Is multiculturalism a good idea for a society?

[oneforall57]

It seems like the division in America is getting worse. When everyone accepted this land as a Christian based society there was greater unity. Perhaps our search for political correctness is not the way to go. Would everyone be better off if there was a common ground acceptance? Without this (common ground) are we leaving everything open to liberal interpretation trying to find absolute political correctness?

References:
http://www.americanchristiansociety.com/society

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-10-18/n ... ticultural

[East of Eden]

My own country was founded on bi-culturalism, English and French.

When the English conquered the territory of New France, they were unwilling or unable to coerce the assimilation of the largely Roman Catholic, French speaking population. To secure the allegiance of the French Canadians to the British crown, the Quebec Act of 1774 allowed public office holders to practice the Roman Catholic faith, by replacing the oath sworn by officials from one to Elizabeth I and her heirs with one to George III that had no reference to the Protestant faith; French Canadian language and culture was protected under law. This was rather unusual for conquered peoples in the eighteenth century. It also really pissed off the colonists to the south who called it one of the Intolerable Acts, one of the justifications to abandon the Biblical principle of loyalty to the King and by force of arms, establish their republic. Escapees from that conflict, who wished to remain loyal to their king, immigrated north establishing the basis for the English-speaking population in the future Canada.

Even though it was begun as political expediency, biculturalism became a defining characteristic of Canada. Multiculturalism is merely an extension of this.

That same sort of thing is happening in the American Southwest as we speak with Hispanic culture and the Spanish language. Texas was once casually bilingual -- read Edna Ferber's Giant -- and it is becoming so again, whether us Anglos like it or not. I think it's a good thing, though the adjustment is difficult for the dominant culture as it always is. Americans are the LEAST multilingual people in the world; in Europe, you drive 100 miles (excuse me, kilometers) and you're speaking a different language, in some places three or four. That's a GOOD thing. We need a bit more of that here in the US -- and it's happening anyway. In my home town, where I once taught, there are 22 languages spoken among the school district's students. It's an Army town. In the Jewish school where I taught here in Dallas, I had a student who was quadrilingual -- he was totally fluent in English, Russian, Hebrew and Lithuanian. After living in Texas for a while, he can probably get along in Spanish by now, too.

I don't think such Balkanization is beneficial. Here in NM it is one of the few places where bilingualism can be justified, Spanish having been spoken for 200+ years before anyone spoke English.

[East of Eden]

My own country was founded on bi-culturalism, English and French.

When the English conquered the territory of New France, they were unwilling or unable to coerce the assimilation of the largely Roman Catholic, French speaking population. To secure the allegiance of the French Canadians to the British crown, the Quebec Act of 1774 allowed public office holders to practice the Roman Catholic faith, by replacing the oath sworn by officials from one to Elizabeth I and her heirs with one to George III that had no reference to the Protestant faith; French Canadian language and culture was protected under law. This was rather unusual for conquered peoples in the eighteenth century. It also really pissed off the colonists to the south who called it one of the Intolerable Acts, one of the justifications to abandon the Biblical principle of loyalty to the King and by force of arms, establish their republic. Escapees from that conflict, who wished to remain loyal to their king, immigrated north establishing the basis for the English-speaking population in the future Canada.

Even though it was begun as political expediency, biculturalism became a defining characteristic of Canada. Multiculturalism is merely an extension of this.

That same sort of thing is happening in the American Southwest as we speak with Hispanic culture and the Spanish language. Texas was once casually bilingual -- read Edna Ferber's Giant -- and it is becoming so again, whether us Anglos like it or not. I think it's a good thing, though the adjustment is difficult for the dominant culture as it always is. Americans are the LEAST multilingual people in the world; in Europe, you drive 100 miles (excuse me, kilometers) and you're speaking a different language, in some places three or four. That's a GOOD thing. We need a bit more of that here in the US -- and it's happening anyway. In my home town, where I once taught, there are 22 languages spoken among the school district's students. It's an Army town. In the Jewish school where I taught here in Dallas, I had a student who was quadrilingual -- he was totally fluent in English, Russian, Hebrew and Lithuanian. After living in Texas for a while, he can probably get along in Spanish by now, too.

I don't think such Balkanization is beneficial. Here in NM it is one of the few places where bilingualism can be justified, Spanish having been spoken for 200+ years before anyone spoke English.

[cnorman18]

Seems to me the only alternative to "multiculturalism" is a monolithic culture, which would entail keeping everyone not of the home culture out, or alternatively, of enforcing assimilation. Both seem to me to be unwise. Since American culture is ENTIRELY a result of the blending of various cultures -- European, African, Asian and Central and South American -- I don't know how any American could claim to be against multiculturalism. Our very language is a blend of Germanic, Greek and Latin (French and Spanish) words and structures.

I would agree that members of a given culture refusing to adapt their own beliefs and laws to that of the host nation -- e.g., Muslims insisting on applying Sharia Law while within the borders of the United States, or justifying "Honor Killings" on cultural grounds -- is also not a good thing, and the larger culture is perfectly within its rights and the bounds of necessity to outlaw such things; but relatively minor variations in dress, use of the original language (especially in private homes), and certainly religious beliefs, are another matter.

[Darias]

A similar question with the same references was posted by the same user here

I didn't read every post in this thread, but I'm wondering if anyone actually perused the references listed?

In the other thread I made a few posts about the sources themselves. Check it out post 4 and post 5.

In case no one cares to click the links and read my commentary about them, here are some quotes from http://www.americanchristiansociety.com/society

Am I the only one disturbed by such rhetoric?

Each race should form it’s own society. A society with multi-race and multi-culture is out of balance and will never have unity.

SOURCE

Someone from a different race can be permitted to live among a different society. This person has the same basic rights as the other members in the society. However, these people living among others may NOT partake in government (this includes voting). They also may not own any media outlets.

SOURCE

Homosexuality goes against the law of God and nature. Homosexuality is an act of perversion and can never be recognized as normal behavior in a society.

SOURCE (under Beliefs section)

Our government needs to have a foundation in Christianity. They shouldn’t force Christianity on people but our laws and way of life need to revolve around a common general understanding of Christianity. Otherwise our government foundation will fall victim to liberalism.

SOURCE

Oh and here's some more!

What We Want For All People

Each race needs to have a homeland to call their own where they can ensure their own culture and heritage.

All people can live in peace but must have their own homeland to call their own while respecting other societies. This must happen before true peace can ever take place.

SOURCE (under Goals section)

No pro-Marxist (communists) or everything 100% capitalists (every man for himself) promotion in our society.

SOURCE (under Goals section)

Oh and here's a wonderful message from the site's sponsor:

A Message From Our Chairman

Ryan Reardon
[center]
[/center]


One of the first things you will notice about our organization is that it DOES mix politics with religion. I have been told at several rallies and by many individuals not to do this. It would be more popular if we did not take this approach. We believe it is necessary to include a basic understanding of Christianity in our government. Without this standard our government will always be open to man standards and our society will become nothing more than a liberal wasteland. Everyone has the right to worship as they see fit. Life is a personal journey. Our intent is not to take this God given right away from individuals but rather keep a standard for our government. The American Christian Society is not about becoming the most popular by saying what people would like to hear but rather what people need to hear.



Please join us today and help get this country back on track!



Thank you,

Ryan Reardon – Chairman

SOURCE (under Chairman section)

It's painfully obvious that Mr. Reardon and his society are some form of Neo-Nazi group. Apart from being completely racist, the site is totally ignorant of history (Marxism included). It is also totally ignorant of homosexuality.

It's motto: "Working For a Better Future" clearly means a better future for racist neonazis who try to bleach their hair blond.

It is certainly NOT representative of Christianity in any way shape or form.

Christianity was multicultural. It said that men and women and all races are equal. The New Testament does not advocate racial segregation.

If you read carefully, the site advocates "the White Man's burden" and speaks of other races in a condescending manner.

=====


Newsflash Mr. Reardon. I, as a blue eyed, light brown haired white man with (mostly)German and (some)Cherokee ancestry, have something you don't want to hear.

Blond hair and blue eyes and fair skin are the result of a genetic mutation which turns off the gene which produces brown eyes and brown hair and brown skin. When the gene is completely turned off, albinism is the result.

“Originally, we all had brown eyes�, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch�, which literally “turned off� the ability to produce brown eyes�. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch�, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting� brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour – a condition known as albinism.

SOURCE

Guess what else? Recent studies have confirmed that the Neanderthal man(Human cousins from Europe) did indeed mate with modern Homosapiens (Modern Humans from Africa).

And most people of European descent carry the genetics of the Neanderthal man. Most African Americans do not.

In his and Dr. Reich’s view, Neanderthals interbred only with non-Africans, the people who left Africa, which would mean that non-Africans drew from a second gene pool not available to Africans.

SOURCE

Of course this doesn't bother me because genetics are genetics. We're all human and we all bleed red.


But, that has to taste bitter for someone who believes in the superiority races and the "separation" thereof.


Have a nice day!

[cnorman18]

A similar question with the same references was posted by the same user here

I didn't read every post in this thread, but I'm wondering if anyone actually perused the references listed?

In the other thread I made a few posts about the sources themselves. Check it out post 4 and post 5.

In case no one cares to click the links and read my commentary about them, here are some quotes from http://www.americanchristiansociety.com/society

Am I the only one disturbed by such rhetoric?

Each race should form it’s own society. A society with multi-race and multi-culture is out of balance and will never have unity.

SOURCE

Someone from a different race can be permitted to live among a different society. This person has the same basic rights as the other members in the society. However, these people living among others may NOT partake in government (this includes voting). They also may not own any media outlets.

SOURCE

Homosexuality goes against the law of God and nature. Homosexuality is an act of perversion and can never be recognized as normal behavior in a society.

SOURCE (under Beliefs section)

Our government needs to have a foundation in Christianity. They shouldn’t force Christianity on people but our laws and way of life need to revolve around a common general understanding of Christianity. Otherwise our government foundation will fall victim to liberalism.

SOURCE

Oh and here's some more!

What We Want For All People

Each race needs to have a homeland to call their own where they can ensure their own culture and heritage.

All people can live in peace but must have their own homeland to call their own while respecting other societies. This must happen before true peace can ever take place.

SOURCE (under Goals section)

No pro-Marxist (communists) or everything 100% capitalists (every man for himself) promotion in our society.

SOURCE (under Goals section)

Oh and here's a wonderful message from the site's sponsor:

A Message From Our Chairman

Ryan Reardon
[center]
[/center]


One of the first things you will notice about our organization is that it DOES mix politics with religion. I have been told at several rallies and by many individuals not to do this. It would be more popular if we did not take this approach. We believe it is necessary to include a basic understanding of Christianity in our government. Without this standard our government will always be open to man standards and our society will become nothing more than a liberal wasteland. Everyone has the right to worship as they see fit. Life is a personal journey. Our intent is not to take this God given right away from individuals but rather keep a standard for our government. The American Christian Society is not about becoming the most popular by saying what people would like to hear but rather what people need to hear.



Please join us today and help get this country back on track!



Thank you,

Ryan Reardon – Chairman

SOURCE (under Chairman section)

It's painfully obvious that Mr. Reardon and his society are some form of Neo-Nazi group. Apart from being completely racist, the site is totally ignorant of history (Marxism included). It is also totally ignorant of homosexuality.

It's motto: "Working For a Better Future" clearly means a better future for racist neonazis who try to bleach their hair blond.

It is certainly NOT representative of Christianity in any way shape or form.

Christianity was multicultural. It said that men and women and all races are equal. The New Testament does not advocate racial segregation.

If you read carefully, the site advocates "the White Man's burden" and speaks of other races in a condescending manner.

=====


Newsflash Mr. Reardon. I, as a blue eyed, light brown haired white man with (mostly)German and (some)Cherokee ancestry, have something you don't want to hear.

Blond hair and blue eyes and fair skin are the result of a genetic mutation which turns off the gene which produces brown eyes and brown hair and brown skin. When the gene is completely turned off, albinism is the result.

“Originally, we all had brown eyes�, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch�, which literally “turned off� the ability to produce brown eyes�. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch�, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting� brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour – a condition known as albinism.

SOURCE

Guess what else? Recent studies have confirmed that the Neanderthal man(Human cousins from Europe) did indeed mate with modern Homosapiens (Modern Humans from Africa).

And most people of European descent carry the genetics of the Neanderthal man. Most African Americans do not.

In his and Dr. Reich’s view, Neanderthals interbred only with non-Africans, the people who left Africa, which would mean that non-Africans drew from a second gene pool not available to Africans.

SOURCE

Of course this doesn't bother me because genetics are genetics. We're all human and we all bleed red.


But, that has to taste bitter for someone who believes in the superiority races and the "separation" thereof.


Have a nice day!

I'm a Jew. This is news? Oy.

Seriously, my people have been dealing with this sort of thing for centuries. The good news is that it's rarer and less influential today than it has been for centuries. Of course it's disturbing. But it's also nothing new.

[East of Eden]

Seems to me the only alternative to "multiculturalism" is a monolithic culture, which would entail keeping everyone not of the home culture out, or alternatively, of enforcing assimilation. Both seem to me to be unwise. Since American culture is ENTIRELY a result of the blending of various cultures -- European, African, Asian and Central and South American -- I don't know how any American could claim to be against multiculturalism. Our very language is a blend of Germanic, Greek and Latin (French and Spanish) words and structures.

I would agree that members of a given culture refusing to adapt their own beliefs and laws to that of the host nation -- e.g., Muslims insisting on applying Sharia Law while within the borders of the United States, or justifying "Honor Killings" on cultural grounds -- is also not a good thing, and the larger culture is perfectly within its rights and the bounds of necessity to outlaw such things; but relatively minor variations in dress, use of the original language (especially in private homes), and certainly religious beliefs, are another matter.

E PLURIBUS UNUM