|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 24, 2009 15:17:44 GMT -5
vote!
|
|
highduke
Amicus
Instigator / Scholar
60%
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by highduke on Jan 24, 2009 17:20:55 GMT -5
It alienates culture & intra-ethnic solidarity, causes alienation & depression. a canadian researched the subject, proved it, published it & was forced to repent to save his career. if i find the study, i will post it
|
|
|
Post by bordura on Jan 25, 2009 3:01:36 GMT -5
it is nothing to like or dislike into that. it is just a fact how humanity has moved from tribe stage to urban stage. in that long historical process cultures "races" and ways of life intermingle more and more. Long time in history an individual was just part of a small nucleus of 7-12 people roaming the earth scavenging for food. later then feelt part of a larger nucleus maybe of some blood and territorial related individuals. later they learned to settle and create villages along water and they felt part of that group whatever we might decide to call it now. later they domesticated animals and learned to cultivate plants and started exchanging with neighboring villages and felt part of a larger community. later this communities allied in need to face neighboring communities and either dominated them or got dominated and become part of a larger group. similarities in language and customs, common threats from proximity of living, common interests, blood lines worked to coagulate larger units which we call it today cultures. Out of this cultures first models of kingdoms, states or empires appeared. since then interests, existence, domination, needs sculpted ethnicity. ethnicity and religion (in some extreme cases) was a force to forge nationality. and here we are today all out of this chain of humanity. if you are honest enough to look at this development without any special glasses it is obvious that tendency is to get wider larger more inclusive as life progresses on earth. from a band of 8-12 people as the basic unit in the beginning now we have a clean structure of village, town, city, metropolis, commune/canton/county, state, federate, union of states, or larger wider feeling of belonging to asia, europe, africa, america, australia, oceania. no one can stop humanity from moving to other forms of idendity. on the other hand this process is a slow one and much more lasting then a humans life span so in terms of one individuals life he better sticks to his strongest feeling being that, belonging to a village or a larger village called state nation or whatever fits his phobia.
|
|
|
Post by malsor4life on Jan 25, 2009 3:29:56 GMT -5
I dont like it at all, but it looks more and more like its the future of this world---especially with nigga Obama leading the charge.
|
|
|
Post by vanilo on Jan 25, 2009 9:29:20 GMT -5
What should Obama be doing instead? Picking cotton from the field? Leave the leading to non-niggas? . I agree with Bordura's post...
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Jan 25, 2009 11:15:53 GMT -5
I live in one of the most multicultural suburbs in the world with 140 different ethnic communities so i cant say anything against it lol.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 25, 2009 12:42:22 GMT -5
Works for large nations like the US, but not for small nations like Albania...
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Jan 25, 2009 13:08:07 GMT -5
I don't like it one bit. Especially, in Serbia where its only detrimental to our people.
|
|
|
Post by captainalbania on Jan 25, 2009 15:50:22 GMT -5
Multiculturalism is a failed policy and only creates strife. Thats why empires are inherently unstable and disassemble as soon as the strongman is dead and nations are inherently stable.
|
|
|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 25, 2009 16:43:42 GMT -5
Bordura your whoel post is very confusing and makes little sense..especially the last part. btw phobia means fear. so whatever fits his fear? lol what the hell does that even mean?
anyway for those who t hink multiculturalism is a failed policy what about civilazations that have died out because of little contact with other cultures like Eastern Island and Native Americans?
|
|
|
Post by libofshe on Jan 26, 2009 7:36:39 GMT -5
they didn't die because because of lack of multiculture...they died coz european colonialists wiped them out
|
|
|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 26, 2009 12:42:35 GMT -5
no, Easter Island had no contact with Europeans. they were isolated from the rest of the world and killed each other off.
Native Americans were mostly "wiped" out by the diseases that the colonists brought...like measles, a disease that wasent deadly to Europeans but it was deadly to native Americans because they didnt have an immunity agaisnt it(because they never had contact with other cultures)
|
|
|
Post by lozonjare on Jan 26, 2009 18:19:38 GMT -5
Multiculturalism is a failed policy and only creates strife. Thats why empires are inherently unstable and disassemble as soon as the strongman is dead and nations are inherently stable. agreed
|
|
|
Post by captainalbania on Jan 26, 2009 23:54:48 GMT -5
Wrong, Easter Islanders grew too big on their island and the population wiped out the topsoil so they had a massive famine and only 2 tribes are left today.
Wrong again, there are plenty of Native Americans left. Check out the former Spanish and Portugese colonies in the new world.
The difference is the English colonials never "integrated" the natives into their society and destroyed them with wars and forced them into reservations.
The Spanish and Portugese married them (they did not bring too many women to the new world) used them as slaves and farm equipment, then (once they realized the natives had souls and could be converted to Catholics) replaced them with negros and made them citizens.
"Multiculturalism" doesn't work, let alone "multi racialism". In South America 3 cultures collided (natives, africans, & iberians). What happened? The dominant Iberian culture and language took over and they live in "multi-racial" tiered societies with blacks at the bottom, indians and mestizos in the middle, and whites at the top.
The only "white" countries in South America are Argentina and Uruguay.
Haven't you ever noticed the most stable countries are the most ethnically pure, while the most unstable countries have 2, even 3 ethnicities competing for resources?
Examples: Kosovo (Serbs & Albs) Trans Dniester (Romanians & Russians) South Ossetia (Georgians & Ossetians) Yugoslavia (Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, Albanians, Hungarians, Roma) Soviet Union (too many to mention)
Examples of multi-ethnic countries that do work and why.... Switzerland (Italian, German, French) Belgium (French, Dutch (Walloon) )
These 2 perfect examples only stay together because each ethnic group is given extreme autonomy, constitutional rights and freedoms and protection of their language.
|
|
|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 27, 2009 10:33:07 GMT -5
Captain Albania, before giving an emotioenlly filled, half-assed response i suggest u research more about those subjects. can i ask u a question tho Captain Albania? where do u live? surely not in Albania or "Ethnic Albania"...do u tell peopel ur Albanian? Do u have an Albanian flag in ur room/house/car? Guess what, you're contributing to multiculturalism, and you didn't even know it
|
|
|
Post by epiroti on Jan 27, 2009 11:41:50 GMT -5
There isn't much of a point debating this if we are not clear about what multiculuralism really means. Bordura made a very good point: it is just a fact how humanity has moved from tribe stage to urban stage. If nations want to progress economically, they have to create good relations with other nations. Isolation is a recepie for disaster. Multiculuralism inside one society or state has its advantages and disadvanages. The disadvantages are something that come to the balkanians mind quicker because of the recent ethnic clashes in the region, or other twisted beliefs of racial superiorities, etc. The cause of those conflicts is just the greed of certain groups to take what's not theirs; or the unwillingness to revise their values, and their prejudices. In other words, a lack of both maturity and sympathy. The advantages: an opportunity to refine your culture by putting it to the "test" - having your values questioned when they naurally collide with others'; as well as economic gains that allowed for such a mix in the first place (the host country has allowed immigration usually because it was smth they profited from). Oh, and mixed-rac girls are flipping hot ;D But multiculturalism works only when a country is civilised enough to prohibit unfairness and discrimination. Otherwise, better not try it, because it will only ruin its image, at the least.
|
|
|
Post by libofshe on Jan 28, 2009 4:48:56 GMT -5
i don't think you can ever eradicate prejudice and discrimination, what most civlised countries have managed to do is minimise it to such an extent that it is tolerable through education and mingling of people at grass roots level but i agree with your point of view.
people inherently gravitate towards cultures akin to them, the need to relate is a powerfull disposition, that then creates mindsets and a common behaviour which is then propagated down the generations, its a hard cycle to break and embrace other cultures, the reluctance to multiculturalism has as much to do with our innate,inherited, rigid, unwavering group mentality as it a has to do with our unwillingness to accept smth else bacause we perceive that as betraying our legacy, once you look past those things then multiculturalism is a beautifull thing, you might even realise you have a lot of things in common with other people, hell...you might even find it enriching.
|
|