What is Multiculturalism and why it's bad
- Thread starter luiz
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Is 3PM in France the same is 3PM in California?
And you don't deny the validity of "3PM" as a concept.
Well I'm flatly denying the existence of this WASP culture. Maybe there is a New England WASP culture. And an Alabama WASP culture. But they have very little in common, other than both being American. The New England WASPs are closer culturally to their Catholic Portuguese-American neighbors than to Alabama WASPs (who are in turn culturally closer, shock and awe, to their black neighbors).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'm not an expert, but the answer of course has go to be "No". However, if we were to compare both of those, and then compared white Polish and white Latino cultures, you'd find a lot more differences between the latter. I'd guess that you are trying to say that most classifications just don't really make sense, and that you might as well just go with it? I disagree with that.
Edit: reading the above posts, it doesn't seem that that's what you're trying to say. Either way, there is such a thing as Polish culture for example, even though polish communities in various American states might differ.
Thank you for enlightening me on this. Seems that 'metaphor' part of that wiki article is quite relevant here.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Operation "bury nukes in case the Soviets attack" is an apparent success.
I saw this thread a long time ago and wanted to reply, especially to the first post, made by Luiz, but because of a busy life, I wasn't able to. I think Luiz makes some interesting, and even some correct points in the OP, and would also say that his attitude is quite common among Brazilians of a certain class background. However, I think he only tells half the story, so I will try now to tell the other half.
Luiz notes that relatively few Brazilians identify as black; this is true, but he does not then ask why this number is so low. He also does not mention the fact that many people with dark skin claim to be white, or at least whiter than they are. Of course a person has the right to classify themselves as they wish, but the interesting questions is why? And why it is almost always in one direction.
I will tell a small story from my childhood which I think illustrates the problem. One of my friends where I grew was very black, like charcoal, nothing rare about this on a hill in Rio of course
, but his nickname was "Italian". Why? Because he insisted that his great grandfather had been from Italy and so he was not black, he was Italian. At the time I thought it was funny and absurd, but when I grew older I could see that he was just an extreme example of a wider social phenomenon.
Historically, there has been a constant devaluing of black contributions and black Brazilians. This is perhaps not surprising in a society that was built on slavery, but what I want to talk about are the effects today.
I don't know how old Luiz is, but I am...errr...old enough to remember adverts in the newspaper 20-25 years ago: for 'white people' only (after this was made illegal, they became more subtle, anyone can apply, just send a photograph); and adverts for a housing development would always have a picture of a smiling white family (because blacks don't buy, nor rent!), and this is the same for any product or service that can be considered 'middle class', including education. To be fair, this has improved a little in recent years, but even today if you turn on the TV you will see white presenters on all major programmes, white people reading the news, white people in the soap operas and dramas, with non-whites playing a few minor roles. There was one recently which was centred on a rubbish dump; even there the main characters were white! The political class, with a few notable exceptions, is white.
So this image of white as the colour of wealth, of culture, of success, of aspiration, of power is a powerful one that permeates our whole society. It's not surprising then that people try to make themselves whiter than are, even when, like my friend from many years ago, this means denying the obvious.
It also shouldn't be surprising that many black people want to fight back against this, and say that they are black and proud and encourage others to do the same. They want to talk about Brazil from their perspective, about the historical position and the situation they face today, and try to change things.
And this is another problem, many white Brazilians see this kind of statement as an attack on them personally, as if pointing out that Brazil has been, and still is in many ways, a racist society, is calling them racists, which most of them are not. When someone talks about Brazil from a black perspective, to suggest that there is a divide between whites and non-whites, because of the colour of their skin, they become indignant and want to say that those talking about this division, and not the division itself, are the problem.
Luiz notes that relatively few Brazilians identify as black; this is true, but he does not then ask why this number is so low. He also does not mention the fact that many people with dark skin claim to be white, or at least whiter than they are. Of course a person has the right to classify themselves as they wish, but the interesting questions is why? And why it is almost always in one direction.
I will tell a small story from my childhood which I think illustrates the problem. One of my friends where I grew was very black, like charcoal, nothing rare about this on a hill in Rio of course
, but his nickname was "Italian". Why? Because he insisted that his great grandfather had been from Italy and so he was not black, he was Italian. At the time I thought it was funny and absurd, but when I grew older I could see that he was just an extreme example of a wider social phenomenon. Historically, there has been a constant devaluing of black contributions and black Brazilians. This is perhaps not surprising in a society that was built on slavery, but what I want to talk about are the effects today.
I don't know how old Luiz is, but I am...errr...old enough to remember adverts in the newspaper 20-25 years ago: for 'white people' only (after this was made illegal, they became more subtle, anyone can apply, just send a photograph); and adverts for a housing development would always have a picture of a smiling white family (because blacks don't buy, nor rent!), and this is the same for any product or service that can be considered 'middle class', including education. To be fair, this has improved a little in recent years, but even today if you turn on the TV you will see white presenters on all major programmes, white people reading the news, white people in the soap operas and dramas, with non-whites playing a few minor roles. There was one recently which was centred on a rubbish dump; even there the main characters were white! The political class, with a few notable exceptions, is white.
So this image of white as the colour of wealth, of culture, of success, of aspiration, of power is a powerful one that permeates our whole society. It's not surprising then that people try to make themselves whiter than are, even when, like my friend from many years ago, this means denying the obvious.
It also shouldn't be surprising that many black people want to fight back against this, and say that they are black and proud and encourage others to do the same. They want to talk about Brazil from their perspective, about the historical position and the situation they face today, and try to change things.
And this is another problem, many white Brazilians see this kind of statement as an attack on them personally, as if pointing out that Brazil has been, and still is in many ways, a racist society, is calling them racists, which most of them are not. When someone talks about Brazil from a black perspective, to suggest that there is a divide between whites and non-whites, because of the colour of their skin, they become indignant and want to say that those talking about this division, and not the division itself, are the problem.
I appreciate the input.
Well yes it's an old and well-known theory that people are ashamed of identifying as black because of the perceived lower status associated with blackness. That's why, the theory goes, mixed race Brazilians used to come up with so many "racial classifications" for themselves in the Census, like "burned caramel" and whatnot.
But here's an alternative explanation: what if they don't classify themselves as black because they really don't feel black? I mean, as genetic studies have abundantly pointed out, your average mulatto Brazilian has far more European background than African. When he looks at his family and ancestors, he will see more light skinned folks than dark skinned ones. So why would he call himself black? He understands his identity is a lot more complex than that and does not fit in some "one drop of blood" paradigm where you're either pure white or black.
He was probably telling the truth about his grandfather. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Additionally, he identifying with his Italian quarter as opposed to his non-Italian 3/4 is a classical example of trying to be unique (in his environment in a favela being Italian is quite unique, even though it's one of the most common ethnic backgrounds in Brazil). It's like Americans with one great-grandfather born in Ireland claiming to Irish and walking around with Shamrock T-Shirts and tattoos. They're not ashamed of what they are, they just think it's cooler to be Irish and so stick to their thin link to Ireland.I will tell a small story from my childhood which I think illustrates the problem. One of my friends where I grew was very black, like charcoal, nothing rare about this on a hill in Rio of course
OK.
I'm 29 so I should be able to remember "white-only" adds from 20 years ago. Not only do I not remember anything like that but find the idea that they would exist in 1994 bizarre. Unless they were for something very specific like an actor?
OTOH the Brazilian ideal of beauty has for quite some time being a very tanned skin and "African features". Gisele Bundchen may be the sex symbol we export, but internally most Brazilians fantasize about the likes of Juliana Paes.
The problem is a tiny group trying to force their narrow and divisive world view on everybody else. Why should someone who is 70% white and 30% black define himself as Black? Are we in Nazi Germany? In Jim Crow's South?
This doesn't sound much like how we define the term in official policy at all.
Are you sure you're not misinterpreting things.
FWIW I personally know people who I'm pretty sure either materially supported the IRA or have family members who did.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In fairness to Luiz, the British version of multiculturalism does have a strong emphasis on "communities" and "community leaders". Although, it's very far from the neo-Medieval corporatism that is, at least according to Luiz, operating in Brazil, because it's really only a significant policy when it comes to relations between the state and certain South Asian communities. There aren't many "black community leaders", "Chinese community leaders" or "Polish community leaders", or at least not beyond self-appointed spokesmen, because there aren't coherent or rigid enough black, Chinese, etc. communities for these policies to be necessary or particularly effective in the state's management of those communities.
And the trick here is, the very incompleteness of this British system of community leaders shows that this version of multiculturalism is not the Sinister Marxist Ideology that gives Luiz so many sleepless nights, it's just another version of the same patronage and cronyism that's haunted political systems since forever, given a legitimising gloss by a vaguely progressive-sounding program. The policy is so extensive in Brazil not because Brazil has fallen to the Reds, but because is a massively corrupt country, where patronage and cronyism were already huge issues, and if it so happens that some of the corruption is forced down avenues which might at least incidentally do some social good, that's not the worst thing in the world. I know it must rend Luiz heart so awful sore to think that people who aren't straight white men might be getting unethically rich, but it is the twenty-first century, and we are equal-opportunity crooks.
And the trick here is, the very incompleteness of this British system of community leaders shows that this version of multiculturalism is not the Sinister Marxist Ideology that gives Luiz so many sleepless nights, it's just another version of the same patronage and cronyism that's haunted political systems since forever, given a legitimising gloss by a vaguely progressive-sounding program. The policy is so extensive in Brazil not because Brazil has fallen to the Reds, but because is a massively corrupt country, where patronage and cronyism were already huge issues, and if it so happens that some of the corruption is forced down avenues which might at least incidentally do some social good, that's not the worst thing in the world. I know it must rend Luiz heart so awful sore to think that people who aren't straight white men might be getting unethically rich, but it is the twenty-first century, and we are equal-opportunity crooks.
From my own POV and experience of 3 years in London, i would say that even in the relatively affluent/less externally problematic late 90s-earliest of the 00s, the society in England where i was seemed to be at the same time on the surface (and to some degrees more officially) quite 'accepting' of 'other cultures', but moreover this was brought (or rather a sub-phenomenon of it, a non-honest one) mostly by a fear tactic of being branded a 'racist' if you were typically less than in line with this cloudy sense of polite behavior in public.
I think it was a very good state in relation to other concurrent states (i doubt there was equal or at least near 'acceptance' of this sort in Germany or other similarly northern countries), but in the end it likely bred antipathies, which would become more notable when the economic downturn happened (ie now and the last few years).
In my view the subject is set wrongly if it is called 'multiculturalism'. There is no ability for anyone to focus at equal depth on one thing and on more than one things, that much is (largely) evident. Likewise no one can know in depth more than one 'cultures'. But far more importantly it should be noted that what a 'culture' is, although resting on some specific cultural monuments (books, art, science etc) of a place, is always open to some particular examination by each individual human being. There is no real common culture if one goes significantly deeper than any plateau of such a culture.
I think it was a very good state in relation to other concurrent states (i doubt there was equal or at least near 'acceptance' of this sort in Germany or other similarly northern countries), but in the end it likely bred antipathies, which would become more notable when the economic downturn happened (ie now and the last few years).
In my view the subject is set wrongly if it is called 'multiculturalism'. There is no ability for anyone to focus at equal depth on one thing and on more than one things, that much is (largely) evident. Likewise no one can know in depth more than one 'cultures'. But far more importantly it should be noted that what a 'culture' is, although resting on some specific cultural monuments (books, art, science etc) of a place, is always open to some particular examination by each individual human being. There is no real common culture if one goes significantly deeper than any plateau of such a culture.
That's actually a good point. Corruption has a lot to do with how this issue is dealt with in Brazil. But I think the "collateral effect" is not good, but rather bad (Ie, a more divided society).
Also, while I do blame this on the commies (
), it should be noted that a lot of old school commies were adamantly opposed to those policies when they first came out, as they obviously twist Marxist ideology away from class solidarity to racial and "community" solidarity. They are in many ways "right-wing" or "reactionary" policies. But for better or worse those old school Marxists have basically died out, and nowadays the far-left is much more concerned with this sort of thing than with communism (if you talk about collective ownership of the means of production to some politicians of our several Marxist parties they might ask "WTH are you talking about bro? What does that have to do with Afro-Brazilians, Indians, Gays and Weed?" - that's all they talk about).
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Interesting that according to some scholars globalisation and multiculturalism aren't making people more alike, but have even accelerated the evolution of new races:
Quoted from:
http://phys.org/news116529402.html
And here is the opposite theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_the_future
Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike
Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different.
“We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah.
Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
-- “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”
-- “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, “and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then.”
“Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups.”
The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because “we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt,” Harpending adds. “And with a larger population, more mutations occurred.”
Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: “History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants.”
Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine.
No Justification for Discrimination
The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.
That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans – whose DNA is more than 99 percent identical – generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture plays a bigger role than genetics.
Harpending says genetic differences among different human populations “cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution aren’t predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities whatever their group.”
Analyzing SNPs of Evolutionary Acceleration
The study looked for genetic evidence of natural selection – the evolution of favorable gene mutations – during the past 80,000 years by analyzing DNA from 270 individuals in the International HapMap Project, an effort to identify variations in human genes that cause disease and can serve as targets for new medicines.
The new study looked specifically at genetic variations called “single nucleotide polymorphisms,” or SNPs (pronounced “snips”
Imagine walking along two chromosomes – the same chromosome from two different people. Chromosomes are made of DNA, a twisting, ladder-like structure in which each rung is made of a “base pair” of amino acids, either G-C or A-T. Harpending says that about every 1,000 base pairs, there will be a difference between the two chromosomes. That is known as a SNP.
Data examined in the study included 3.9 million SNPs from the 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe and northern Europeans, represented largely by data from Utah Mormons, says Harpending.
Over time, chromosomes randomly break and recombine to create new versions or variants of the chromosome. “If a favorable mutation appears, then the number of copies of that chromosome will increase rapidly” in the population because people with the mutation are more likely to survive and reproduce, Harpending says.
“And if it increases rapidly, it becomes common in the population in a short time,” he adds.
The researchers took advantage of that to determine if genes on chromosomes had evolved recently. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, with each parent providing one copy of each of the 23. If the same chromosome from numerous people has a segment with an identical pattern of SNPs, that indicates that segment of the chromosome has not broken up and recombined recently.
That means a gene on that segment of chromosome must have evolved recently and fast; if it had evolved long ago, the chromosome would have broken and recombined.
Harpending and colleagues used a computer to scan the data for chromosome segments that had identical SNP patterns and thus had not broken and recombined, meaning they evolved recently. They also calculated how recently the genes evolved.
A key finding: 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, recent evolution.
The researchers built a case that human evolution has accelerated by comparing genetic data with what the data should look like if human evolution had been constant:
-- The study found much more genetic diversity in the SNPs than would be expected if human evolution had remained constant.
-- If the rate at which new genes evolve in Africans was extrapolated back to 6 million years ago when humans and chimpanzees diverged, the genetic difference between modern chimps and humans would be 160 times greater than it really is. So the evolution rate of Africans represents a recent speedup in evolution.
-- If evolution had been fast and constant for a long time, there should be many recently evolved genes that have spread to everyone. Yet, the study revealed many genes still becoming more frequent in the population, indicating a recent evolutionary speedup.
Next, the researchers examined the history of human population size on each continent. They found that mutation patterns seen in the genome data were consistent with the hypothesis that evolution is faster in larger populations.
Evolutionary Change and Human History: Got Milk?
“Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation,” the study says. “The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease.”
The researchers note that human migrations into new Eurasian environments created selective pressures favoring less skin pigmentation (so more sunlight could be absorbed by skin to make vitamin D), adaptation to cold weather and dietary changes.
Because human population grew from several million at the end of the Ice Age to 6 billion now, more favored new genes have emerged and evolution has speeded up, both globally and among continental groups of people, Harpending says.
"We have to understand genetic change in order to understand history,” he adds.
For example, in China and most of Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase remains active, so “almost everyone can drink fresh milk,” explaining why dairying is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean and Africa, Harpending says.
He now is studying if the mutation that allowed lactose tolerance spurred some of history’s great population expansions, including when speakers of Indo-European languages settled all the way from northwest India and central Asia through Persia and across Europe 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. He suspects milk drinking gave lactose-tolerant Indo-European speakers more energy, allowing them to conquer a large area.
But Harpending believes the speedup in human evolution “is a temporary state of affairs because of our new environments since the dispersal of modern humans 40,000 years ago and especially since the invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago. That changed our diet and changed our social systems. If you suddenly take hunter-gatherers and give them a diet of corn, they frequently get diabetes. We’re still adapting to that. Several new genes we see spreading through the population are involved with helping us prosper with high-carbohydrate diet.”
Source: University of Utah
Quoted from:
http://phys.org/news116529402.html
And here is the opposite theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_the_future
Thanks, it's always interesting to talk about these things.
It's true that people have diverse backgrounds and so will have diverse opinions about them. However what I'm talking about is the trend for non-white people to place themselves in a group which is 'whiter' than their skin colour, and why this happens.
I don't think my friend was lying, and it was his was great-grandfather, so 1/8. The guy was black, like he had just arrived from Angola, and he claimed that he wasn't. I think you're right that uniqueness was part of it, but it was still strange. I've seen a similar thing many times, not as extreme I admit, but people associating themselves with a group that has a lighter skin colour than them. Of course a person has the right to define themselves as they want, but we need to ask why people define themselves as lighter than they are.
I'm 56 and I remember those adverts in the newspapers, even in 1990 or so for "white people", sometimes a euphemism was preferred, but the meaning was clear. This was for ordinary jobs like receptionist.
I think that's quite debatable and I'm not sure how "African" Juliana Paes' features are. I think there are two points here, first we have the predominance of white women in beauty aimed at men; the "beautiful girls" used in promotions on the the TV shows are mostly white. Even in the popular newspapers, something like a gata da hora is usually a white girl with a big butt. Second, we have the same thing with beauty aimed at women. If we see on the TVs on the metro and buses in Rio, the 'fashion' or 'beauty' tips, the models are almost always white; even in the favela you can see at the salon all the customers are non-white, but look at the posters (I don't deny that there is a market for "afro" beauty but I'm talking in general here) and all the girls are white. In other words, girls, white and non-white grow up and see all around them images of beauty which are mostly white. White is beautiful; beautiful people are white. That's the message, and it's clear that it has an effect.
You see it like that. I see it as some black people trying to push back a little against the massive forces: the historical context; the corporate world; the media; and the effects all these have on our social views. To say "I'm black and I'm proud and you can be too".
I agree, specially because this debate has been interdicted in Brazil. I would be called a racist and many things worse for posting this same content in a Brazilian board, even if I sugarcoated it. People would be calling for my arrest.Thanks, it's always interesting to talk about these things.
But what I'm saying is that phenotypes are a poor way to judge a Brazilian's background. To give a celebrity example, pale and blue eyed actress Bruna Linzmeyer is 25% Black, and also has some Indian ancestry, even though she looks very white. Whiter than me, and I don't have any black or Indian ancestry that I'm aware of. So in interviews she has identified as mixed race, as she really is, even though she doesn't look like it.
Likewise, people who look black or mostly black in many cases have more white than black ancestry. So it's not absurd, or a product of racial shame, for them not to identify themselves as black.
I really never saw a very dark person claiming to be white. Claiming to be mulatto, or a myriad of other words for mixed race ("moreno", etc), sure. And they probably are, just like your friend.
Maybe he doesn't see a dichotomy between being dark skinned and Italian? Balotelli is Italian after all, why can't he? He was trying to be cool, to be unique. If he looked the exact same but studied in a middle class school, where half the people probably have Italian last names, I doubt he would be trying to emphasize his Italian side. Maybe then he would emphasize his black side...
I'll take your word for it, but I do remember the 1990's, and this seems bizarre. Society seemed far less focused on race back then. I distinctly remember when things started going downhill, with those "100% Negro" t-shirts in the mid 1990's...
Juliana Paes is a very Brazilian beauty, I'd say. Obviously not white, obviously not black, and with some clear Indian ancestry and maybe even some Asian. And she is definitely the greatest "internal market" sex symbol of the last decade.
I'll concede that beauty adverts aimed for women feature mostly European-looking models. But that's because they follow international fashion standards. Very tall, very thin women. They will more likely than not be white (our tallest girls are the Germans from the South).
But beauty adds aimed at men are for more diverse... men, specially Brazilian men, usually prefer shorter women with big butts. These will usually be mixed race. If you look at past editions of Brazilian Playboy you'll see almost as many non-white cover girls as white ones. Of course whites are still over-represented, but you gotta keep in mind that:
-Whites are about 45% of the population according to IBGE. That's a lot of people.
-Whites are the great majority in the richest areas of the country (SP and the South), and thus naturally the biggest target for advertising companies. A lot of adds which you see in the Northeast or in slums where most people aren't white were designed for the richer markets where most people are white.
But actual blacks are a very small minority. I don't see why people who have a very diverse background have to identify with this one. Why can't they embrace their rich, mixed identity? That's what they currently do.
When people say stuff like "there is a Black majority in Brazil" I always roll my eyes...
Quackers
The Frog
25% Black? Not sure if I believe that!
Quackers
The Frog
Why wouldn't you believe it, Mr Q?
~50% "English". Apparently.
She has no black phenotypes on show.
Obama..50% English ethnically but hates the British. Typical.
Similar threads
