NationStates Jolt Archive

First, to categorize "multiculturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism)." Wiki is pretty good at these sorts of things.

Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status. Multiculturalism contrasts with the monoculturalism which was historically the norm in the European nation-state. (Monoculturalism implies a normative cultural unity, 'monocultural' can be a descriptive term for pre-existing homogeneity). The term multiculturalism is almost always applied to distinct cultures of immigrant groups in developed countries, not to the presence of indigenous peoples.

Multiculturalism began as an official policy in English-speaking countries, starting in Canada in 1971. It was quickly adopted by most member-states in the European Union, as official policy, and as a social consensus among the elite. In recent years, several European states, notably the Netherlands and Denmark, have completely reversed their national policy consensus, and have returned to an official monoculturalism. A similar reversal is the subject of debate in the United Kingdom and Germany, among others.

Multiculturalism has its supporters and critics alike. Its supporters often see it as a self-evident entitlement of cultural groups, as a form of civil rights grounded in equality of cultures. They often assume it will lead to interculturalism - beneficial cultural exchanges, where cultures learn about each other's literature, art and philosophy (high culture), and influence each other's music, fashion and cuisine. Its opponents often see it as something which has been imposed on them without their consent. They fear it will lead to cultural ghettos, undermining national unity. In Europe especially, opponents see multiculturalism as a direct assault on the national identity, and on the nation itself, and sometimes as a conspiracy to Islamise Europe.

So, are you supportive of multiculturalism, or not? (If not I presume you'd be considered a "monoculturalism" supporter.) Why or why not?

Yes, I support multiculturalism.

People should be allowed to live as they wish, without being forced to assimilate into the greater culture, as long as they abide by basic norms of human rights.

I only support multiculturalism as a tool to support interculturalism.

Yes, I support multiculturalism.

People should be allowed to live as they wish, without being forced to assimilate into the greater culture, as long as they abide by basic norms of human rights.

I agree, but I can see the argument coming already - that "certain cultures" are inherently "incompatible" with certain other cultures. (Generally, Islamic cultures with European/Western Culture.)

I also disagree with "assimilation" when made a requirement or forced upon immigrants or anyone else. It's basically a form of supremacism - we are superior, become one with our superiority. Worse, it's backed up with the fallacious reasoning - "If they didn't think our culture is superior, why did they immigrate here?"

You should be free to be yourself and practice your life, culture, or faith the way you want to.

You should be free to be yourself and practice your life, culture, or faith you way you want to.

Within the bounds of the law of course.

Within the bounds of the law of course.

Unless you're Argentinian.

Within the bounds of the law of course.

Freedom means guns, crimes, booze, and sex!!!!!11 :eek: :gundge:

Yes. :rolleyes:

Multiculturalism FTW!

I support it wholeheartedly. I don't think I'd be quite the same person I am today if I wasn't exposed to different cultures and people, etc.

I support the idea of (more of less) a homogenous state. I like countries that are more (though I do realise that a 100% homogenous country is basically impossible) homogenous, like Japan, Finland, Iceland. Or even countries that have immigrants, but the immigrants are from neighboring, countries with compatible cultures. (Swedish minorities in Finland, ect)

I see a homogenous nation as one that is more united, and where you have much more in common with your neighbors. Some countries though, like America and such, were never "made" to be homogenous, in which I support an assimilation approach, where we accept various immigrants through controlled immigration, but we must ensure their assimilation. None of the "salad bowl" garbage, but more "melting pot", like we used to preach.:)

While all cultures should be respected and tolerated, there is a difference between proactively supporting multiculturalism and tacitly accepting it. In my experience, multiculturalism tend to divide and splinter society. Why can't we all just be one big happy family?

I don't think I'd be quite the same person I am today if I wasn't exposed to different cultures and people, etc.
Never heard of travelling, eh?:p

While all cultures should be respected and tolerated, there is a difference between proactively supporting multiculturalism and tacitly accepting it. In my experience, multiculturalism tend to divide and splinter society. Why can't we all just be one big happy family?
This would come more through assimilation than multicultural "salad bowls".

I only support multiculturalism as a tool to support interculturalism.

Same.

I support multiculturalism although when I was still in grade school I hated it because I found it overly patronizing. Whenever I was forced on the test to answer the question: "How did women and African Americans contribute to the American Revolution?" I always felt like answering in big bold capital letters: "ALL WOMEN DID WAS BE CAMP FOLLOWERS AND COOK THINGS, CONSIDERING THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF ACTUAL FIGHTING TROOPS THAT WASN'T FAIR! AND WHATEVER AFRICAN AMERICANS DID DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL SLAVES AND WE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM FREEDOM AFTER THE WAR BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY 'ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!'" However I was a good little girl and I wrote what was in the text-book.

Now I support multi-culturalism however because I realize that if it was not taught in the schools I would never have known anything about famous Chinese Americans or modern life in Africa. We're a global society and we need to know what really went on in all parts of the world and how people from all parts of the world helped build our countries.

Whenever I was forced on the test to answer the question: "How did women and African Americans contribute to the American Revolution?"
I ALWAYS hated those "including minorities for the sake of learning/spread/teaching diversity" questions. :rolleyes: :D

Never heard of travelling, eh?:p What is this "traveling" you speak of? I don't think I've heard of this thing before. :p

I see a homogenous nation as one that is more united, and where you have much more in common with your neighbors.

Yes indeed, like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. They were pretty united - especially after getting rid of Not-Real Germans and other "incompatibles." ;)

Some countries though, like America and such, were never "made" to be homogenous, in which I support an assimilation approach, where we accept various immigrants through controlled immigration, but we must ensure their assimilation. None of the "salad bowl" garbage, but more "melting pot", like we used to preach.:)

We used to preach a lot of stupid things, like Manifest Destiny by way of conquering and "assimilating" the Native Americans. You for that too?

We used to preach a lot of stupid things, like Manifest Destiny by way of conquering and "assimilating" the Native Americans. You for that too?
Mannifest this Destiny *points at penis*

Yes indeed, like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. They were pretty united - especially after getting rid of Not-Real Germans and other "incompatibles." ;)

Godwin.

I just wanted to say that.

Godwin.

I just wanted to say that.

Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:

Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:

Anytime.

Yes indeed, like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. They were pretty united - especially after getting rid of Not-Real Germans and other "incompatibles." ;)
Like a zillion countries used to be (more or less) homogenous and you pick Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. How about Denmark. Or Estonia. Or Korea. Or Switzerland (.....not really homogenous, but with compatible cultures), or Iceland. ect.


We used to preach a lot of stupid things, like Manifest Destiny by way of conquering and "assimilating" the Native Americans. You for that too?
110%
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/American_progress.JPG
This land is our land, from sea to shinning sea!:)

Godwin.

I just wanted to say that.

Does that work here?

I mean yeah, he said "OMG! The Nazis did! We can't!!1" But, it was of the core Nazi ideals.

110%
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/American_progress.JPG
This land is our land, from sea to shinning sea!:)

Over my suicide bombing body.

I love multiculturalism. In terms of the immigrant experience, it allows people to retain their culture, but also to have the freedom to step outside of it, and be influenced by other cultures...a possibility that might have been more restricted if they came from a monocultural nation. Also, as immigrant populations shift, different influences shift the mainstream culture. Right now, people argue that this is a negative influence, and blame Islam, but I think overall, the influence has been overwhelmingly positive. We are able to pluck from every corner of the world those things that we wish to integrate into our own culture. Food being the foremost, but also dress, music, and various other cultural components (Feng Shui, yoga, carnival, etc etc).

I've been in nations that are much more homogenous than Canada, and that part of it was unpleasant. Stereotypes about 'others' were much stronger, and in some cases absoluteley laughable. Other cultural groups (mostly indigenous, but also some immigrant groups) were really marginalised, and given no recognition whatsoever. What a waste. I see it as an opportunity that is being totally squandered.

Multiculturalism does not mean a total blending leading to a loss of distinct culture among the mainstream or majority culture...it leads to an enrichment of it.

And anyone who wants to take away Thai, Korean or Afghani food in the name of monoculturalism will have me and my stomach to contend with.

Does that work here?

I mean yeah, he said "OMG! The Nazis did! We can't!!1" But, it was of the core Nazi ideals.
Wasn't theirs to begin with. Almost all their ideals were "borrowed".

Over my suicide bombing body.
Well, we must have gotten over your suicide bombing body, because, well, look at the times, we did it. ;)

Well, we must have gotten over your suicide bombing body, because, well, look at the times, we did it. ;)

What if I exploded in the White Office, or Congress, or some place of importance?

This land is our land, from sea to shinning sea!

Because its original inhabitants were ruthlessly murdered?

I ALWAYS hated those "including minorities for the sake of learning/spread/teaching diversity" questions. :rolleyes: :D

Yeah, because their contributions didn't really make a difference? Shouldn't learn about slavery...slaves helped build your country, but so what...shouldn't learn about the Chinese...they built the railways but so what...shouldn't learn about Native Americans, you're sitting on their land but so what...

It's not for the sake of spreading diversity...it's to rectify an abominable ignorance...an ignorance you seem to support.

What if I exploded in the White Office, or Congress, or some place of importance?
Well, I'd be pissed, the nation would be sad. But we'd recover, you'd be dead, and we'd have still acomplished Manifest Destiny. ;)

Because its original inhabitants were ruthlessly murdered?
I think that's the general idea...:(

I think that's the general idea...:(
I will never really be able to sympathise with people who cry over historic deaths, I guess...

Well, I'd be pissed, the nation would be sad. But we'd recover, you'd be dead, and we'd have still acomplished Manifest Destiny. ;)

Um, Manifest Destiny was not invoked to take the land of Indians...it was invoked to spread 'democracy and freedom' through expansion...and clearly, this Destiny has not been accomplished...mostly because your country has been so good at spreading terror and dictatorships for so long, it's not really sure how to go about doing the other.

Well, I'd be pissed, the nation would be sad. But we'd recover, you'd be dead, and we'd have still acomplished Manifest Destiny. ;)

"In Today's Ironic News Segment, people from the former province of BC are stowing away on freight ships to find a better life in China. Apparantly waiting two weeks for the next flight wouldn't get them out ofAmerica soon enough."

I will never really be able to sympathise with people who cry over historic deaths, I guess...

And I'll never understand people who refuse to see that those deaths are not so 'historic'...your people were murdering ours late into the last century (try to remember that's only 6 years ago).

People like you tend to argue that you didn't do the killing...but you support the selfsame system that perpetuated genocide, and not only that...you GLORIFY it.

Because its original inhabitants were ruthlessly murdered?
Pleaseeeeeeee, everyone single civilization/empire on earth fought other people for their land. Why should it be so bad when we do it, but not when the rest of the world for all of history has done it?
Yeah, because their contributions didn't really make a difference? Shouldn't learn about slavery...slaves helped build your country, but so what...shouldn't learn about the Chinese...they built the railways but so what...shouldn't learn about Native Americans, you're sitting on their land but so what...

It's not for the sake of spreading diversity...it's to rectify an abominable ignorance...an ignorance you seem to support.
Yes, and we can learn about slavery and the western railroads, but we dont have to go out of our way to read about "notable women in war A", or, "brave Black man in war B"...just for the sake of inclusion when its not needed.

And whoever said this was the Natives land? I mean, they warred with each other, first of all. Second of all, they CAME from somewhere to this land, and third of all, they had their chance with it, now its our chance.

And how can you really define possession of land when there is no government to enforce that fact that its "yours", and you cannot beat the person who wants "your" land?

Um, Manifest Destiny was not invoked to take the land of Indians...

Yes, it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny#Native_Americans

And I'll never understand people who refuse to see that those deaths are not so 'historic'...your people were murdering ours late into the last century.
I'm not American, and even if I were I'd still not understand. I lack compassion, I suppose, all the moreso the deeper one descends into the past.

Pleaseeeeeeee, everyone single civilization/empire on earth fought other people for their land.

Yeah... and it was wrong. Every time.

Um, Manifest Destiny was not invoked to take the land of Indians
Yes it was. It was to literally expand from "sea to shinning sea"...obviously taking over the land where the Indians were for ourselves.

"In Today's Ironic News Segment, people from the former province of BC are stowing away on freight ships to find a better life in China. Apparantly waiting two weeks for the next flight wouldn't get them out ofAmerica soon enough."
:confused:

Yeah... and it was wrong. Every time.
Well, thats fine. So go bitch to every single civilization on earth about how our way of naturally expanding is wrong. Go ahead.

Yes it was. It was to literally expand from "sea to shinning sea"...obviously taking over the land where the Indians were for ourselves.

Indian removal was an ancillary effect of Manifest Destiny, not the core of it.

:confused:

You see, he made a joke about America. They have jokes in Canada on Fridays.

I'm not American, and even if I were I'd still not understand. Erm, yes, I had forgotten that obvious fact *stares at shoes*
I lack compassion, I suppose, all the moreso the deeper one descends into the past.
Alright, so your 'not-understanding' of others who feel for those deaths still is based on a lack of compassion, rather than a judgment about the merit of doing so?

You see, he made a joke about America. They have jokes in Canada on Fridays.

Yes, it's "USA Joke Night In Canada".

You see, he made a joke about America. They have jokes in Canada on Fridays.
Does. Not. Compute.
Indian removal was an ancillary effect of Manifest Destiny, not the core of it.
Ugh....You are making this too complicated. Americans wanted all the land in present day America. Indians were in the way.

Take that how you will.:rolleyes:

:confused:
Okay, maybe not China. But Western Europe would see a noticable population increase.
You see, he made a joke about America. They have jokes in Canada on Fridays.
And every second Tuesday.

Erm, yes, I had forgotten that obvious fact *stares at shoes*
'Tis okay.

Alright, so your 'not-understanding' of others who feel for those deaths still is based on a lack of compassion, rather than a judgment about the merit of doing so?
More or less. Even if I saw a merit in it, I just wouldn't engage in it. I scarcely feel emotion for people around me.

Okay, maybe not China. But Western Europe would see a noticable population increase.

We better start building a big wall in the middle of the Atlantic. :)

Yes, it's "USA Joke Night In Canada".
Second only to Hockey Night in Canada.

We better start building a big wall in the middle of the Atlantic. :)

We bring money and good hockey players. Think, you might not have to hide from Don Cherry anymore.

We bring money and good hockey players.
Don't give me reason to help in building the bloody wall. :D

Yes, and we can learn about slavery and the western railroads, but we dont have to go out of our way to read about "notable women in war A", or, "brave Black man in war B"...just for the sake of inclusion when its not needed. It is needed, because otherwise you will believe that everything thing that happened was done by white males....leading to the kind of mindless misogyny and racism your country has battled with for a long, long time.

And whoever said this was the Natives land? Um, that would be your own government. You should really learn about this...it actually has a serious impact on your nation though you may not feel it directly yet. So despite the 'minority' status of Indians, your ignorance (which you support as being continued in the education system by not dealing with these issues) is a problem. Read the Marshall Decisions (SCOTUS). They reaffirm the common law Doctrine of Aboriginal Title. This legal right to the land is affirmed in the common law, and by statute, but not granted by any statute, or imperial proclamation; rather it is inherent in the fact of prior occupancy.So you can argue all you want that this land wasn't actually ours and blah blah blah, but you don't get to ignore the legal and political reality that says we in fact DID own the land, and continue to own lands and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Not only that, but your government, and the Canadian government, did in fact recognise that there were governments in place before contact...you should look into how the Iroquois Confederacy directly helped to shape your government before you dismiss this.

And damn you jolt! Damn you to hell!

Don't give me reason to help in building the bloody wall. :D

You mean you guys like Don Cherry ripping Europeans for being the pansiest sports players on the face of the Earth?

You mean you guys like Don Cherry ripping Europeans for being the pansiest sports players on the face of the Earth?
To be honest, sports leave me largely unphased. As long as Europe stays that way too, I am content. :)

None of the "salad bowl" garbage, but more "melting pot", like we used to preach.:)

fuck that. all you can eat buffet. one of the nice ones, with 4 different kinds of sprinkles for your ice cream.

1) Multiculturalism is excellent.

2) To Atlantic Islands: The last thread I saw of yours you quoted a Nazi pamphlet about Malmo, Sweden to support your anti-immigration position. You really need to open your eyes to the world around you. Yes every nation took land from people in the past, BUT that doesn't make it right. The Native Americans have every right to that land (by the way I am Canadian, my gov't did the same thing I'm not trying to prove I'm better than you). Just accept the fact that your country committed wrongs in the past.

It is needed, because otherwise you will believe that everything thing that happened was done by white males....leading to the kind of mindless misogyny and racism your country has battled with for a long, long time.
Most of it was.
Um, that would be your own government. You should really learn about this...it actually has a serious impact on your nation though you may not feel it directly yet. So despite the 'minority' status of Indians, your ignorance (which you support as being continued in the education system by not dealing with these issues) is a problem. Read the Marshall Decisions (SCOTUS). They reaffirm the common law Doctrine of Aboriginal Title. This legal right to the land is affirmed in the common law, and by statute, but not granted by any statute, or imperial proclamation; rather it is inherent in the fact of prior occupancy.So you can argue all you want that this land wasn't actually ours and blah blah blah, but you don't get to ignore the legal and political reality that says we in fact DID own the land, and continue to own lands and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Ok, thats all fine and dandy...but what does that actually mean in practice. You cant reverse Manifest Destiny. We are not going to give you back "your" land. I dont beleive it was your land, and even if the government has "laws" saying they beleive that, government isnt always right. There are tons of laws I dont agree with.
Not only that, but your government, and the Canadian government, did in fact recognise that there were governments in place before contact...you should look into how the Iroquois Confederacy directly helped to shape your government before you dismiss this.
This government was largely founded off the ideas of the enlightenment, and of various English thinkers, namely John Locke.

2) To Atlantic Islands: The last thread I saw of yours you quoted a Nazi pamphlet about Malmo, Sweden to support your anti-immigration position. You really need to open your eyes to the world around you. Yes every nation took land from people in the past, BUT that doesn't make it right. The Native Americans have every right to that land (by the way I am Canadian, my gov't did the same thing I'm not trying to prove I'm better than you). Just accept the fact that your country committed wrongs in the past.
About the source. I am not a nazi, and that was an accident using that source. I still stand by the problems with immigration and multiculturalism and Malmoe, but the rest of that website was in Swedish so I had no way of knowing what it really was.

About the rest: I disagree. I see this as a natural thing that has happend throughout human history. Even if it is now obsolete because of how small and globalised the world has become, and it is wrong now, that doesnt mean it was wrong then. It was natural.

again, atlantian islands: it was their land. completely. in all ways. None of the land in the Americas belonged to any Europeans until they illegitimately stole it. WE all know that. Acknowledge it, accept it. It's not hard to accept. You don't have to do anything to right the wrongs of the past if you don't want to. But don't pretend the past didn't happen.

It was natural.

Define "natural."

again, atlantian islands: it was their land. completely. in all ways. None of the land in the Americas belonged to any Europeans until they illegitimately stole it. WE all know that. Acknowledge it, accept it. It's not hard to accept. You don't have to do anything to right the wrongs of the past if you don't want to. But don't pretend the past didn't happen.
I'm not pretending the past didnt happen. I already said I support our idea of Manifest Destiny. There is no "my land" if you cannot enforce the "my" of it.
Define "natural."
Normal? Happening since the beginning of time?:rolleyes:

About the source. I am not a nazi, and that was an accident using that source. I still stand by the problems with immigration and multiculturalism and Malmoe, but the rest of that website was in Swedish so I had no way of knowing what it really was.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being a Nazi, I was just trying to say that you should pay more attention to stuff, because it was pretty obviously a racist source.

About the rest: I disagree. I see this as a natural thing that has happend throughout human history. Even if it is now obsolete because of how small and globalised the world has become, and it is wrong now, that doesnt mean it was wrong then. It was natural.

It was not right now, and it wasn't right then. They may have done it then, and everyone did it then, but that doesn't mean it was ever the right thing to do.

Happening since the beginning of time?

By "happening since the beginning of time" you mean "occurring with some regularity during a relatively small portion of a single species' existence"?

Most of it was.

Ok, thats all fine and dandy...but what does that actually mean in practice. You cant reverse Manifest Destiny. We are not going to give you back "your" land. I dont beleive it was your land, and even if the government has "laws" saying they beleive that, government isnt always right. There are tons of laws I dont agree with.

Not to totally sidetrack the thread...

What it actually means in practice.

We surrendered lands so you could settle, in return for various guarantees, including title to lands that could not be taken from us.

You need to understand first of all, that aside from a few radicals, we have never said we 'want all that land back' or that you should leave. We abide by the Treaties still, and respect the surrenders that we made.

However. As the Marshall decisions made clear, there is a special relationship between aboriginals and the European powers that claimed 'discovery'. In essence that relationship says that the European power in question had the right of exclusion to deal with aboriginal peoples. This right was exercised first against all other powers (so Spain couldn't come in, negotiate surrenders, and expect the English in that area to in any way validate the process). Then, with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, that right was exercised against EVERYONE, including settlers, who were arranging private sales of land with native peoples. Those that had done so were ordered to return the land.

Now, before I go into that...the sort of monopoly (transferred to the US gov't once it gained independence) that the Crown has with aboriginal peoples creates a sort of fiduciary legal obligation. Essentially, because we can only surrender land to the Crown (not to state or provincial governments, only the federal heads of power) we are in a bit of a crappy position...we can't get a 'better deal' by playing parties off one another. That is recognised, and a burden is on the Crown (or the federal gov't) to deal with us in a way that it most beneficial to us.

Now that puts the gov't in an odd position...because it wants a good deal for itself, but it has to put our interests first. Clearly there is a conflict of interest created. The courts then, must deal with situations where there has been a breach of that fiduciary duty. That is essentially what the majority of land claims, and aboriginal right claims are based on...where there has been a breach.

So, where the government has in the past negotiated surrenders of lands, and the courts (increasingly) find that the terms were not favourable to the nations in question, either compensation OR the return of the land is ordered.

When the surrender was made to a state, or a private individual, there is really little to debate...the federal government is not about to let anyone else in on its 'territory', and the reclaiming of land is often a foregone conclusion once the facts are brought to light.

So you may not be directly affected by this, in that you don't live in contested lands...but then again, you might be...because the litigation is expensive, and each case cements the responsibility of the federal gov't to deal fairly with aboriginal nations...not as independent nations, but 'domestic' or 'dependent' nations with the right to self-government. That is becoming a HUGE issue here in Canada, with far-reaching consequences...and it has been an ongoing process in the US for much longer.

This government was largely founded off the ideas of the enlightenment, and of various English thinkers, namely John Locke.
Oddly enough, these ideals can also be found in the Great Law of Peace, the oral constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy...look into Dr. Donald A. Grinde for more information on how this confederacy greatly influenced your Constitution. I'm not just making this up.

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out or not, but the thread title is a silly question, I think. For or against is an odd choice for something that simply is, has been, and always will be.

I AM Multiculturalism! I am the wild and wacky proof that racial and cultural intermixing can produce someone whose very existence refutes the very idea that multiculturalism is a bad thing.

Racists hate me. :)

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_vradQy608) guy would get along well in this discussion on the land being claimed to having been the american indians that were here when we came over. AKOBADAGETH1 knows alot of the history of aztecs and toltecs. He had more videos (and many debates in the comments section of those vids) on the subject but his former account was banned.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_vradQy608) guy would get along well in this discussion on the land being claimed to having been the american indians that were here when we came over. AKOBADAGETH1 knows alot of the history of aztecs and toltecs. He had more videos (and many debates in the comments section of those vids) on the subject but his former account was banned.

There is no 'claim'. It's a proven fact. Get over it.

Excellent post Neesika, you pretty much addressed everything. Just for interest sake Atlantean Islands, here in Canada, (as Neesika said) the gov't is under increasing pressure from native groups for fair land deals, increased self-gov't ect. Look up Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, and Tli Cho for examples. Hopefully other First Nations will be able to reach deals with the gov't in the future, although admittedly it will be much harder to reach mutually fair deals in more populated Southern Canada.

Not to totally sidetrack the thread...

*SNIP*

That is becoming a HUGE issue here in Canada, with far-reaching consequences...and it has been an ongoing process in the US for much longer.
Ok, so what do you want? That you guys have your own areas of the country that are self ruled by Indians?


Oddly enough, these ideals can also be found in the Great Law of Peace, the oral constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy...look into Dr. Donald A. Grinde for more information on how this confederacy greatly influenced your Constitution. I'm not just making this up.Yes, but things can happen seperatly. Simply because some of these things were present in your soceity, doesnt mean that we got them from you. And it works the other way. Just because some things were made famous in Europe, doesnt mean they were present (though not as known or widely appplied) in other places.

Everyone knows the Iroquois Confederacy was the first democracy in North America. And despite what you may think, the United States was influenced by them.

By the way, Indians is kind of a backwards term. You should probably consider calling them at the very least American Indians. Or maybe Native Peoples, First Nations, Aboriginals, Native Americans. (Not trying to anger you).

By the way, Indians is kind of a backwards term. You should probably consider calling them at the very least American Indians. Or maybe Native Peoples, First Nations, Aboriginals, Native Americans. (Not trying to anger you).

Meh...you pretty much have to say 'Indian' if you are talking about anything in a legal sense...but since Atlantian doesn't know much about that legal sense, I'd agree a change in terminology would be advantageous...if for nothing else that it confuses the Indians from India :D

Ok, so what do you want? That you guys have your own areas of the country that are self ruled by Indians? What I want is for you to actually understand the issues a bit better so you that when you feel the urge to say, 'haha, we conquered you, you never owned the land wanka wanka wanka', you can refrain, understanding that you are in fact, completely wrong on the subject.

If you mean...is self rule on our own lands what we want...yes. Some of us already have it, others are in the process. It's particularly fascinating from a federalist standpoint, because it opens up the possibility of a third order of government (recognising that municipalities, deriving their power from states or provinces, are not sovereign, and not a third order of government). That alone has staggering implications you should sit down and consider one day.


Yes, but things can happen seperatly. Simply because some of these things were present in your soceity, doesnt mean that we got them from you. And it works the other way. Just because some things were made famous in Europe, doesnt mean they were present (though not as known or widely appplied) in other places.
Like I said, look into it...no point just denying it on principle. Some excellent research has been done on this...particularly noted is the influence the Iroquois Confederacy had on Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison.

"It would be a strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and appears insoluble; and yet that a like union should be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies.: - Benjamin Franklin, "Lies My Teacher Told Me", James W. Loewen pg. 111

Not flattering :D, but nonetheless...

It might be more comfortable for you to ignore this, or pretend it didn't really make a difference. That's fine...you are free to remain ignorant...but you can't really argue something you are totally uniformed about, and I can't imagine you'd be content with that. (also, considering you seem to be a bit of a buff on your nation's history, the impact the Iroquois Confederacy had on your Confederacy, beyond philosophical ideals, is really interesting too...I'm talking about practical organisation gleaned from a functioning democracy in an attempt to abolish monarchism and such).

"Lies My Teacher Told Me", James W. Loewen

A truly excellent book.

It is needed, because otherwise you will believe that everything thing that happened was done by white males....leading to the kind of mindless misogyny and racism your country has battled with for a long, long time.

Most of it was.
What about the Mesopotamians? They invented the first systems of writing and accounting?

What about the Egyptians? They had society and culture that flourished before the Greeks and Romans? They also invented paper (sort of.)

What about the Mayans who had an accurate calendar, advanced astronomy and mathematics? (Including the concept of 0, this was given to white people by the Indians on the other side of the world by the way.)

What about the West and North Africans who had a trading network across the Sahara and had rich kingdoms while white people were in the Dark Ages?

What about the Incas who controlled a vast empire with a network of roads and used advanced (for the time) irrigation methods?

What about China who invented gunpowder, paper money, toothbrushes, and tarot cards? They also introduced many philosophies such as Taoism and Confucianism.

What about the East Africans who had a trading network with Europe and China? Also they were (at least the Ethiopeans) the first African country to fully gain independence.

What about the Iroquois who Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers based their system of democracy on as Neesika has already mentioned?

What about the Ottoman Empire that ruled almost all of the Middle East before and during European colonial expansions?

And all these groups of people fought for their independence after they became colonies and most of them eventually succeeded too. Is that not a great achievement?

How do I know all this? Multiculturalism!!!!!! :D

A truly excellent book.

Ever read the sequel?

Multiculturalism can be a blessing or a curse. Diversity is most definitely something to celebrate, but divisiveness is not.

Ever read the sequel?

"Lies Across America: What Our Historic Markers and Monuments Get Wrong"?

No, never.

Meh...you pretty much have to say 'Indian' if you are talking about anything in a legal sense...but since Atlantian doesn't know much about that legal sense, I'd agree a change in terminology would be advantageous...if for nothing else that it confuses the Indians from India :D

:D. hehe. I was only trying to open his mind a little more. haha.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me", James W. Loewen

Ah, yes, the same book that shows the guy Nguyen Ngoc Loan (rightly) blew away as an innocent martyr, and ignores the fact that the guy had just murdered the entire family (children included) of one of Loan's men? That book?

Ever read the sequel?

Lies Across America...looks interesting...I'd love to see a Canadian counterpart.

Ah, yes, the same book that shows the guy Nguyen Ngoc Loan (rightly) blew away as an innocent martyr, and ignores the fact that the guy had just murdered the entire family (children included) of one of Loan's men? That book?

Did he get a trial?

Ah, yes, the same book that shows the guy Nguyen Ngoc Loan (rightly) blew away as an innocent martyr, and ignores the fact that the guy had just murdered the entire family (children included) of one of Loan's men? That book?

Hey, I only included the title to show where I got the quote...feel free to disprove the existence of the quote...sorry, it's been pounded into me to cite sources...and you can then go on to disprove the research that the quote referenced...that the Iroquois Confederacy greatly influenced Constitution of the USA. Keep on track people!

Edit: yes, I recognise the irony of that plea.

Did he get a trial?

He was caught in the fucking act. He didn't need or deserve a trial. Frankly, I'd have blown the bastard's brains out, too.

What happened in the three pages I am too lazy to read?

Is everyone still tag teaming The Atlantian Islands? Is everyone still using douchie responses that have no chance of changing The Atlantian Island's mind?

He was caught in the fucking act. He didn't need or deserve a trial.

Yes, he did. I don't think the South Vietnamese government of the time was very trustworthy. Either he should have treated as a prisoner of war (and thus not shot on the street) or as a captured civilian criminal (and thus not shot on the street.)

For what it's worth, Loewen doesn't portray him as an "innocent martyr" at all; he does not discuss the moral abhorrence or lack thereof of the act. His only point is the important role it played in US public opinion during the Vietnam War, and its telling absence from the textbooks.

What happened in the three pages I am too lazy to read?

Is everyone still tag teaming The Atlantian Islands? Is everyone still using douchie responses that have no chance of changing The Atlantian Island's mind?

Hey! I took time to craft my responses, and I'll not have you referring to them as douchie! And I'm not trying to change his attitude, or his mind, but rather, introduce facts to him...facts that he can't just wish away.

And I believe it's working. *sticks tongue out*

Oh wait, except my arguments haven't really had much to do with the topic, unless you reeeaaaaaalllly stretch things...

Like a zillion countries used to be (more or less) homogenous and you pick Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. How about Denmark. Or Estonia. Or Korea. Or Switzerland (.....not really homogenous, but with compatible cultures), or Iceland. ect.

Why, I guess I pick Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan because they were particularly racist in their "homogenous" ness, and the results of their "monocultural" elitist supremacist attitude (which you possess) included world war and genocide.


110%
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/American_progress.JPG
This land is our land, from sea to shinning sea!:)

Then you ARE a nazi, and that's why you read nazi propaganda and support nazi ideals. You support genocide. You support racism. People like you are an embarassment to humanity and shouldn't be allowed to breed. :) :) :)

"Lies My Teacher Told Me", James W. Loewen

I've never read it, it's on my list of books to read. :( I have read a book very simaler to it called That's Not In My American History Book by Thomas Ayres. One of my favorite facts from that book is that Native Americans in Mississippi used a "microwave oven" made of clay that could regulate the heat on a certian object when it was put into it. The civilization that it was invented in existed ~2,000 years before Colombus, was made up of 5,000 people (big for it's time,) didn't farm or herd animals (they survived on berries and fish) and was built in a perfect half circle.

Hey! I took time to craft my responses, and I'll not have you referring to them as douchie! And I'm not trying to change his attitude, or his mind, but rather, introduce facts to him...facts that he can't just wish away.
Sure.:rolleyes:

And I believe it's working. *sticks tongue out*
Its not. Trust me. He's not budging.

Oh wait, except my arguments haven't really had much to do with the topic, unless you reeeaaaaaalllly stretch things...
Being off topic has never stopped me.;)

I've never read it, it's on my list of books to read. :(
Hahahaa, I've never read it either...it is the source cited in book on aboriginal law I've been reading, and I thought the quote bore posting.

Sure.:rolleyes:



Did you read my huge (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11993677&postcount=56) honking (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11993762&postcount=68) freaking (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11993877&postcount=78) masterpieces? They are a marvel to behold. Even if he ignores them completely, they will at least enlighten others.

Why, I guess I pick Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan because they were particularly racist in their "homogenous" ness, and the results of their "monocultural" elitist supremacist attitude (which you possess) included world war and genocide.




Then you ARE a nazi, and that's why you read nazi propaganda and support nazi ideals. You support genocide. You support racism. People like you are an embarassment to humanity and shouldn't be allowed to breed. :) :) :)


The Atlantian islands is a jew, not a nazi. He said the article was in Swedish and he didn't know from what all the info came. But maybe you were kidding when you called him a nazi.

The Atlantian islands is a jew, not a nazi. He said the article was in Swedish and he didn't know from what all the info came. But maybe you were kidding when you called him a nazi.

Being jewish doesn't mean he isn't a racist who advocates, and approves of genocide. Sorry. And those characteristics tend to earn one the nazi label, rightly or wrongly.

Being jewish doesn't mean he isn't a racist who advocates, and approves of genocide. Sorry. And those characteristics tend to earn one the nazi label, rightly or wrongly.

Then wrongly.. very wrongly... is he labeled a nazi.

Then wrongly.. very wrongly... is he labeled a nazi.

I agree. He should just be labelled a racist who advocates and approves of genocide.

But I can understand why 'nazi' would be an attractive abbreviation.

Well, thats fine. So go bitch to every single civilization on earth about how our way of naturally expanding is wrong. Go ahead.

Argumentum ad populum. You are trying to morally justify something simply because it is traditional or historically popular.

About the source. I am not a nazi, and that was an accident using that source. I still stand by the problems with immigration and multiculturalism and Malmoe, but the rest of that website was in Swedish so I had no way of knowing what it really was.

Oh, why aren't you a nazi? Because you're a Jew? Please. Your policies are nazi-esque in every way. You are pro-genocide, anti-immigrant, hypernationalist, bigoted and supremacist. It was no "accident" using a nazi propaganda source as the basis for your anti-immigration thread. The fact is you agree with nazis about too many things for it to be accidental. The only thing you have left is to wear the jackboot and start kicking in doors yourself. But like so many forum racists you merely talk and talk, spreading your malicious ideology of hatred that way.

About the rest: I disagree. I see this as a natural thing that has happend throughout human history. Even if it is now obsolete because of how small and globalised the world has become, and it is wrong now, that doesnt mean it was wrong then. It was natural.

Normal? Happening since the beginning of time

Hah. Something is morally justified because it is "natural?" Rape is natural. Killing Jews is natural. Do you just have no sense of ethics or morality, or what?

The Atlantian islands is a jew, not a nazi. He said the article was in Swedish and he didn't know from what all the info came. But maybe you were kidding when you called him a nazi.

See above.

And calling nazi propaganda "info" is pretty funny. Hey, look at all the info in Der Sturmer!

Ah, yes, the same book that shows the guy Nguyen Ngoc Loan (rightly) blew away as an innocent martyr, and ignores the fact that the guy had just murdered the entire family (children included) of one of Loan's men? That book?

That book which you misrepresent? Did you even read it?

Do you even remember what his point was about?

That section spoke of recent events being left out of text books. He asked people that lived through the war, what memories did they have. Most sited was the burning monk, Loan, My Lai, and the Napalm girl.

His point was the fact the events and pictures that made such an impression in their time, were getting dropped.

He didn't even pass judgment on aspects of the execution. Simply mentioned that it happened and the photo affected a great many people.

So, are you supportive of multiculturalism, or not? Why or why not?

Meh. My country (both before becoming a westphalian nation-state and after), has always been muti-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious and pretty much multi-everything and me likes it that way.

What do I care what the person next door dresses, eats, prays and talks in ?

Meh. My country (both before becoming a westphalian nation-state and after), has always been muti-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious and pretty much multi-everything and me likes it that way.

What do I care what the person next door dresses, eats, prays and talks in ?

What what what? Aren't all Indians the same?

:eek:

*so kidding*

What what what? Aren't all Indians the same?


No. We only talk with that accent to fool you. ;)

What what what? Aren't all Indians the same?

:eek:

*so kidding*

Nope! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians

multiculturalism is in the process of destroying my nation and many nations of Europe.

A nation is a unified people, who are of the same heritage(roughly) and can agree on a lot of things.

People of different cultures can not always get along.

that's why they developed their cultures in different places. The loved the ones they lived with , an hated without.

you may think that twe are 'enlightened' in this day and age, but the truth is that we are just SPOILED.....Killing and intolerance is the norm in human history, and no amount of modern technology (except the brain-programmer chip) will ever change that....We should be left to our own kind.

multiculturalism is in the process of destroying my nation and many nations of Europe.

A nation is a unified people, who are of the same heritage(roughly) and can agree on a lot of things.

People of different cultures can not always get along.

that's why they developed their cultures in different places. The loved the ones they lived with , an hated without.

you may think that twe are 'enlightened' in this day and age, but the truth is that we are just SPOILED.....Killing and intolerance is the norm in human history, and no amount of modern technology (except the brain-programmer chip) will ever change that....We should be left to our own kind.Ladies and Gentlemen, if ever there were a reason for a person to look at multiculturalism as a good thing, realizing that believing the opposite would put you in agreement with this mouth-breather would be it.

Look, for me this is a difficult question. On one hand there is absolutely no doubt that no one has the right to censor another person's wishes to conform to a chosen culture.

On the other there are certain aspects of the immigrant cultures in question (particularly their intolerance of gays and issues of women's rights) which need to be addressed.

I like the Leitkultur idea (as originally proposed by Bassam Tibi) - everyone gets to live their culture, but everyone follows a certain "leading culture", ie a general understanding of modernity, human rights and tolerance. And those who don't want to, but prefer to keep women locked up in tiny apartments all day...I don't really see the reason for tolerating that choice.

As for all the other issues, particularly economic and crime-related...meh, they've got little to do with culture, and everything to do with poor government policymaking.

no. it's a waste. it is destroying european countries as we speak as well.

I think the way Britain's going is evidence that multiculturalism is a load of crap. Urban areas are divided into ethnic ghettos. The country has become a hotbed of islamic extremism. We've got to the situation where it's considered by the trendy liberal elite to a good thing to grovel to every foreign culture under the sun, but you're as bad as Hitler for celebrating your own. This country needs to introduce an assimilationist policy. If immgrants aren't comfortable with the idea then they don't have to move here.

multiculturalism is in the process of destroying my nation and many nations of Europe.

:rolleyes:

A nation is a unified people, who are of the same heritage(roughly) and can agree on a lot of things.

Mm-hmm. I suppose you think we share a nation cuz we're both white? Apparently we agree on a lot of things, whereas you cannot agree with anything with someone who is, well, Non White?

People of different cultures can not always get along.

People of the same culture can not always get along.

that's why they developed their cultures in different places. The loved the ones they lived with , an hated without.

No, that's not why culture exists. Get an education.

Just because YOU "hate" other cultures does not mean everyone does nor is that the reason for culture.

I think the way Britain's going is evidence that multiculturalism is a load of crap. Urban areas are divided into ethnic ghettos. The country has become a hotbed of islamic extremism.

Heh, so multiculturalism is a load of crap because there are other cultures. You oppose those other cultures, hence multiculturalism is a load of crap.
Nice circular argument.

We've got to the situation where it's considered by the trendy liberal elite to a good thing to grovel to every foreign culture under the sun, but you're as bad as Hitler for celebrating your own.

You know it's odd, I hear this more and more from British people. I pose this means that the "trendy elite" is actually a bunch of fascist, racist stooges and being a white-pride chav is what is considered good.

Does multiculturalism mean I have to respect certain cultures or just tolerate their present existence?

multiculturalism is in the process of destroying my nation and many nations of Europe.

A nation is a unified people, who are of the same heritage(roughly) and can agree on a lot of things.

People of different cultures can not always get along.

that's why they developed their cultures in different places. The loved the ones they lived with , an hated without.

you may think that twe are 'enlightened' in this day and age, but the truth is that we are just SPOILED.....Killing and intolerance is the norm in human history, and no amount of modern technology (except the brain-programmer chip) will ever change that....We should be left to our own kind.

My brain programmer chip wants me to love everyone. But my true nature wants to hate. Stupid brain programmer chip.

Does multiculturalism mean I have to respect certain cultures or just tolerate their present existence?

The first part would be nice, the second part is a definite yes.

I don't really care. They want to come into the US? Sure. Why should I stop 'em.

In my opinion it should be up to local communities whether or not they want to be multicultural, rather than national governments. If a community wants to exclude immigrants, so be it. It will suffer for it most likely, but it should have the power. If it wants immigrants and desires to be multicultural, it too should have the option. In neither case should anything be forced on its inhabitants. I like Switzerland's model where the cantons have substantial powers in deciding who enters or not. The national government still has too much say in the matter for my liking though...