The dark side of multiculturalism

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | Sunday, September 10, 2006 | Robert Sibley

[GOP Poet]

Bump For Later Reading

[TheMole]

This is the second part of Age of Terror, Age of Illusions that I posted recently. Hope you enjoy it.

[DaveTesla]

Thanks for the ping!

[LiberalBassTurds]

Excellent article. Thanks for the post.

LBT
-=-=-

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

If the Spirit of the Lord filled the land, it would attract the good, and repel the bad, no matter what creed, color, or religion. That is why it is imperative we pray for THE revival until the latter rain falls.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Long article. Assimilation is not only for nonWestern cultures. French, Nordic, Italian, and even British immigrants should assimilate, too.

The author distinguishes between multiculturalism and multiracialism (which should be something such as multi[people group]ism, as there aren't races of humans, even though some will adamantly insist that there are).

Scandinavians and Irish were attacked as invading hordes in American history, as were Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants.

Religion does tend to trump nationality. Most Americans who identify themselves as Christian should not be hypocritical about Muslims who identify themselves as Muslims first, Americans second. An American Christian should be an American Christian and not a Christian American. The British and French tend to hold nationality above religion; Americans don't, or shouldn't.

[cricket]

In Saudi Arabia, where police strictly enforce religious dress codes, such a display would get a woman a harsh reprimand, if not worse. Here, in the United States, along Fifth Avenue in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn, I'd like to interpret that small bright flash of vanity as an expression of individual freedom, however minor.

Small hope. . .but better than none at all. . .

Just hope iit was not Cher; or some other celebrity, in disguise; post a plastic surgery. . .

[cricket]

Meantime. . .Keith Ellison just won Democaratic Primary in Minnesota.

Age of Terror rising. . .

[CheyennePress]

Methinks he's a little optimistic about the toenail polish...

[PurVirgo]

Excellent read :)

I really liked the discussion regarding postmodernism, reason, and classical and radical liberalism as they relate to modern political thought.

It truly is a shame that the values of reason and compassion are pushed under the rug of political correctness; hence the paradox the author speaks of.

Opportunity became oppression.

Many that sought "equality" and promoted "tolerance" became "elite" by self promotion.

It's hard to be optimistic about the future of culture and society.

[Sabatier]

"the West is paralysed twice over. It is paralysed because it does not believe that there are good reasons to say that it is better than Islam. And it is paralysed because it believes that, if such reasons do indeed exist, then the West would have to fight Islam."

Says it all.

[AdAstraPerArdua]

'Religion does tend to trump nationality. Most Americans who identify themselves as Christian should not be hypocritical about Muslims who identify themselves as Muslims first, Americans second. An American Christian should be an American Christian and not a Christian American. The British and French tend to hold nationality above religion; Americans don't, or shouldn't.'

I've never met a fellow American who described himself as 'christian' when asked where he was from! Americans put nationality above religion everytime in my experience. Otherwise after 911 we'd have asked the church what to do instead of Dubya and the result would have been very different!.

[PogySailor]

bttt

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

There is no dark side of multiculturalism.
Actually, it's all dark. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[raybbr]

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[wita]

Long read but worth it. Do you have a link to part 1?

[mo]

For some reason radical multiculturalism brings to mind the Tower of Babel story.....there are reasons men were spread out separate from one another....reasons we may well not fathom.

[wita]

Never mind, found it. Too bad there were only 18 replies. Reading must be part of the multiculteral problem.

[Jim Noble]

OK, that's the dark side.

The crazy thing about multiculturalism, or "diversity", is that there's no bright side. Said another way, a fully multiculti society, one which "celebrates diversity" has never existed and never can exist. Like all such fantasies, attempts to create one can only be accomplished by an all-powerful state willing to kill to overcome the human nature which stands in its way.