Multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences

Posted by: ST on February 5, 2006 at 9:55 am

Mark Steyn writes today about the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons that has sparked a furor amongst Muslims overseas. In it, he argues in favor of the publication of the cartoons on free speech grounds and makes a great point that multicultural ‘sensitivity’ (such as that which is being shown in free societies such as our own) can and will lead to the downfall of civilization if we let it:

One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they’ll marvel at how easy it all was. You don’t need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that’s a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural “sensitivity,” the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want — including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the “sensitivity” of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.

No doubt he’s similarly impressed by the “sensitivity” of Anne Owers, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he’s impressed by the “sensitivity” of Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word “Allah” in Arabic script. I don’t know which sura in the Koran says don’t forget, folks, it’s not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be “sensitive.”

And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the “sensitivity” of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the “sensitivity” of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ”Shouf Shouf Habibi!” on the grounds that “I don’t want a knife in my chest” — which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ”right to dissent” all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they’re just being “sensitive,” too.

And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the “sensitivity” of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under 24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the “sensitivity” of the increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to Canada and New Zealand.

Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a “diverse” “tolerant” society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.

One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question.”

Read the whole thing.

More: In the meantime, Kevin/blogagog sends along this link that notes the Vatican’s position on the publication of these cartoons:

The Vatican condemned the publication of the cartoons, saying freedom of speech did not mean freedom to offend a person’s religion.

That’s an interesting position for the Vatican to take, especially considering any number of positions the Vatican has taken which would offend others, such as their anti-gay union and anti-abortion stances. The Vatican enjoys the religious freedom to condemn practices which they deem morally abhorrent and against Catholic teachings – which in turn offends ‘progressives’, but apparently the Vatican doesn’t feel like society has the freedom to condemn (in this case, via cartoons) a particular religious group’s more extreme practices which they deem morally abhorrent and against all common decency. Classic example of “free speech for me, but not for thee” if I’ve ever seen it.

Update: Charles Moore writing in today’s UK Telegraph nails it:

On the Today programme yesterday, Stewart Lee, author of Jerry Springer: The Opera – in which Jesus appears wearing nappies – let the cat out of the bag. He suggested that it was fine to offend Christians because they had themselves degraded their iconography; Islam, however, has always been more “conscientious about protecting the brand”.

The implication of the remark is fascinating. It is that the only people whose feelings artists, newspapers and so on should consider are those who protest violently. The fact that Christians nowadays do not threaten to blow up art galleries, invade television studios or kill writers and producers does not mean that their tolerance is rewarded by politeness. It means that they are insulted the more.

Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported, to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan “God loves F***ing”.

Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn’t I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won’t, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.

There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam – fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.

I second that!

Related Toldjah So posts:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

46 Responses to “Multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences”

Comments

  1. olivia clemens says:

    I agree that Charles Moore nails the issue. It is as if Islam as a faith has a monopoly on being the ‘squeaky wheel’ and so gets all the grease.

    I had read somewhere that the single best hope for Western Civilization resisting Islamification somes from its women because the women of the West, now treated with dignity, will not allow society to regress to sanctioned persecution of women. I hope that is true, but like Charles Moore, I hardly see the denizens of the media leading the crusade to protect our newfound freedoms and status.

    BTW ST, through the last week or so while this has been going on, I have visited your blog and that of MM’s frequently and have found it comforting that other intelligent women feel as I do about how this is a threat to all our freedoms.

    I hope your furniture turned out OK. And btw, I’m also from NC and we had snow up here in the mountains today – finally. :)

  2. steve says:

    Isn’t it just childish to provoke the response that you know you will get? Especially, if it leads to violence or death? We all know that the Middle East must have it’s own Age of Enlightenment, but forcing it by using insults is dangerous, unnecessary and immoral. Peace

  3. blogagog says:

    Isn’t it sad how quickly you will surrender your freedom, Steve? Strange that you will so quickly suppress freedom of speech, but are hoffified that someone may be listening to your international phone call.

  4. Kevin says:

    As to The Vatican, the position that, as a matter of moral conduct, one should not insult or satirize God (although satirizing men and women is “fair game”) is hardly surprising and is consistent with prior public positions of the Vatican on the issue. Moreover, while some Roman Catholic cardinals may believe that secular laws should forbid such conduct, many more do not. Most Catholics in the West understand the difference between the condemnation of “improper” speech on moral grounds and the prior restraint of free speech by force of secular law.

  5. CavalierX says:

    >Isn’t it just childish to provoke the
    >response that you know you will get?

    Best buy your prayer rug now, steve, and avoid the rush. You can use the money you’ll save on razor blades. Whatever you do, don’t provoke the Muslims to violence!

  6. Dave in CO says:

    steve wrote “Isn’t it just childish to provoke the response that you know you will get?” Thanks for the chuckle, steve. Wouldn’t that apply to virtually EVERY post you have made here? Isn’t that why you throw around, incorrectly, words like “fascist”? ST is exceedingly gracious to provide you a forum, wouldn’t you say? Peas and carrots

  7. camojack says:

    “…in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia.”

    Mark Steyn certainly tells it like it is, huh? :-?

  8. andrew says:

    “It is as if Islam as a faith has a monopoly on being the ‘squeaky wheel’ and so gets all the grease.”

    Its like a creationist at MIT.

  9. - The rioting in Lebenon, coming on the heels of the Danish cartoons, and surely stemming from a call by the Mullahs to inflame the passions of the unhappy masses in the various terrorist based countries, is particularly telling, since this ME country is not generally considered to be a part of the Jihad movement.

    – When you look at the contrast between the terrorist regimes and countries like Kuwait and the UAE, you see the results of a fundemental approach by the leaders in the two spheres.

    – The UAE, and other moderate counties in the ME, decided to use the riches they accumulated from oil sold to the West and others, to build strong, self sufficient societies, and turn away from radical Muslim fundementalism. In the early 70’s these countries hired Western companies to build all of the neccessary infrastructure for a stable society, along with training of their people to allow self-suffienciency and avoid cultural shock. The religious leaders were kept at arms legth in the governmental operations, and limited to a social only role.

    – By contrast countries such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi used bribery or Theocractic rule to maintain power. In Saudi the royal family support terrorist organizations and maintain control with a strong military. In Iran the Imams and Mullahs do the same, with much tighter Theocratic absolutism.

    – The common theme in all of the terrorist based ME countries is to redirect the social problems the leaders themselves have caused by demonizing the West, and utilizing ancient, mis-interpreted Koranic passages to incite their people against the “Great Satan”.

    – Our sole “crime” apparently is that we have puchased their oil products for decades, and that any other religions exist besides Islam. In order to hang on to power the Imams and Mullahs have steadily escalated the rhetoric unavoidably, until now they’re left with declaring open warfare on the rest of the non-muslim world.

    – We need to stop paying lip service to the idea of oil independence, much to the delight of the large oil conglomerants, and free ourselves from this contrivence of being the Isalmic extremists target of choice. Without that ploy most, if not all of these regimes, sans the constant flow of Western money, would very soon collapse.

    – The idea of “Demoractization” of unformed raw societies, while theoretically laudable, is impractical and harmful in the long run, to America’s interests and citizens. Oil-free self reliance is the answer, and it can’t come soon enough. Without that “tie”, the extremists lose thier main card in the struggle between civilizations, as the WOT has been called by numerous scholars.

    – Bang **==

  10. - BTW, since these cartoons were run back in september several interesting questions arise…

    – Why is there never any outcry and uprising when the Islamic press and websites publish cartoons and articles calling the Israeli’s “money grubbing Jews” and “Zionist pigs”, along with similar dirogatory statements almost daily coming from the Jihadist leadership.

    – Why did it take four months for this sudden response. Could it be this is aimed at taking some of the attention and heat off of the Iran/Nuclear issue?

    – Some sources in the ME are saying that the Imams and Mullahs are actually trying to quiet the mobs down. Maybe they’ve created a mob-monster they can’t control any longer….

  11. andrew says:

    “The UAE, and other moderate counties in the ME, decided to use the riches they accumulated from oil sold to the West and others, to build strong, self sufficient societies, and turn away from radical Muslim fundementalism. In the early 70’s these countries hired Western companies to build all of the neccessary infrastructure for a stable society, along with training of their people to allow self-suffienciency and avoid cultural shock. The religious leaders were kept at arms legth in the governmental operations, and limited to a social only role.”

    What part of kuwait is ‘self-sufficient’ ? You mean like all their imported labor? What part has turned away from fundamentalism? the part with women in parliament?

  12. - Andrew, you continue to display your uneducated ignorance. The examples I gave include countries that have escewed extreme Wahhabism (Kuwait) and countries that have gone a step farther and established psuedo Democracies using their oil wealth rather than war on their neighbors (UAE). Just what the hell is your argument. You seem to just want to be contradictory with any reasoned post you see on here. And then you wonder why the left can’t gain any traction with the voting public and you keep getting your out of touch asses kicked at the ballot box. You can delude yourself till you’re in the ground. The US will never be a socialistic state, Not ever. I don’t give a horses butt what your poly-sci prof or the Marxist wingnuts that run you have filled your pointed little head with. It just isn’t going to happen. So keep on trucking.

    – Bang **==

  13. andrew says:

    “One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia.”

    Only if you’re the type that is under the delusion that europe is multicultural.

  14. andrew says:

    “I don’t give a horses butt what your poly-sci prof or the Marxist wingnuts that run you have filled your pointed little head with. It just isn’t going to happen. So keep on trucking.”

    Instead, I think you should continue to chase the ghosts you see on the internet.

  15. Instead, “I think” you should continue to chase the ghosts you see on the internet.

    – From the contraryness of every one of your posts, theres very little evidence you think at all. One of the problems you leftist gadflys have is, after awhile you’ve done it all to death, and it doesn’t fly anymore. I’ve worked in the UAE, know the people up close and personal, and how they feel about things first hand. How many times have you been to the UAE andrew, or do you get all your “facts” from Wikipedia, and your fellow Komrades…

    – Bang **==

  16. andrew says:

    “How many times have you been to the UAE andrew, or do you get all your “facts” from Wikipedia, and your fellow Komrades…”

    I wasn’t talking about the UAE. That’s why I said ‘kuwait.’ They’re spelled differently, and they refer to different countries.

    Did you find that the UAE had as much imported labor as Kuwait? did you find that ‘self-sufficient?’

  17. S’over Andrew…I don’t debate with people who only know what they’ve heard or seen on the net….Get out a little and get some r/l experience and then come back and I’ll give you some time. Till then I’ve wasted too much on you already. Your quips and silly retorts, dodging every point posted, is a sure sign of naivete’ and immaturity. Good luck in you travels to seek real truths instead of mimicking others….

    – Bang **==

  18. andrew says:

    “S’over Andrew…I don’t debate with people who only know what they’ve heard or seen on the net….Get out a little and get some r/l experience and then come back and I’ll give you some time.”

    Why don’t you read a book during your break from me too. They count as “real.”

  19. blogagog says:

    I have to agree with BBH, Andy. The main difference between “Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia” would be the penalty paid for breaking the law. In fact, it would be worse than sharia, since it would be sharia law plus losing the freedom to say bad things about other groups and cultures. There would probably not be any hands cut off, but the rest would be the same.

    Europe is indeed multicultural, and is/will experience much pain because of it. It is a mistake to believe the the dictionary definition of multicultural, just as it is a mistake with communism.

    Dictionary multiculturalism, like true communism, is an ideal that is just not attainable. Both have been tried numerous times. Both have failed almost as many. When cultures share the same land and don’t merge their cultures together as they mostly did in pre-1970’s America, war is always the result (Cypress, Northern Ireland, Lebannon, India, the list goes on and on).

    The solution to this is assimilation into the society you live in. You will have to change to become part of that society, and society will change because of you. You will have to do most of the changing because you are a small percentage of the total society, but society definitely changes as well. Look at America. Does it look like anywhere in Europe? Nope, we merged most of our citizens into a new culture.

    (Don’t hammer me on the 1970’s comment. I said ‘mostly’.)

  20. blogagog says:

    I can’t believe I talked about multiculturalism without quoting the greatest thinker of our time, Thomas Sowell. Allow me to make amends.

    You want to see multiculturalism in action? Look at Yugoslavia, at Lebanon, at Sri Lanka, at Northern Ireland, at Azerbaijan, or wherever else group “identity” has been hyped. There is no point in the multiculturalists’ saying that this is not what they have in mind. You might as well open the floodgates and then say that you don’t mean for people to drown. Once you have opened the floodgates, you can’t tell the water where to go.

    He is truly brilliant. He has some great (but mostly boring textbook style) books if you have spare time to grow. I found a site on the web tat brushes the surface of his statements on multiculturalism here. Also, he’s black, so liberals (who seem to consider a person’s race very important) can read him without feeling guilty.

  21. andrew says:

    “The solution to this is assimilation into the society you live in. You will have to change to become part of that society, and society will change because of you. You will have to do most of the changing because you are a small percentage of the total society, but society definitely changes as well. ”

    That’s what europe refuses to do. Change what it means to be french, or danish, to include someone that is muslim, or brown.

  22. steve says:

    If you actually want Peace, why would you stir up a hornets nest? Especially when you know very well what the response to your actions will be? How do you react when somebody “baits” the Jews or the Baptists? Living in the world is very simple as long as you display consistency. Peace

  23. omapian says:

    Peace was disrupted on September 11, 2001; on December 7, 1941; and probably when Cain killed Able – whatever year that was. In each event, and many others like those few examples, it was not the victims that broke the peace.
    Killing is wrong -but being killed is not any better. So, while victims walk about saying peace to one another, I am glad that there are men and women who understand that peace has to be won, and once attained, must be maintained.

  24. andrew says:

    “You want to see multiculturalism in action? Look at Yugoslavia, at Lebanon, at Sri Lanka, at Northern Ireland, at Azerbaijan, or wherever else group “identity” has been hyped.”

    Its amazing where people point to as multicultural places that people were quite clearly attempting to make unicultural via, among other things, ethnic cleansing.

    Maybe its projection, its how they themselves see how they would react if they had to share space with others.

  25. - When in Rome do as the Romans do. Otherwise the Romans can get quite testy.

    – Bang **==

  26. blogagog says:

    Steve, don’t bow to subjugation.

    How do you react when somebody “baits” the Jews or the Baptists?

    With contempt, not violence. If the jews or Baptists got violent, I would quickly switch position to the side of the baiter.

    Andrew, when you say “That’s what europe refuses to do. Change what it means to be french, or danish, to include someone that is muslim, or brown”, you don’t seem to realize that it is the job of the immigrant to do the changing. They aren’t. Society will naturally change if they do. And if they ever do, they will not be multicultural anymore. Just multi-colored. I hope you understand that this is not the same thing.

    And judging from this statement:

    Its amazing where people point to as multicultural places that people were quite clearly attempting to make unicultural via, among other things, ethnic cleansing.

    I feel like we are arriving at the truth! The historical end result of cultures living together and not becoming one is ethnic cleansing! There are endless examples of this. It’s the main reason I despise multiculturalism. Perhaps I’m wrong though Andrew.

    I would love to believe that it can work, but as a conservative, historical information is heavily involved in the formation of my opinion (facts, not ideas). Maybe you can change my opinion! Where has multiculturalism occurred for any length of time without civil war or the inevitable genocide at the end of the road?

    I look forward to examples that will change my mind.

  27. - Sources in the ME are reporting that the Lebanese government has arrested over 350 bombers/rioters. Hi level officials are saying that over half are turning out to be Syrian, and Palistinian. Surprise, surprise….

  28. andrew says:

    “I feel like we are arriving at the truth! The historical end result of cultures living together and not becoming one is ethnic cleansing! ”

    uh, ethnic cleansing is “cultures becoming one.” How anyone points to ethnic cleansing as an example of multiculturalism is beyond me. It’s the ultimate in uniculturalism, in chauvinism, in lack of acceptance of others. Go read the turner diaries. You think that’s ‘multicultural.’?

    “Maybe you can change my opinion! Where has multiculturalism occurred for any length of time without civil war or the inevitable genocide at the end of the road?”

    We here seem to have a wide concept of what it is to be american. Much wider than the french do of what it is to be french. We have no problem accepting as american someone with brown skin. The french do. We have a much more multicultural and tolerant society than the french.

  29. blogagog says:

    Surely you can understand that I said the end result of a society that tries to live multiculturally is the attempted genocide of one of the cultures. I never implied that the goal of a multicultural society is ethnic cleansing. Only that historically, ethnic cleansing almost inevitably occurs after multiculturalism is attempted.

    When you purposefully misunderstand or misinterpret someone’s statements as you did in your previous post, you make it clear that you would rather win an argument than debate a person. You seem intelligent, and the concepts we are discussing are simple, whether you agree with them or not.

    I’m not into arguing for the sake of arguing. It does nothing to further either party’s understanding of the other’s position, and I won’t waste my time on it.

    However, if you wish to debate, I would be happy to continue the discussion! Does your previous post suggest that America is a good example of what it is to be multicultural?

  30. andrew says:

    “Surely you can understand that I said the end result of a society that tries to live multiculturally is the attempted genocide of one of the cultures”

    I think you’re wrong.

    “Only that historically, ethnic cleansing almost inevitably occurs after multiculturalism is attempted.”

    Actually it occurs when its NOT attempted. Nobody ‘attempted’ multiculturalism in yugoslavia. But the uniculturalists did stir up hatred.

  31. blogagog says:

    We almost agree, and Yugoslavia is a pretty good example. Multiculturalism was alive in the Bosnia-Herzegovina area. While Marhshal Tito enforced the peace in the area long enough so that the Croats, Serbs, and muslims learned to get along. After he died, things were relatively ok for about 10 years.

    Then, as you said, “…the uniculturalists did stir up hatred.” And that is ALWAYS the case in societies who make an attempt at multiculturalism. Someone comes along and stirs up hatred. And when the size of the cultures are similar (as they were in all the countries mentioned in previous posts)… *BOOM* civil war.

    If the sizes of the cultures are dissimilar and someone stirs up hatred, the result is riots and violence, followed by continued hatred from the minority culture. This happened in France, in the US in the 60’s, Kenya, again, the list goes on and on.

    America’s successes when they had them were because the immigrants chose to be Americans instead of German-Americans, or English-Americans etc. (which is very good for us, since all of Europe hated all the rest of Europe for most of history).

    So I believe the answer is as I stated before. Merge cultures with your new countrymen, and remain silent about aspects of your culture that cannot be merged (ex. Muslim immigrants to France should not talk about or promote dhimmitude, but ethnic food, fashion, building, history… should be brought into the french fold, slightly changing french culture for every frenchman). One country, one culture. Is that uniculturalism? I don’t know the word but if that describes it, I’m a uniculturalist.

  32. andrew says:

    “Then, as you said, “…the uniculturalists did stir up hatred.” And that is ALWAYS the case in societies who make an attempt at multiculturalism.”

    But the thing is they did not make an attempt at multiculturalism. They had a dictatorship, and then were let go. No formation of a multicultural society, rather they had the culture of Tito imposed on them, and then were let go from that, to descend into chaos.

    “America’s successes when they had them were because the immigrants chose to be Americans instead of German-Americans, or English-Americans etc.”

    Exactly. We are multi-cultural. But not france. France does not see a brown person as a frechman. But the US will see a brown american as an american, because we are multicultural.

    “One country, one culture. Is that uniculturalism? I don’t know the word but if that describes it, I’m a uniculturalist.”

    A uniculturalist will make sure that all of french people as well as arab people meld into 1 thing. That’s not what we have in the US. We have chinatowns and little italys. Not melding into some indistinguishable 1 culture.

  33. blogagog says:

    A uniculturalist will make sure that all of french people as well as arab people meld into 1 thing. That’s not what we have in the US.

    We used to have all people melded into one thing. All the chinatowns, little italy’s, and Germantowns in America added up to much less than a percent of our population even at their height. If that is what you are calling multiculturalism, then we are in total agreement. That setup works fine and peace can easily continue. But if 20% of Americans lived in chinatowns, 20% in little italy’s and the rest in other little somethings, we would be close to civil war or genocide of one of those groups. History shows this again and again. Multiculturalism is a great idea, it just doesn’t work.

    When a tiny minority refuses to meld into the local culture, it is not a problem. As the size increases, so does the trouble.

    Exactly. We are multi-cultural. But not france. France does not see a brown person as a frechman. But the US will see a brown american as an american, because we are multicultural.

    This sounds more like racism to me than anything else. France has bigger problems than I thought if what you say is true.

    I guess I am a uniculturalist. I strongly disagree with your statement that America hasn’t melded into one thing. Even with differences in appearance, can you tell by looking at Americans which ones are Philipino-American? Chinese-American? German-American? Horn of Africa-American? I don’t think you can because they are all just plain Americans now. I don’t subscribe to the idea that each culture should be embraced because no one culture is better than any other. If you are infatuated with your culture, don’t move to a place that has a different one. The result will be less pain and suffering for all involved.

    It reminds me of that old Blue Oyster Cult song, “Godzilla!”.

    History shows again and again
    how countries get destroyed by the folly of multiculturalism.
    Go go Godzilla!

    Something like that. It’s been a while since I heard the song.

  34. andrew says:

    “But if 20% of Americans lived in chinatowns, 20% in little italy’s and the rest in other little somethings, we would be close to civil war or genocide of one of those groups.”

    Uh. No. What if 20% live in inner cities and poverty while the rest live in suburbs?

    “This sounds more like racism to me than anything else. France has bigger problems than I thought if what you say is true.”

    Yes. they are racists. That’s not multiculturalism. That’s unicultural. They have 1 view of frenchness, and one must yield to it. We don’t do that here.

    “Even with differences in appearance, can you tell by looking at Americans which ones are Philipino-American? Chinese-American? German-American? Horn of Africa-American? I don’t think you can because they are all just plain Americans now.”

    I don’t think the test is ‘tell by looking.’ I think the test is do we consider them americans as well something else? As americans, even though they look different and have different customs? then we are multicultural.

  35. blogagog says:

    What if 20% live in inner cities and poverty while the rest live in suburbs?

    Oh wait, you are saying multiculturalism is exemplified by people living in both urban and rural communities? I fail to see the correlation.

    Yes. they are racists. That’s not multiculturalism. That’s unicultural. They have 1 view of frenchness, and one must yield to it. We don’t do that here.

    I was under the impression that uniculturalism as defined by you meant one culture. Not one color. How does color enter into it?

    I don’t think the test is ‘tell by looking.’ I think the test is do we consider them americans as well something else? As americans, even though they look different and have different customs? then we are multicultural.

    No no no no no no no no no. Looks and culture are apples and oranges. What you are now describing as multiculturalism is really acceptance of different races. We are multicultural if we each have our own culture that we wish to project into our children. We are all as one (unicultural?) if we want our kids to be plain old Americans.

    It’s clear that we have reached the end of useful debate. I hope you learned a few things. I certainly did! I had never heard the word ‘uniculturalism’ before, for example. Thanks for your time.

  36. andrew says:

    “What you are now describing as multiculturalism is really acceptance of different races. ”

    The lines are fuzzy, but ‘different looks’ can be because of different dress as well as race.

    “We are multicultural if we each have our own culture that we wish to project into our children. We are all as one (unicultural?) if we want our kids to be plain old Americans.”

    And we’re the former, not the latter. We raise our kids how we want them growing up.

  37. blogagog says:

    You may be, I’m not.

  38. CavalierX says:

    >We raise our kids how we want them
    >growing up.

    Multiculturalism: self-segregation.

  39. andrew says:

    “Multiculturalism: self-segregation. ”

    Like homeschooling. you’re getting it.

  40. CavalierX says:

    >Like homeschooling

    You think homeschooling is multiculturalism? Please don’t strain your shoulder reaching for the comparison. We don’t have socialised medicine here to take care of you.

  41. sanity says:

    SO you equate the freedom for a family to teach thier children how they think they should be taught to segregation?

    That is a completely foolish statement of yours.

    In the declining public schools some parents feel they can better teach their children than the public schools can, without influences of bullies, sexual encounters, moronic ad-libs to lesson plans that are not part of the school curriculum, just a teachers own philosophy.

    If you equate homeschooling to segregation, then you probably do so with private schools also? Voucher program also equate to segregation?

    What’s next…accusing people of being on a plantation?

  42. andrew says:

    “SO you equate the freedom for a family to teach thier children how they think they should be taught to segregation?”

    No. You do.

    “You think homeschooling is multiculturalism?”

    It can be a part of it. We allow people to school their kids their own way rather than, like france, for all kids to go to schools where they can’t wear headscarves, for instance.

  43. sanity says:

    Sorry andrew, but YOU equated it and I questioned you on it.

    CavalierX says “Multiculturalism: self-segregation. “

    andrew says Like homeschooling. you’re getting it.

  44. sanity says:

    Unless you were meaning that Homeschooling is Multiculturalism.

  45. andrew says:

    “Unless you were meaning that Homeschooling is Multicultralism. ”

    I don’t think they’re equal. But having homeschooling does help protect different cultures in our society, as opposed to having everyone go to the same school. People who want to raise their kids with their own values are able to do it easier.

  46. sanity says:

    True.

    Different religon and cultral backgrounds benefit from homeschooling.

    From a Christain point of view, many don’t like how the public schools are teaching thier children. They have no say in what gets said to thier children on sex and a variety of other things.

    Things like thier 7 – 10 year old child coming home after practicing putting a condom on a cucumber without the parents knowledge.

    Things like that upset parents when public schools take over the raising of hte child away from the values of the parents.