Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:05 pm

* India has over 1,600 languages, significant numbers of people following nine different major religions, and over 2,000 different ethnic groups.

* Indonesia has over 300 ethnic groups, 700 different languages and although primarily Muslim, has significant Christian and Hindu populations.

* Kazakhstan has at least seven ethnic groups making up more than 1 percent of the population and adherents of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Bahai and pagan faiths, along with two commonly spoken languages (Kazakh and Russian).

* Mexico has a multicultural population with large numbers of people of Amerindian, European, Asian, African and Arab descent. While most people speak Spanish, over 60 indigenous languages are spoken by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and there are large numbers of English, French, German, Italian, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Hebrew speakers, among others. The country is mostly Christian (Catholic) but has plenty of Jews, Buddhists and Mormons, with smaller populations of other religious adherents.

The most multicultural countries in the world are actually in Africa, Asia and South America:

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West FT_Diversity_Map

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West FT_Diversity_Map

by Guest Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:07 pm

Oh don't Ben, the poor things, their brains will explode and their eyes with pop out and the prop of their bigotry will be so bent it will no longer support them.

by Guest Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:12 pm

They have the most multiculturalism based as a regional concept of similar ethnic groups

Who are nations who have the least equal rights for their citizens

Something I posted earlier:

The Indian government has said the concept of marital rape “cannot be applied in the Indian context”, despite laying out plans to introduce legislation to criminalise it last year. Maneka Gandhi, Minister for Women and Child Development in India, said in a written statement on Thursday that marital rape could not be criminalised in India because of factors including “level of education and illiteracy, poverty, social customs and religious beliefs”. She added that it was due to the “mindset of society to treat the marriage as a sacrament”. In December 2015 the Indian government laid out plans to introduce “comprehensive” legislation to criminalise marital rape.

But the minister of state for home affairs stated at the time that the government would wait for a Committee Report to offer “appropriate suggestions” before any action could be taken. Ms Gandhi's claim that marital rape cannot be applied in the India is a reiteration of a statement made by the Home Affairs Minister in response to calls from the United Nations to criminalise rape within marriage in May 2015.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/marital-rape-cannot-be-applied-in-the-indian-context-says-indian-minister-a6927406.html

Well that has to go down for this years most idiotic statement.

So when in the past in Europe and America, there was factors including “level of education and illiteracy, poverty, social customs and religious beliefs”. around slavery. That criminalizing it, brought about an end of the African slaver trade, once all nations had jumped on board to making slavery illegal. I mean I could list numerous similar examples to the one I just made to point out just how ridiculous and pathetic there excuse is to not carry through criminalizing marital rape. That the plight of the victims of rape are rendered secondary to their abusers and even more disturbingly and idiotic is that a belief is an absolute. That people cannot change through progression. Thus by doing so, that make beliefs,more important in law to the equality and well being of each Indian. I mean you cannot make it up how backward a stance that is. They recognize that marital rape is wrong and yet say to protect victims of rape is wrong also. As the law should respect personal beliefs, over that of the well being and equality of all Indians.
Another candidate for the worst excuse in history.

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:31 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:* India has over 1,600 languages, significant numbers of people following nine different major religions, and over 2,000 different ethnic groups.

* Indonesia has over 300 ethnic groups, 700 different languages and although primarily Muslim, has significant Christian and Hindu populations.

* Kazakhstan has at least seven ethnic groups making up more than 1 percent of the population and adherents of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Bahai and pagan faiths, along with two commonly spoken languages (Kazakh and Russian).

* Mexico has a multicultural population with large numbers of people of Amerindian, European, Asian, African and Arab descent. While most people speak Spanish, over 60 indigenous languages are spoken by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and there are large numbers of English, French, German, Italian, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Hebrew speakers, among others. The country is mostly Christian (Catholic) but has plenty of Jews, Buddhists and Mormons, with smaller populations of other religious adherents.

The most multicultural countries in the world are actually in Africa, Asia and South America:

and all of them are backward, piss poor, seething with murder drugs and mysogeny....and getting worse not better.....

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:25 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and all of them are backward, piss poor, seething with murder drugs and mysogeny....and getting worse not better.....

Not all of them -- and not all of the countries doing poorly are multicultural either, so there's obviously no correlation between prosperity and multiculturalism.

India, for example, has a very low unemployment rate right now, and its poverty rate is just a few ticks higher than the U.S. Canada and New Zealand rate high on multiculturalism and they're both doing fantastic.

For all the negative publicity surrounding its drug war, Mexico is actually doing pretty well, too: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/mexico-is-getting-better-and-fewer-mexicans-want-to-leave/275064/

by Guest Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:29 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and all of them are backward, piss poor, seething with murder drugs and mysogeny....and getting worse not better.....

Not all of them -- and not all of the countries doing poorly are multicultural either, so there's obviously no correlation between prosperity and multiculturalism.

India, for example, has a very low unemployment rate right now, and its poverty rate is just a few ticks higher than the U.S. Canada and New Zealand rate high on multiculturalism and they're both doing fantastic.

For all the negative publicity surrounding its drug war, Mexico is actually doing pretty well, too: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/mexico-is-getting-better-and-fewer-mexicans-want-to-leave/275064/

Its very disingenuous the claim you are making on multiculturalism, as the ethnic groups are very similar that live together in the samples you cited.
India is rule by a nationalist party, religiously based that views Christians, Muslims etc with hostility
The country is going backwards progressively on social issues

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:56 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and all of them are backward, piss poor, seething with murder drugs and mysogeny....and getting worse not better.....

Not all of them -- and not all of the countries doing poorly are multicultural either, so there's obviously no correlation between prosperity and multiculturalism.

India, for example, has a very low unemployment rate right now, and its poverty rate is just a few ticks higher than the U.S. Canada and New Zealand rate high on multiculturalism and they're both doing fantastic.

For all the negative publicity surrounding its drug war, Mexico is actually doing pretty well, too: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/mexico-is-getting-better-and-fewer-mexicans-want-to-leave/275064/

Its very disingenuous the claim you are making on multiculturalism, as the ethnic groups are very similar that live together in the samples you cited.
India is rule by a nationalist party, religiously based that views Christians, Muslims etc with hostility
The country is going backwards progressively on social issues

The Siddi of Gujarat:

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West Siddi-Tribals-in-Gujarat-India

Catholics celebrating Christmas Mass in Goa:

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West Christmas1

Oh yeah, so similar ...

by Guest Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:58 am

Ehhhh?

So two distinct cultures in Indian?

Wow score to Ben, is that it lol?

Like I say you are being disingenuous as the ethnic groups are very similar, far removed from the multiculturalism we see in the west

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:05 pm

Didge wrote:Ehhhh?

So two distinct cultures in Indian?

Wow score to Ben, is that it lol?

Like I say you are being disingenuous as the ethnic groups are very similar, far removed from the multiculturalism we see in the west

That was one example to show how wrong you are. I don't have to provide every example imaginable in order to show that your claim, that these ethnic and cultural groups are very similar, is wrong.

by Guest Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:25 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:Ehhhh?

So two distinct cultures in Indian?

Wow score to Ben, is that it lol?

Like I say you are being disingenuous as the ethnic groups are very similar, far removed from the multiculturalism we see in the west

That was one example to show how wrong you are. I don't have to provide every example imaginable in order to show that your claim, that these ethnic and cultural groups are very similar, is wrong.

So two groups miles from each other and unlikely to cross paths, due to their locations, is your idea of Multiculturalism?
Again that is only one group previously from Africa, what about the rest, which will be from the Indian continent itself plus a few hippies
Multiculturalism also means acceptance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_violence_in_India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India

http://www.minoritiesofindia.org/indian-police-massacre-unarmed-sikhs-protesting-desecration-of-scriptures/

Now I am all for Multiculturalism, but certainly understand it far better than you seem to do Ben

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:40 pm

Do you think that multiculturalism means perpetual harmony and no ethnic enclaves?

by Guest Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Do you think that multiculturalism means perpetual harmony and no ethnic enclaves?

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Do you think that multiculturalism means perpetual harmony and no ethnic enclaves?

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

You're off your nut if you think that multiculturalism means there won't be smaller subcultures that clash with others.

by Guest Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:58 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

You're off your nut if you think that multiculturalism means there won't be smaller subcultures that clash with others.

Calm down you little oik

It hardly a society working with such no acceptance of other groups
Multiculturalism is about the acceptance of all cultures within that society

So again you fail to show a varied mix of different ethnic groups, ie, Caucasians, Africans etc and go off similar ethnic groups who are at each others throats, with now a very Nationalistic Party in power based on Hinduism as the main faith.

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:20 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

You're off your nut if you think that multiculturalism means there won't be smaller subcultures that clash with others.

Calm down you little oik

It hardly a society working with such no acceptance of other groups
Multiculturalism is about the acceptance of all cultures within that society

So again you fail to show a varied mix of different ethnic groups, ie, Caucasians, Africans etc and go off similar ethnic groups who are at each others throats, with now a very Nationalistic Party in power based on Hinduism as the main faith.

You are such an idiot, you mean to tell me that India, of all places, is a warzone of ethnic strife? Bullshit Didge, stop insulting the intelligence of the rest of us by displaying your lack of intelligence. You need to go back to school, little boy -- maybe do the whole thing over again. Either that or gain the wisdom to shut up rather than display your ignorance to the world ...

by Guest Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:38 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

Calm down you little oik

It hardly a society working with such no acceptance of other groups
Multiculturalism is about the acceptance of all cultures within that society

So again you fail to show a varied mix of different ethnic groups, ie, Caucasians, Africans etc and go off similar ethnic groups who are at each others throats, with now a very Nationalistic Party in power based on Hinduism as the main faith.

You are such an idiot, you mean to tell me that India, of all places, is a warzone of ethnic strife? Bullshit Didge, stop insulting the intelligence of the rest of us by displaying your lack of intelligence. You need to go back to school, little boy -- maybe do the whole thing over again. Either that or gain the wisdom to shut up rather than display your ignorance to the world ...

Well as seen you have no idea of multiculturalism or of India itself
As to your hissy fit, its not my fault you are incredible stupid on matters of the world

If you cannot debate with civility, I suggest you stick your head in the freezer and cool down

by Guest Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:00 pm

She is known to Germans as 'Mutti' – Mummy – but now Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing a rebellion from a woman who, as some have pointed out, could be her daughter. Having dominated the German and European political scene for more than a decade, the 61-year-old leader is today licking her wounds after her Christian Democratic Party (CDP) received a kicking in regional elections from the upstart, right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party - also led by a strong woman.

Frauke Petry, 40, has been leader of the three-year-old AfD only since July, but her decision to focus its attack on Merkel’s policy of open door immigration has begun to reap rewards.

Although federal elections are not due until the autumn of 2017, with many Germans uneasy at the CDP’s approach to the migrant crisis, which saw more than a million claim asylum there last year alone, it seems as if the Chancellor’s once iron grip is finally beginning to slip.

The personal backgrounds of the two leaders are strikingly similar. Both were raised in East Germany and trained as scientists before beginning their political careers in the West.

Mrs Merkel joined the CDP in her 30s, soon after the Berlin Wall came down, and around the time that the teenage Frauke Petry’s family moved to West Germany. The latter went on to study at Reading University before founding a plastics company in Leipzig.

Both women unexpectedly wrested control of their parties from dominant men, Mrs Merkel daring to speak out against the great Helmet Khol when he was embroiled in a slush fund scandal before becoming leader in 2000.

Mrs Petry assumed the leadership of the AfD - a party originally formed by a group of economists as a protest against the European Union - when one of its original founders, Bernd Lucke, quit in alarm at its right-ward drift, declaring it had becoming xenophobic.

Both women are divorced. Mrs Merkel has no children - indeed when she first became leader of the CDU, which had prided itself as being the party of the family, this had seemed almost revolutionary. By contrast, mother-of-four Mrs Petry’s announcement soon after being elected leader that she had left her husband seems to have raised few concerns. She is now in a relationship with a AfD MEP.

But the real differences between the two women centres on their vastly divergent approaches to politics.

As Chancellor, Mrs Merkel has cultivated an image of quiet competence, a stern yet benevolent Mother of the Nation who Germans trust and admire more than they love. In 2013, she won a third term as Chancellor, a feat only two others had achieved before her.

Outside of her own country, Mrs Merkel’s focus on the need for pan-European cooperation to survive the economic downturn, her tough love with some of the EU’s struggling states and a pragmatic approach to Russian President Vladimir Putin have given her a status as a serious player on the world stage. Last year, she was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year.

Like the fledgling AfD, the ambitious Mrs Petry is far less circumspect than the woman she now challenges. In the space of a few months she has turned her party into one which bears resemblance to France’s far-right National Front, led by another female leader, Marine Le Pen, by stressing the importance of what she sees as German values and identity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/angela-merkel-is-fighting-off-her-right-wing-rival-to-stay-europ/

More to read on the link

by Victorismyhero Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:21 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Do you think that multiculturalism means perpetual harmony and no ethnic enclaves?

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

You're off your nut if you think that multiculturalism means there won't be smaller subcultures that clash with others.

so you are suggesting that we should live in a state of perpetual internal internecine warfare???

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:40 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Do you think that multiculturalism means perpetual harmony and no ethnic enclaves?

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

You're off your nut if you think that multiculturalism means there won't be smaller subcultures that clash with others.

so you are suggesting that we should live in a state of perpetual internal internecine warfare???

I'm saying we have to accept the fact that not all people like all other people, and that violence is not entirely avoidable in any society, regardless of whether it's homogenous.

by Victorismyhero Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:36 pm

leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:54 am

Lord Foul wrote:leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

Cause you don't make an omelette without breaking some eggs
Evolution

And not really, there should not be more violence.
as the pecentage of ---- is pretty consitant across races

I wanna point out the Op is Bullshit
all these little races are counted as separate in old world nations but the 200 aboriginal nations are counted as just 1
Same with Native Americans
and thus why i have no respect for academics out of Europe, they are institutionally racist to the point where their opinions are worthless.

by Victorismyhero Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:59 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

Cause you don't make an omelette without breaking some eggs
Evolution

And not really, there should not be more violence.
as the pecentage of ---- is pretty consitant across races

I wanna point out the Op is Bullshit
all these little races are counted as separate in old world nations but the 200 aboriginal nations are counted as just 1
Same with Native Americans
and thus why i have no respect for academics out of Europe, they are institutionally racist to the point where their opinions are worthless.

really...try opening your eyes

and that is CERTAINLY not true of "cultures"

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:08 am

@victor
You try
Cause you are blind

Cause it is 100% true

maybe more anglos are ---- than average but not enough make the claim untrue

by 'Wolfie Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:39 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Do you think that multiculturalism means perpetual harmony and no ethnic enclaves?

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West 859118666

YOU'RE a fucking idiot, Dodge...

You're the one who has no idea of what genuine "multiculturalism" actually is..

ARE YOU reading a 1970s textbook on India ?
AT the rate that their economy is growing India will overtake the USA and China before the end of the century..
And that's despite all of their myriad social and cultural problems, and high rates of poverty...

PLUS there's also the salient fact that India remains 5he world's largest democrwcy, albeit fractured and imperfect..

by 'Wolfie Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:48 am

Lord Foul wrote:leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

Australia, NZ and Canada all appear to be much more "multicultural" than Britain (and France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia..).

YET it also seems, at the same time, that we "New World" countries have much lower rates of violence attributable to cultural and ethnic differences ?

GO figure..

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West 2190311264

Facts for those who think multiculturalism is just something "foisted upon" the West 2190311264

by Ben Reilly Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:27 am

Lord Foul wrote:leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

Well, I have nothing on the British -- putting Shia, Sunni and Kurds in the same country? That's like adding all the bones of contention you can find, then giving them AKs.

No, you can't have immigration without conflict, but you can't have civilization without conflict, either. Civilizations are (among many other things) economic ecosystems, and if a civilization cuts itself off from the world, it just finds people from among "its own" to fulfill the roles that immigrants play in more open countries.

So, is it better to get a job, a kiss, a friendly game of cards or a punch in the mouth from someone who looks like you than it would be from someone from another country? If so, why?

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:47 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

YOU'RE a fucking idiot, Dodge...

You're the one who has no idea of what genuine "multiculturalism" actually is..

ARE YOU reading a 1970s textbook on India ?
AT the rate that their economy is growing India will overtake the USA and China before the end of the century..
And that's despite all of their myriad social and cultural problems, and high rates of poverty...

PLUS there's also the salient fact that India remains 5he world's largest democrwcy, albeit fractured and imperfect..

Do you actually offer anything to the debate or infantile insults?

Ben's example of India being a multicultural society would be of failure because they cannot accept each others religious and this is proved by the violence and persecution till effecting the religious minorities
Success is based on cohesion and acceptance of all cultures but then India is miles behind progression where they wil not even make martial rape law and why? Because they believe it will clash with the cultural groups of the country. A nation that still has a vast problem with forced marriage and a caste system, that places women second to men.
As to your ignorance over economies this is no surprise, as India has still much poverty, illiteracy and child labour.

It had to be about one of the worst choices on multiculturalism, which is based on similar ethnic groups

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:50 am

@didge
Imperfection does not equal failure.

it is imperfect, no denying it, but it is around, it still exists and is still the home of over a billion people... hardly a total failure is it now Wink

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:53 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

Well, I have nothing on the British -- putting Shia, Sunni and Kurds in the same country? That's like adding all the bones of contention you can find, then giving them AKs.

No, you can't have immigration without conflict, but you can't have civilization without conflict, either. Civilizations are (among many other things) economic ecosystems, and if a civilization cuts itself off from the world, it just finds people from among "its own" to fulfill the roles that immigrants play in more open countries.

So, is it better to get a job, a kiss, a friendly game of cards or a punch in the mouth from someone who looks like you than it would be from someone from another country? If so, why?

Ignorance at its best.

Putting Shia's, Sunni's and Kurds to form a nation did you mean?
So what you are saying is that people are incapable of living together even though they did under the previous Ottoman Empire?
So by your stance we should never accept any refugees from these groups based on your belief they are thus incapable of living together based on past wrongs and that they cannot move forward.
Trust the left to make an argument for against allowing refugees into this country. Even then that is not the problem, which was incited, supported and fueled by both Saudi and Iran, so even your blame is misplaced and even worse you do not see its root cause.
Where Iraq was finally free from saddam these nations should have helped rebuild this nation, just as happened to Germany and Japan after WW2. Instead they choose to use Iraq as a battleground to gain religious supremacy to an ongoing problem within Islam.
Trust the left to have no concept of history and invent falsehoods to problems. That what Ben is saying is the British should have created Apartheid states made up only of one religious and ethnic group

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:54 am

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
Imperfection does not equal failure.

it is imperfect, no denying it, but it is around, it still exists and is still the home of over a billion people... hardly a total failure is it now

But cannot coexist

That is a failure, not a success story

by Victorismyhero Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:12 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:leaving aside "personal violence"

you say you accept that violence is not avoidable (and I'd agree)

but you DO seem to think that its OK to INCREASE both the likelyhood and severity/scale of such violence

(by increasing the number of "bones of contention")

Well, I have nothing on the British -- putting Shia, Sunni and Kurds in the same country? That's like adding all the bones of contention you can find, then giving them AKs.

No, you can't have immigration without conflict, but you can't have civilization without conflict, either. Civilizations are (among many other things) economic ecosystems, and if a civilization cuts itself off from the world, it just finds people from among "its own" to fulfill the roles that immigrants play in more open countries.

So, is it better to get a job, a kiss, a friendly game of cards or a punch in the mouth from someone who looks like you than it would be from someone from another country? If so, why?

the above is probably THE reason the left will destroy any counttry it gets its teeth into,,,,,,

its not about "who" but about reason and opportunity

to take just one "group" ...the Muslims

they object (in general) to our diet
our western way of dressing
our western way of shedding excess claothing when its hot

etc

and they make sure that we KNOW this, often quite rudely and often quite agressively

and that sir is how the fight started

so that 3 reasons MORE why there will be "contention".......that otherwise would not exist....so the "chances" of a dispute between individulas INCREASES....

you should perhaps be glad the the brits ARE by and large "peaceable folks"

becasue I can tell you there have been times that , were i to be just a tad more flammable (and the law just) there would have been a punch up over a bacon sarnie..... pig

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:56 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group.

Like I say, you clearly have no idea about this and this is people very ethnically the same as well, with very similar cultures just different religions

YOU'RE a fucking idiot, Dodge...

You're the one who has no idea of what genuine "multiculturalism" actually is..

ARE YOU reading a 1970s textbook on India ?
AT the rate that their economy is growing India will overtake the USA and China before the end of the century..
And that's despite all of their myriad social and cultural problems, and high rates of poverty...

PLUS there's also the salient fact that India remains 5he world's largest democrwcy, albeit fractured and imperfect..

Even taking their Independence into consideration, India still operates a caste system, and those at the bottom of the pile are still marginalised within terrible poverty and without rights. This caste system holds sway even today, and results in oppression and lack of social status. Denied their basic rights. So it's perhaps democracy with discrimination?

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:47 pm

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@didge
Imperfection does not equal failure.

it is imperfect, no denying it, but it is around, it still exists and is still the home of over a billion people... hardly a total failure is it now

But cannot coexist

That is a failure, not a success story

but they do coexist so how can you say they cannot ? confused

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:49 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:

But cannot coexist

That is a failure, not a success story

but they do coexist so how can you say they cannot ?

By persecuting each other?

Some coexist, others do not and again its very much based on a male orientated dominated society.

by Ben Reilly Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:23 pm

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:

But cannot coexist

That is a failure, not a success story

but they do coexist so how can you say they cannot ?

By persecuting each other?

Some coexist, others do not and again its very much based on a male orientated dominated society.

The vast majority coexist, the minority do not and the headlines are about them.

Nobody writes news stories about how everybody got along today ...

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:27 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

By persecuting each other?

Some coexist, others do not and again its very much based on a male orientated dominated society.

The vast majority coexist, the minority do not and the headlines are about them.

Nobody writes news stories about how everybody got along today ...

Point so far above you as per usual

If in a society, people have to be kept separate, because of persecution and the fact they clash, is that really coexisting, or helping prevent a volatile situation for continual eruptions of violence?

by 'Wolfie Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:16 am

NOTICE HOW poorly Australia, NZ and the US - three of the world's genuine 'multicultural' success stories - are comparatively ranked for "diversity" in that initial map up there ?!?

Australia has more cultural and ethnic diversity than Canada, for crying out loud..
As does the USA.
And NZ would be similar to Canada..

OZ has the same shading on that map as China, Brazil and Argentina !
And less than Russia ?

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:15 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

NOTICE HOW poorly Australia, NZ and the US - three of the world's genuine 'multicultural' success stories - are comparatively ranked for "diversity" in that initial map up there ?!?

Australia has more cultural and ethnic diversity than Canada, for crying out loud..
As does the USA.
And NZ would be similar to Canada..

OZ has the same shading on that map as China, Brazil and Argentina !
And less than Russia ?

How can those 3 nations be a success story based on today when their indigenous suffered so horrendously throughout its history and still suffer discrimination today? Where all 3 lack self determination.
You cannot just erase history

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:36 pm

Didge please What the fuck is self determination

They are AUSTRALIANS NOW
So they have the same rights as everyone else

we don't believe and support 'chosen’s races' even though I know it is central to your political philosophies

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:54 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Didge please What the fuck is self determination

They are AUSTRALIANS NOW
So they have the same rights as everyone else

we don't believe and support 'chosen’s races' even though I know it is central to your political philosophies

So you are deciding their identity now?

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/#axzz436LqjwFP

Its not for you to decide, hence why its self determination

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:52 pm

Umm did you read it idiot

It is about letting them form Tribal corporation to manage the land they OWN

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:53 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Umm did you read it idiot

It is about letting them form Tribal corporation to manage the land they OWN

Yes i did read it and you clearly do not understand what self determination means then

So more like the idiot is you for not understanding what self determination is.

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:54 pm

It evene tells you on the link

What is “self-determination”?

Self-determination involves a substantive transfer of decision-making power from government to Indigenous peoples. It requires programs and resources that can assist them in rebuilding their own decision-making capabilities [1].
Self-determination can include everything from being actively involved in policy formulation to providing services from cultural peers (rather than outside of Aboriginal culture).
Self-determination is something you take, not something a government gives you.
—Gary Foley, Aboriginal activist [4]
Self-determination and self-government are essential bases for making sustained improvements in the social and economic conditions of Aboriginal people.
If governance is executed the right way, for example in a culturally responsive way, data shows that Aboriginal people are “in the driving seat” of their own development [7].
Self-determination encompasses both land rights and self-governance, as land is understood to be the economic (and in some cases spiritual) basis for Aboriginal communities to be self-governing [11].
It is one of the strongest contributors towards Aboriginal health.
What unites Indigenous leaders around the world is a burning desire for their people to be respected, resourced properly and then left to make their own share of mistakes and their own progress.

Source: http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination#ixzz436bCDsNH

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:22 pm

And that is Achieved through tribal corporations that are given large parts of their land back.

And Much like the EU sometimes people have to be told STFU this is necessary, like the ones that don’t want to register cars etc or want to be allowed to have sex with minors etc. Some traditions are shit and need to go whether they are Anglo or aboriginal.

the all Aboriginal board had been tried and was disbanded in 2005 because it was so corrupt it was just taking all the money given for reparations and not putting any back into the community

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission

AND it would be Remiss of me to point out I am CONSTANTLY

having to stop you Promoting your Anglo-Centric propoganda

“White people keep perpetuating nationhood on a lie. They said the country was terra nullius and Mabo was supposed to have knocked that on the head but in every school they still talk about Captain Cook, and explorers discovering country.
“This year [2015] for example, they will celebrate the two- hundred year so-called discovery of the path across the Blue Mountains. They didn’t discover anything. They followed a Blackfella up the path. That was our trading track with the Sydney people, the Eora and Wiradjuri trading track. Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth were not the first people to cross the Blue Mountains.”

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:26 pm

Why are you bringing up the past when this is about today?

This is about them being denied self determination which you still fail to grasp what it is?

You cannot make excuses for today based off the past, that is appalling on every level

I am not Anglo-Saxon either, so your view to Anglo-centric is absurd, where only around 1 million people descend from the Anglo Saxons. Where the British culture is a mixture of many different ethnic groups, showing how little you understand about the British

The past does not excuse you providing the means for the aboriginals to have self determination. These people who first came as Australians, are the ancestors of today's populations

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:35 pm

You think that Aborigines should have their own Government?

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:You think that Aborigines should have their own Government?

They certainly should have representation and self determination to have control of lands, yes

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:37 pm

They are allowed to start Tribal Corporations so they are not denied anything. OR again do you think that A Special Privileges should be granted based on Race alone?

And Again Anglocentric does not mean that
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anglocentric
please learn international American and not the Archaic backwater dialect you use in your hovel Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:38 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:You think that Aborigines should have their own Government?

They certainly should have representation and self determination to have control of lands, yes

So do you think that Arabs who live in Israel should have self determination and control of lands?

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:39 pm

veya_victaous wrote:They are allowed to start Tribal Corporations so they are not denied anything. OR again do you think that A Special Privileges should be granted based on Race alone?

And Again Anglocentric does not mean that
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anglocentric
please learn international American and not the Archaic backwater dialect you use in your hovel

yes its some made up view by aussies who think we do not know their history when its linked very much to this country

Which again has no relevance to today and the self determination of a people

Its not up to you to decide

by Sponsored content