else, and those that turn towards armed force do so for their own reasons. But we struggle to imagine Muslims as just like anybody else, still insist on maintaining that the simple presence of Muslims in a country represents a latent public threat.

We understand that a militant Irish Republican is born of a complex personal and political process, but we continue to believe that a militant Islamist is created when you feed a mogwai after midnight, and the analogy demonstrates that double standard.

 

[aelf]

Probably. This, however, is hardly useful for today's policymakers.
Unless you wish to take this to "no mankind, no troubles" direction, which I doubt.

So my question to you, like to c_h, is what policy implications does this have in terms of ending the threat of terrorist attacks in Australia?

 

[warpus]

Because if that small town is in Minnesota the chances of it really representing Scandinavian culture are also really slim. Part of what makes America complicated is that it tries very hard to maintain this aura of multi-culturalism with the 'Scandinavians' of Minnesota or the 'Creoles' of Louisiana. In reality the vast majority are so many generations removed that while they may be unique from other parts of America they are just as unique from the homeland of their ancestors, and probably more.

I just think it's silly to say "white culture" when you can be far more specific. White Polish culture in Chicago has got to be completely different from white latino culture in Los Angeles for example.

Having said that, I agree that in a lot of cases it makes sense to generalize.. but my problem is that when people say "white culture", they really mean "White anglo-saxon protestant culture".. which a large chunk of white America is, but it isn't fair to the outliers to be grouped into this classification every single time.

 

[luiz]

problem is that when people say "white culture", they really mean "White anglo-saxon protestant culture"..

And is "white Anglo-Saxon protestant" culture in Alabama the same as it is Rhode Island?