Multiculturalism

We keep hearing in this Group, particularly from Doug, about the "dangers of multiculturalism." I keep asking what is meant by the term "multiculturalism," and keep getting little or no response, except that it is BAD and LIBERAL.

Intuitively, that answer makes little sense to me. Conservatives are precisely those political theorists who have stressed the importance of culture. The United States and Canada and to a lesser extent Australia, are nations that have traditionally and successfully accommodated many diverse cultures. And those are some of the nations that have traditionally been considered as "conservative." OTOH, nations like France are traditionally unitary and cannot even tolerate ethnic dress by their citizens.

But apparently multiculturalism is evil, even if no one seems to be quite certain why it is evil. So I went looking. Where I went looking first was with LibertyThing authors. And, not surprisingly, here is what I found: The multiculturalism of fear If you want to read an extract, go to the Amazon page. Yes, this author does consider multiculturalism to be "liberal," but apparently he also considers authors such as Hayek to be "liberal." His agenda is not one of utopian reform, but fits nicely in the limited government framework. Yet he is a theorist of multiculturalism.

Obviously very strange if one gets one's political philosophy from Fox News.

I believe, in this sense, "multiculturalism" reflects welcoming in influences which are NOT of "our culture", a culture which you handily point out is generally shared by Canada and Australia ... i.e., a particular Anglo-Saxon sensibility derived of the "commercial classes" (traders, farmers, craftsmen) which brought us the Magna Carta and other such arrangements designed to curb the power of oppressive forces.

People who do NOT "come with" these cultural underpinnings and assumptions create a hazard of swaying the popular vote to various "extremes", be these Religious (Sharia Law, Dominionism*), or Statist (the generations of Welfare Underclass who will always vote for the forced re-distribution of income) to the certain detriment to those "of OUR culture". If these "others" want to acculturate into "our culture" (as many waves of previous newcomers have), all is well and good, but if they seek to CHANGE what has been hard-won over centuries of cultural development ... they are a "danger"!

 

* And, yes, I am aware that most "Dominionists" are of our culture by heritage, but they certainly are not by belief and intent.

~2

Here is my problem, I suppose. This same claim has been made about virtually every set of immigrants into the U.S. for at least 150 years. If you don't believe that, I suggest that you take a magazine or newspaper that has been around for that period and search their archives - many of which are on line these days.

What you will find is that the Germans, the Chinese, the Irish, the Scandanavians, the Italians, and other groups that made "mass migrations" into the U.S. were each going to overwhelm the WASP culture and cultural/political/economic presumptions and introduce strange and alien religions and subversive foreign influences. In general, they didn't. In fact, in most instances it was the Native Real Americans, e.g., the English descendents and the Scotch Irish descendants who originated and joined the Progressives, the Popularists, the Nationalists Looking Backwards Equality and other rabidly antiAmerican movements that fundamentally altered the traditional "American Philosophy".

In fact, the only group I can think of that was "radical" and was largely "foreign born" was the anarchists, and in the U.S. they had as many people like Ben Tucker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Benjamin_Tucker and Lysander Spooner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner and Albert Parsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Richard_Parsons as they did people like Emma Goldman and Johan Most.

In general, they didn't.

I'm not sure about that entirely, but I can't say that American culture is weaker for the introduction of pasta and pizza.

>4 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Or, for example, the only one WASP on the Supreme Court left—the rest being two Jews and six Catholics.

>2 BTRIPP:

Immigration is nothing new to the US and the British dominions, which raises the question of why the term "multiculturalism" was necessary in the first place. I can't speak for Australia and New Zealand, but in Canada, leftists made a concerted effort to distinguish it from the "melting pot" - a subtle form of anti-Americanism.

I think there has been a huge public reaction against multiculturalism because that movement has joined hands with another movement very well-entrenched in the legal system: what Robert James Bidinotto in Criminal Justice?: The Legal System versus Individual Responsibility calls the "Excuse-Making Industry", and what is colloquially known as "the bleeding-heart liberals running the courts".

Culture, in other words, becomes just another excuse for escaping responsibility from the rule of law.

~6

And you would say that "another excuse for escaping responsibility from the rule of law" is what people imagine that they are denouncing when they denounce "multiculturalism"? Really? Curious, but I've been hearing these discussions for several years now and I've never before seen that connection made.

And why is the belief that "the melting pot" is not necessary the one and only form of Americanism necessarily "a subtle form of anti-Americanism?" Just how does that logic work? Let's see, what does American history look like?

Americans until the interstate highway system and modern communication, certainly before the Civil War, were typically very "insular". The Mennonites kept to themselves. The Shakers kept to themselves. The Swedes didn't care much for the Norwegians or vice-a-versa. The Blacks were certainly not welcome into White society. The Southerners thought that the Northerners were money grubbing savages and the Northerners thought that the Southerners were air heads who strutted around challenging each other to duels, oppressing slaves and putting on the airs of a European aristocracy that was obsolete. When things started to get more homogeneous and people started to realize that not everyone who wasn't "us"could actually be a respectable human being, the traditionalists were outraged. The "melting pot" was a "communist plot," or some other such substitute for the way "liberal" is used in some circles today. And, of course, they were right, the notion of a more or less uniform commercial society where there are few cultural barriers to people interacting and trading with each other is "liberal," in the French sense of that term.

So it doesn't sound to me like being critical of "the melting pot" and being "anti-American" are quite the same thing. But maybe I'm only being ant-American in saying so. You think?

Canada? Isn't Canada known for have little to no "Canadian" culture?

This came up in an earlier thread, but I'll repeat it. Peter Brimelow notes in The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities that the need to create a national identity posed problems as demographics changed. A growing part of the population had no particular affinity to British or French-Canadian culture, and so "multiculturalism" was coined.

But it wasn't a populist movement, and never has been. Recent immigrants are more concerned with practical issues like employment than getting their ethnic festivals funded. Multiculturalism has always been a political strategy to cultivate votes in immigrant communities, which is probably why it was picked up by the leaders of other countries.

Interestingly, the recent success of the Conservatives in Canada demonstrates that "multiculturalism" need not be a domain of the left. By focusing on more practical issues, they are no longer considered a "white" party, and the old Leftist strategy of accusing Conservatives of being racists no longer works. (Before the 1980s, almost all Canadians had European ancestry, so "multiculturalism", "immigration" and "racism" are more closely connected than they might be in the American situation).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/triumph-conservatives_559362.html

But to answer your question directly: yes, you're right because its proximity to the massive US entertainment industry and a shared language with Americans means the country can't possibly produce a rival market for culture. All the more reason "multiculturalism" is used by the politicians as a national strategy to justify their vote-buying and pork-barrelling.

That and the development within the public schools in the last few decades of not teaching history at all or teaching it in a completely unconnected and disorganized fashion. I've seen history textbooks from the 30s and 40s which were astonishingly well-done, a prerequisite for a country to appreciate its culture and history.

That and the development within the public schools in the last few decades of not teaching history at all or teaching it in a completely unconnected and disorganized fashion. I've seen history textbooks from the 30s and 40s which were astonishingly well-done, a prerequisite for a country to appreciate its culture and history.

===================================

I still am not certain that I understand most of what you are saying. Are you speaking from a Canadian perspective?

In any case, I would agree with the above. But I don't see this as some necessary consequence of "multiculturalism." As a former teacher, albeit at the college level, I see it as a function of the "go easy on the pooooor students" ethos that has existed since at least the Vietnam War. In fact, anyone with any skill as a teacher can teach "traditional" Americanism AND give a good sampling of ethnic contributions along the way in the same amount of time that is today devoted to pablum that teaches nothing.

This was well illustrated for me by one of my high school teachers - an old LID socialist who probably was a nun in a previous life. She required her students to read and write a cogent essay on four major works of Western Civilization each semester. The list you could choose from included Locke's Second Essay, Pope's Essay on Man, a major portion of the Wealth of Nations, the Federalist, etc. After reading your essay she would then quiz you on your essay, the content of what you had read and your understanding of it.

That was, of course, before the Vietnam War.

We keep hearing in this Group, particularly from Doug, about the "dangers of multiculturalism." I keep asking what is meant by the term "multiculturalism," and keep getting little or no response, except that it is BAD and LIBERAL.

I think it might clarify things a bit to acknowledge that the term "multiculturalism" is a left/center formulation that our friends on the right might just as well translate as "miscegenation", were it not impolitic - and far too revealing of their true fears - to do so.

~8
Canada? Isn't Canada known for have little to no "Canadian" culture?

=====================================

I know that the above was probably just an off the cuff remark, and wasn't to be taken seriously, but let me respond nevertheless.

There is a difference in the way that nation states are regarded by their citizens.

The French are at one end of the spectrum. If you are French you shouldn't engage in any nonFrench displays or beliefs. To like German authors or composers is to be unpatriotic. To wear religious garb, other than a modest cross, to public school is outlawed. True, the countryside is different from Paris and differs from one province to another, but in the eyes of a Parisian, Paris is France. France has a "national culture."

The United States, and, to a lesser extent, Canada are at the other end of the spectrum. They started out as unnational nations, as federations or confederations of diverse regions, often regions in which one ethnicity was dominate or prominent. In a very real sense, there was traditionally, no American or Canadian culture. There may have been some prominent presumptions about civil, legal and economic affairs among Americans, kings, for instance, were not liked, but there was no uniform national culture.

That situation, of course, started to change as transportation and communication improved and markets became national in scope. A civil war and two world wars that immensely strengthened the hand of the federal government also led to increased uniformity. The strange thing is that the change somehow became emphasized over the previous reality and those who today call themselves "conservatives" became defenders of the national uniformity aka "the melting pot" rather than the traditional diversity. At least that would be strange if the term "conservative" today didn't mean the exact opposite of what it meant in the 1950s in so many fields.

I think it might clarify things a bit to acknowledge that the term "multiculturalism" is a left/center formulation that our friends on the right might just as well translate as "miscegenation", were it not impolitic - and far too revealing of their true fears - to do so.

There are quite a few liberals too who question whether it's politically or socially good to chuck the "melting pot" in favor of the TV dinner. While I think the US situation is pretty good in this department—US culture is a relentlessly flattening and unifying factor and I think we've too eagerly stamped out differences in the past—there are at reasons for concern here, not to mention Europe where, where multiculturalism has gone hand-in-hand with cultural exclusion to create large unintegrated communities.

Anyway, I think it's pretty low to imply that all discussion of multiculturalism is racist.

Anyway, I think it's pretty low to imply that all discussion of multiculturalism is racist.

With apologies to your offended sensibilities, I might just as well have said "some of our friends on the right..."

God knows that there is, in the psyche of some on the right, an obsession with "purity" and fear of the polluting influence of "the other", be it cultural, racial, or political ("Kenyan!").

It can also - I blush to add - lead to a bad habit of retentiveness, and intellectual constipation.

I think it is pretty accurate to say that some of the reaction against multiculturalism is racist.

The problem with racism is that a) you really cannot call anyone a racist today, because everyone has a reason for their prejudices. Not all prejudices make someone racists, but not all reasons for the prejudice adequately explain away the racism of the beholder. (If you think this is not true try to think of ten people who you know who are racist. Then have a good conversation with someone from a minority group to see if racism does exist. Or just look at some stats.)

b) Not all racism is overt, and once one is convinced they are not a racist, that becomes a conviction, regardless of behavior.

c) not all racism is openly an attitude of hatred. Sometimes it is ignorance, which is where we have problems because we often don't know what we don't know. (I remember being surprised at hearing that an African-American family in Fairbanks came here in the 1940s to homestead. "Black people homestead?" racism. Not vicious. Not insulting as far as it goes. But racist.

d) Things get mixed up the US because while DON"T equate culture overtly with race, yet we do. I mean, in Haiti race is a function of both heritage and choice. If you are a more light skinned person, you have a choice to identify yourself as white. Obama, in Haiti, could be white. But not in America.

One possible solution to the "race problem" in America.

Then again, that may be the problem to which we need a solution.

>15 Arctic-Stranger:

I have a problem with a couple of things here.

b) Not all racism is overt, and once one is convinced they are not a racist, that becomes a conviction, regardless of behavior.

If your point then is that some racism is "subtle", I think one of the consequences of this stance is to hedge one's bets. If something terrible happens, this is proof of racism existing. If, on the other hand, examples of racism cannot readily be found in a given place, that only proves that racism is "subtle", it has "gone underground", they're only whispering for now.

c) not all racism is openly an attitude of hatred. Sometimes it is ignorance, which is where we have problems because we often don't know what we don't know. (I remember being surprised at hearing that an African-American family in Fairbanks came here in the 1940s to homestead. "Black people homestead?" racism. Not vicious. Not insulting as far as it goes. But racist.

I was with you right until your last sentence. It's not clear to me whether the question of black homesteading is asking *can* they homestead, or expressing surprise that this happened, given the historical development and migrations of black people in the US.

I know a historian whose current project is a Jewish homestead, and he encounters surprised commentators all the time. I don't think it would be very productive of him to accuse all these people of being racists.

His d) is worth considering, as most anthropologists consider race a social construct rather than an innate characteristic.

But not by me. The Sokal hoax (see Fashionable Nonsense) made me tune out discourse on "social constructs" for the rest of my life.

Well, given that different cultures use different standards to assign people to various "races," it's about as clear an example of the idea as you can find.

Sure. I side with whatever culture adheres the closest to "colour-blind". Probably not Haiti, though I've often been curious about meeting members from the Polish community in that country, as documented in Lost White Tribes.

~15

I suppose that, once again, I think we have a definitional problem - something that, apparently bothers few other people.

"Racism" does have a definite meaning, whether or not anyone likes to use that term in accord with its definite meaning. The meaning is not unlike some of what we've been talking about. The meaning has to do with the connection between race and culture and ties into the traditional meaning of "civilization." According to racists, some peoples (races) are capable of creating and maintaining a "high culture" or "high civilization" and some are not. It really has nothing to do with playing basketball or spiritual propensities, etc. It has to do with "high" culture and civilization.

And then there's this.

And there's the beautiful interview at about 4 minutes in, where a wonderful gentleman explains that "I'm not a racist, by any means, but..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XnvNOR5EU&feature=related

What has "this" or the murder in Mississippi got to do with "multiculturalism"?

What does respecting people who differ from you have to do with multiculturalism? I have no fucking clue.

Respect for other human beings is a natural human tendency. It "goes without saying" that one has this respect*, so it has nothing to do with Multiculturalism or
any other movement. -- Is this a paraphrase of what
youʻre saying in 27, Jesse, or perhaps an expansion of it?
If not, then I donʻt have a clue to what you ARE saying.

If so, then I agree.



*There are exceptions of course, which Iʻm leaving aside for the moment.

The comment about black people homesteading was just meant to say that I put people in categories. Some of those categories are based on race, even though I am not always aware of it. I put black people in a category that excludes homesteading. I was wrong. My thoughts about homesteading and black people was clearly based on racial prejudices.

~25

I think that this "gentleman" is just expressing "common sense," as one of our regulars would say. To him it is almost a syllogism.

"These people" aren't acting as I would act. (Let's be generous and presume that "these people" means only the people who "aren't acting as I would act," i.e., they are rioting, stealing, etc.)

Many of them were born elsewhere.

Therefore, they're "not English." (Nevermind what their citizenship status may be. They "aren't acting as I would act" and they were born elsewhere. Since I am English and the previous conditions are true, they're "not English.")

Allowing people who are "not English" to reside in concentrations in England leads to "trouble." (Sound familiar, you advocates of the melting pot?)

Something must be done !!

Here we come to the hinted at alternatives commonly presented to Jews up to 50 years ago - you "not English" can leave England, preferably without your property, or we English can kill you or you can become indistinguishable from "us."

Very simple. A great example of "common sense".

Incidentally, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "racism." It does have to do with xenophobia and an unthinking nationalism. "Racism" was a theory about purported genetic groups and culture/civilization.

>27 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Oh come on.

"Multiculturalism" is not a synonym for "respecting others". The Multiculturalist looks at the pattern of assimilating immigrants in North America/Australia in the first decades of the twentieth century and says, "No, not good enough. We can no longer tell immigrants to assimilate." And because most of these immigrants are now from non-European areas, there is a racial element to this claim.

Blacks in the US may share some concerns with immigrants (ie. treatment by police, employment opportunities), but not over culture. African-American culture is vibrant, elicits respect from outsiders, is in no danger of being assimilated, and is a profitable cultural export.

Multiculturalists are talking about things like whether the laws of their new country apply to them, whether they need to learn the local language, and whether taxpayers are to subsidize aspects of their cultural practices.

Previous generations of immigrants did not concern themselves much with these questions. Multiculturalism is a new phenomenon. By contrast, one of the articles you refer to concludes by noting that the murder it reports is a persistent feature of Mississippi's history.

"Multiculturalism" is not a synonym for "respecting others", any more than socialism is a synonym for "helping one's fellow man".

"Multiculturalism" is not a synonym for "respecting others."

Exactly. We may agree or disagree with multiculturalism, but it's an idea that actually has content. It doesn't mean "nice."

And a P.S. to anyone who thinks the onus is on the host community to "respect difference", consider this article on how Vancouver is now the "gay-bashing capital of Canada":

"Culture may be a factor, as well. A rough survey by the gay magazine Xtra! claimed that South Asian men have faced or are facing gay-bashing charges in numbers disproportionate to their population."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gay-bashing-on-the...

(South Asians are a relatively recent immigrant group.)

> 31

"The pattern of assimilating" individuals (whether immigrants or natives) into the dominant culture of early 20C North America & Australia went, I think, well beyond "telling them to assimilate" and into forcing them to assimilate: that is, "telling" backed not just by the moral authority but by the coercive power of the state. The urban public schools of the United States, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, were explicitly designed to acculturate as much as to educate. Indigenous peoples, in both North America and Australia, were the objects of considerably more coercive efforts, infamously including the forcible, often permanent removal of children from their parents and communities.

Multiculturalism began, in part, as a reaction to those excesses: an endorsement of the idea that we ought not to use the power of the state to suppress or eradicate others' cultural practices, even when we have the power and the opportunity to do so.

That categorical statement has the same problem as most categorical statements -- the edges are fuzzy and gray; do you mean "never" or "hardly ever?" -- but it is fundamentally, to my eyes, a statement about respect for others.

>33 Toolroomtrustee:

Right. Similar story in much of Europe, where anti-semitic and anti-gay violence have risen after decades of decline. The Netherlands is now incorporating anti-anti-gay material—that to be Dutch is to not be a homophobe—into their citizenship classes. I'm not an alarmist about multiculturalism at all, but I find it pretty obnoxious and ignorant to label any discussion of the rightness, speed and process of acculturation "racist."

>34 ABVR:

Absolutely right. In the US we did much the same to the native Americans, after we stopped killing them. And although American culture was the main factor in turning so many different peoples into our "melted" American culture we had outbursts of banning German instruction, etc.

But it doesn't follow from this that it's not concerning that 40% of British Muslims want the introduction of Sharia law, or, for example, that in a recent Guardian survey of 500 British Muslims, exactly zero agreed with the statement "homosexual acts were morally acceptable." If you care about "respect for others" it ought to be worrying when a policy of multiculturalism ignores a lack of "respect for others" among the "others."

>34 ABVR:
>Multiculturalism began, in part, as a reaction to those excesses: an endorsement of the idea that we ought not to use the power of the state to suppress or eradicate others' cultural practices, even when we have the power and the opportunity to do so.

By the 1970s, when "multiculturalism" was first being proposed, North American and Australian governments were well beyond suppressing people's cultural practices. Compensation to aboriginals took other forms, though these, too, were a disaster.

Still, the comparison with the aboriginals' situation is interesting, in that they, like immigrants and unlike American blacks, were also concerned with loss of language, traditions, acceptance of gays, inter-marriage and adherence to Western laws.

As someone who has worked in Aboriginal law and policy, I have to say that changing demographics is deeply affecting the tenor and pace of treaty negotiations. Aboriginal leaders know full well that in a generation or two, the people they will be demanding compensation from won't be sympathetic to the "your ancestors stole my land"-argument, because such people will have Asian, African and Middle Eastern ancestry. Believe me, diversity is going to be a pain in the neck for Aboriginal leaders.

What multiculturalism has descended to is not a libertarian stance of leaving people alone. It is another grab for subsidies and a demand that the rule of law not be applied universally. That is why it elicits anger from the general public.

I am puzzled why a writer as eloquent as you (I have one of your books) would deem it necessary for the term "multiculturalism" to be used, if it really only means "respect for others".

Since some governments actually have entities called "Ministry of Multiculturalism", perhaps we could ask them to be changed to "Ministry of Respect for Others". Orwellian-sounding, maybe, but then, that's my point.

"Multiculturalism" is not a synonym for "respecting others."

Exactly. We may agree or disagree with multiculturalism, but it's an idea that actually has content. It doesn't mean "nice."

================================

I am not certain that "respecting others" and "nice" are synonyms. I have been acquainted with several persons who are "ladies" or "gentlemen," who are thus unfailingly "nice" and "mannerly" and who are (or were) also unquestionably bigots. One person I can think, a gentleman who won a nobel prize in economics, informed us at dinner one day regarding J.M. Keynes: "Always a perfect gentlemen in our Club. Of course, who knew that he spent his vacations buggering little Turkish boys." Which was apparently his way of maintaining that Keynes was gay, albeit Keynes was almost certainly bi and likely didn't "bugger little Turkish boys."

The dangers of multi-culturalism are simple; from going to one excess (forcing people into a single, common culture and heritage) to another (forcing people not simply to tolerate minor differences, but to accept actual, understood violations of common law in the home/host country).

The Greeks' point about moderation in all things applies to this matter especially. Although the dividing lines may well be 'fuzzy', there's certainly a difference between accepting that Muslims try to learn Arabic and memorize the Qu'ran (minor), to tolerating abuse of others in the name of faith (gay-bashing).

The core idea of multi-culturalism; that accepting minor cultural differences is better than trying to use force (the State) to make people conform to an arbitrary standard; is fine. We don't make references to 'multi-religious', for instance, and yet most Americans would cringe (these days) at the idea that the government should force people to be Baptists. By the same token, though, we don't allow certain acts to be defended in a court of law as being 'acts of faith', even though in some cases they certainly were.

You have to reach an acceptable balance between the two.

(forcing people not simply to tolerate minor differences, but to accept actual, understood violations of common law in the home/host country).

Would you care to offer any concrete examples of such behavior, say, in America today?

I mean, this multiculturalism is a pretty gnarly problem, no? Surely there are many such examples to offer.

I said 'dangers'; I didn't they they had occured...yet. Hopefully, they will never manifest. I find that the current ideas of allowing people to celebrate minor differences to be far healthier than the 'good old days' of enforcing culturization. But I'm not so trusting as to assume that just because we aren't accepting statuatory rape (under the guise of plural marriage) as legal right now (as an example), that it could never happen. The worst mistake anyone can make is to say 'It can't happen here.'

Multiculturalism can become a problem; but so could a lot of other things. I see no reason to over-react and start running around in circles and screaming just yet.

Personally, I think the surveillance culture and 'presumed to be guilty' culture to be far more problematic at the moment...

>39 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

I'd be willing to provide you with some examples, but I am also sceptical whether you would take them seriously.

You've already been provided with references to a spike in gay-bashing in previously gay-friendly places, and to a desire for some to continue polygamy in Western countries (some evidence exists it is already going on).

If you aren't disturbed by these trends, and don't see the connection with multiculturalism, I give up.

You've already been provided with references to a spike in gay-bashing in previously gay-friendly places

This is a failure of "multiculturalism" in what way?

If anything, it would rather seem to be a failure to embrace a multi-cultural perspective, rather than a failing of multiculturalism itself.

Ok, you're going to have explain >44 Jesse_wiedinmyer: before I can proceed.

Failure on the part of whom to embrace a multi-cultural perspective?

Mayhap if you answered #43, we could proceed from there.

>43 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

I don't see a spike in gay-bashing as a "failure" of multiculturalism but as a consequence of the policy.

The western Multiculturalist says, "Keep your culture, warts and all. Since we westerners have done terrible things, we can't possibly judge you. Whatever you might do, it can't possibly be worse than what we have done. We are confident that your community has the mechanisms to work out whatever problems you have, so we will not intervene in a way that imposes our way of doing things on you.

"Sure, you have some ideas about gays, women's roles, discipline of children, science and politics which may seem different to us. But we ourselves have the Religious Right, who are much worse. So we can't possibly judge you or expect you to adapt.

"I'm sure in time you will understand what we value, and why we value it. But we wouldn't want to impose it on you.

"What's that you say? Sharia law? Of course. After all, millions of people already live under it in Brazil, or wherever it is you are from.

"And we can't impose our laws on you."

This is a distillation of what has been said to immigrants over the past thirty years. Maybe not in the States as such, but only because your country has a unique demographic situation. But I completely agree with the first paragraph of >41 BruceCoulson: stating multiculturalism as a clear and present danger to Americans.

Read Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton Samenow. He convincingly defines the criminal as someone who decides that laws are fine for others, but that they just don't apply to him.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, telling somebody officially that laws don't apply to him is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Not everyone will respond accordingly, but those already looking for sanction might.

So from a two-page article, examining a spate of attacks and articulating a number of reasons why there's been a spike in the number of attacks (not to mention the fact that the article explicitly states that increased reporting of attacks may have brought more attacks to light than were previously reported), you latch onto exactly five sentences...

Culture may be a factor, as well. A rough survey by the gay magazine Xtra! claimed that South Asian men have faced or are facing gay-bashing charges in numbers disproportionate to their population.

While South Asian gays and lesbians dispute the finding and deny their community is more homophobic than any other, they acknowledge its inherent conservatism.

“There is definitely less sensitivity to that issue,” said Fatima Jaffer of the South Asian lesbian support group, Trikone Vancouver. “Family and marriage are very important. Sometimes it takes a while for a community to adapt to new ways of thinking.”

And place all blame solely on "multi-culturalism." Mayhap, rather than "multi-culturalism," you could focus on the Conservative nature of Asian society.

~41

But I'm not so trusting as to assume that just because we aren't accepting statuatory rape (under the guise of plural marriage) as legal right now (as an example), that it could never happen. The worst mistake anyone can make is to say 'It can't happen here.'

=====================================

Curious, I thought that the guy who advocated those acts was just sent to jail for life and his leading followers who followed his guidance had previous been sent to jail for various terms. Still looking for that "danger" that "might" happen sometime in the indeterminate future. But then, as a Jew who is well familiar with the history of similar ideological lines about " the danger of the take overs" by "them," lines that use to be espoused by top universities, social clubs, etc., I think I have some idea where the more realistic "danger" really lies.

~47
"The western Multiculturalist says, "Keep your culture, warts and all. Since we westerners have done terrible things, we can't possibly judge you. Whatever you might do, it can't possibly be worse than what we have done. We are confident that your community has the mechanisms to work out whatever problems you have, so we will not intervene in a way that imposes our way of doing things on you."

===================================

You know, when I started out this thread I referred to a specific volume that discussed and in part defended what the author called multi-culturalism. I even gave a link to an extract from that volume in case anyone was interested. Apparently no one wanted to specifically attack that specific real world example, because no one even tried to do so.

Now, however, as a sort of, something like, well "we know" attack, we find certain posters to this thread making up characterizations and fake quotations in criticism of a view that, to date, no one has shown actually exists. They just know "it must exist". They're "aga'n it," and that somehow gives what they're "aga'n" reality. Sorry, but no it doesn't.

Can't you do any better than this?

>48 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
No, it's not from a two-page article.

I could tell you some things from personal experience, but you have no way of validating my claims, so that's the best I can do in this forum.

(I try to keep my links and references to a minimum, partly out of adherence to unit-economy and partly because I found people were often ignoring them).

It's not as though this article is the only source that is documenting this phenomenon. If you really think so, you're just not paying attention.

No, I don't place all blame solely on multiculturalism. The source of violent behaviour lies elsewhere, but multiculturalism fails in exactly what it is intended to do: the peaceful and successful integration of immigrants into Western countries.

And if the "conservative nature of Asian societies" is what is to blame here, and I think it probably is, multiculturalism says that no one in the West is to criticize that particular aspect of their cultures.

You still haven't responded to the point about polygamy.

And if the "conservative nature of Asian societies" is what is to blame here, and I think it probably is, multiculturalism says that no one in the West is to criticize that particular aspect of their cultures.

That seems a rather weak understanding of the nature of "multiculturalism." And one that I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone advocate within these threads.

As for polygamy, I'm really not sure I give a damn, assuming consenting adults. Then again, that's pretty much just me. Then again, it's probably not something I'd really be up for myself. I find it hard enough being faithful to one woman, let alone multiple ones.

If my understanding is weak, please tell me where I am actually mistaken. Is multiculturalism compatible with opting out of laws of Western countries on cultural grounds or is it not?

There isn't much the American or the Dutch or any other Western government can do about the conservative nature of Asian and other societies. They can either say to those who come from there, "Not here," or "We judge not lest we be judged." Which does a policy of multiculturalism entail, the former or the latter?

I don't care about within these threads. I'm talking about who is making the decisions in law courts, police departments, community centres and cabinet meetings.

"Polygamy" is not "polyamoury". Gene Simmons and Hugh Hefner are not polygamists.

Wonderful how you can just shift back and forth between discussions of public policy and of your own lifestyle and preferences, whenever it suits you, without actually taking a stance.

I'm all for a policy that will prevent people from being murdered. If you can demonstrate how multiculturalism can actually prevent such crimes, do tell.

Well, if you can tell me how multiculturism causes crimes, I'd love to hear it. With Doug recently quiet, I haven't heard a good racist, xenophobic diatribe in quite some time.

You have yet to do anything but associate Southeast Asians with higher rates of certain crimes, talk about anecdotal evidence that you're unwilling to actually present and make strident claims that multiculturalism is little more than the idea that everyone in the world can do whatever they like so long as they cry "culture."

54

Well, if you can tell me how multiculturism causes crimes, I'd love to hear it.

In a nutshell, by allowing these shifty, thieving foreigners to persist in their shifty, thieving ways, and accepting it as well and good under the relativist rubric of "multiculturalism", we are sowing the seeds for the destruction of all us good, law-abiding white folk.

I haven't heard a good racist, xenophobic diatribe in quite some time.

Hope this holds you until the pros show up. :)

Let's paraphrase the discussion. What makes a person an American?

American citizenship. There are a lot of other standards one could apply, but this is the most objective. If you are a legal citizen, you are an American. (Or, to be more precise, you are a citizen of the United States, making you an American.)

>Well, if you can tell me how multiculturism causes crimes, I'd love to hear it. With Doug recently quiet, I haven't heard a good racist, xenophobic diatribe in quite some time.

Since you have presented your challenge in that way, I haven't much desire to research and present. Even if I did, all I could really do is refer you to books such as Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, the circumstances around the murder of Pym Fortuyn and court cases which I doubt are documented in American law libraries and legal databases. I certainly don't expect you to find books by Mark Steyn and Barbara Kay's upcoming book on honour killings in immigrant communities very convincing.

Look, I won't be the last person to criticize multiculturalism you encounter. The next time you do, I suggest you make a positive case for your policy by answering whether multiculturalism is compatible with opting out of laws of Western countries on cultural grounds, and whether it can actually prevent violence, as your reference to the Mississippi murder seems to suggest (you think I'm wrong to suggest it can cause or facilitate violence, but you seem to think it can prevent violence).

Consider the potential consequences of what you've been doing, as public policy. Your evasive superciliousness in this exchange is exactly the attitude that consigned the Liberal Party of Canada to electoral oblivion in our federal election in May. Kept afloat for years by preaching multiculturalist rhetoric to urban immigrants, they painted Conservatives as racists, all the while ignoring legitimate concerns of newcomers.

Memo to Republicans: the Conservatives opened doors to immigrants and read the riot act to the cultural relativists. Immigrants appreciated this respectful treatment instead of multicultural nonsense, and rewarded the Conservatives in unprecedented numbers.

Just imagine how effective the Left would be if they could no longer "other" their opponents as racists.

>58 BruceCoulson:
If you are a legal citizen, you are an American.

... and thus subject to American laws.

... and thus subject to American laws.

Right. Your skin tone, crazy language, and weird clothes make you suspicious. Just so you know, we're keepin' an eye on you, boy.

True, but those residing in America who are NOT legal citizens are also subject to American laws (with some notable/notorious exceptions, such as foreign diplomats and dignitaries). So, being subject to the rule of law in America does not define one as a citizen.

>62 BruceCoulson:
Actually, US citizens are subject to US laws even if they no longer reside in the US. They have to file an IRS tax report regardless of residence. Unaware of this, a lot of Americans are in very big trouble with their government for years of "unpaid taxes" simply because their living abroad made them think they didn't have to file.

Apparently the US is the only country that has this practice.

American citizenship. There are a lot of other standards one could apply, but this is the most objective. If you are a legal citizen, you are an American. (Or, to be more precise, you are a citizen of the United States, making you an American.)

And that's pretty much it.

Regardless of "culture."

>Well, if you can tell me how multiculturism causes crimes, I'd love to hear it. With Doug recently quiet, I haven't heard a good racist, xenophobic diatribe in quite some time.

Since you have presented your challenge in that way, I haven't much desire to research and present. Even if I did, all I could really do is refer you to books such as Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, the circumstances around the murder of Pym Fortuyn and court cases which I doubt are documented in American law libraries and legal databases. I certainly don't expect you to find books by Mark Steyn and Barbara Kay's upcoming book on honour killings in immigrant communities very convincing.

Look, I won't be the last person to criticize multiculturalism you encounter. The next time you do, I suggest you make a positive case for your policy by answering whether multiculturalism is compatible with opting out of laws of Western countries on cultural grounds, and whether it can actually prevent violence, as your reference to the Mississippi murder seems to suggest (you think I'm wrong to suggest it can cause or facilitate violence, but you seem to think it can prevent violence).

=======================================

I am not quite certain why this confusion seems to occur over and over and over again in your remarks.

On the one hand, you maintain that "multiculturalism" somehow "causes crime." Well, "multiculturalism" usually refers to some sort of situation where people are allowed to be different, where tolerance is considered as a virtue. But I would grant that to the extent people are different, realize that they are different, and perceive their differences as the basis for violence you may be right. Intolerant haters are sometimes violent. That is true whether they are minority or majority in ethnicity. So what is the solution there? Oh, that's right, it is that everyone must be identical. An eminently "conservative" solution if you mean by "conservative" some sort of totalitarianism.

On the other hand you maintain that multiculturalism advocates tolerance of crimes committed by minority ethnic persons. Could you give us some examples? Where, exactly, are these crimes that are committed and not prosecuted because they are committed by the ethnically identified. Just one example. Where is the advocacy for overlooking such crimes. Just one quotation that you don't make up yourself.

(forcing people not simply to tolerate minor differences, but to accept actual, understood violations of common law in the home/host country).

Would you care to offer any concrete examples of such behavior, say, in America today.

I don't know of examples, plural. But here's one:

We know “S.D.” only by her initials to protect her from further indignity. She is a Muslim woman from Morocco who was serially raped and beaten in New Jersey by the Muslim man to whom she was wed as a teenager — one of those arranged marriages common in Islamic cultures. A New Jersey judge declined to give her a protective order, though. Under sharia, a man cannot rape his wife: “A woman cannot carry out the right of her Lord til she carries out the right of her husband,” declares one relevant hadith (Ibn Majah 1854). “If he asks her to surrender herself she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’’s saddle.” Or, as S.D.’’s husband translated this sharia tenet as he forced himself on her, “This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”
Based on this, the judge (who, thankfully, was later reversed) reasoned that the husband couldn’’t be criminally culpable. According to the New Jersey court, “He was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to . . . consistent with his practices, and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Which can be shortened to...

Based on this, the judge (who, thankfully, was later reversed)

Though I suppose you could just as easily link to this.

That's probably just the government stepping all over the bris industry with their half-assed regulations and market interference, though.

Well, sure, we could be all outraged about how primitive Sharia law is; and then we might recall that marital rape was not a crime in America until the 1980s.†

But apparently one judge hadn't yet got the memo.

†Oh, and btw: it was "Liberal Activist Judges Redefining The Sacred Institution Of Marriage As Given To Us By God Almighty In The Old Testament" who finally made marital rape a crime in the USA. Marriage is always being redefined....

>67 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
A US judge held that the commandments of Islam overruled US law.

To try to swat that example down by observing that the judge was later reversed is just annodyne.

Note also that during the time it took to appeal the case, the woman had no legal recourse. Liberal response to this fact: "Yawn. What's a rape or two while your case is being appealed?"

>69 AsYouKnow_Bob: So your point is, “The US was distressingly late to outlaw marital rape, therefore the best response is... to let it be legal for even longer.”
Good one.

To try to swat that example down by observing that the judge was later reversed is just annodyne.

Not particularly. The rule of law was upheld.

To try to swat that example down by observing that the judge was later reversed is just annodyne.

It is not anodyne (one n). One judge's crazy ruling does not constitute anything more than...well, one judge's crazy ruling.

And I think his point in 69 was that our system evolves over time, and not according to external standards, but internal practices.

>70 Carnophile:
A US judge held that the commandments of Islam overruled US law.

To try to swat that example down by observing that the judge was later reversed is just annodyne.
==============================

I'll remember to mention that to my clients whose favorable judgment at the trial level has just been reversed by an appellate court. I'm certain that they will be impressed. Probably the defendant in the case you mention is also gratified by the lower court's judgment in his favor, as, ah, he rots in jail.

(Thanks, Arctic.)

Part of my point there was that there are plenty of American conservatives - including sitting judges - who are perfectly happy with various aspects of Sharia, and would cheerfully rule that of course a husband has dominion over his wife...despite the fact that liberals re-defined that aspect of marriage a generation ago.

A ridiculous, cheap shot. Conservatives want nothing to do with Sharia and its warped ideas.

You knew that was a cheap shot, I bet, as you were typing it.

He said "various aspects" and I think we can all agree that there are some people, who call themselves conservatives, who agree with some aspects of Sharia law. Just as there are some people, who call themselves liberal, who agree with some aspects of communism.

We have two very conservative Christians running for President now. I would bet that you could find some places they agree with some aspects of Sharia. But when you have to qualify a statement that much, it is rather useless in the end.

No, I'm not buying it. Can't let you get away with it either. Any attempt to link the two—sharia and American conservatism—is nonsense and, really, not worth a rebuttal.

I am sure you feel just as strongly about linking communism and the liberalism.

Funniest. LT. Conversation. Ever.

*sigh*.... deniro and I have been down this road before: I say something, he insists that it can't possibly be true, I cite chapter and verse and show him that this is NOT something that I'M making up simply to outrage him....

Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

I didn't say "American conservatives want sharia"; I was pointing out that fundamentalism is fundamentalism. American dominionists want to make this a "Christian nation"; fundamentalist Moslems want to see a restoration of sharia....

Is deniro really saying that American dominionists DON'T EXIST? Or that they AREN'T "conservatives"?

Because I can cite chapter and verse for that, too, if you like.

That quote is NOT an endorsement of sharia. It is an endorsement of the desire for a moral sense in our leaders and the overall population. Might I also remind you that our country was founded by Christians and Christianity influences our founding documents. If you want nonreligious leaders, you'll have to omit, say, Washington and Lincoln from our history.

It's like your saying that Christians and Muslims are the same because they both believe in God. The connection is so attenuated as to be nonsensical.

78 -- Nowhere on this site will you find where I have linked liberalism and communism. In the past liberals have been soft on communism. But I don't think I even said that. I certainly never said the two were interchangeable.

Come on, let's quit the cheap shots. I thought that was what Pro and Con was for.

I was pointing out that fundamentalism is fundamentalism

And I'm saying that this is a false and absurd claim. Only someone weak on both subjects could make a statement like that.

Last, you're not even on topic.

(/shakes head ruefully) I warned you - now you're gonna make me cite chapter and verse to ONCE AGAIN show that the map of the world in deniro's head does not correspond to the consensus reality.

Let's start with this one: “We all agree with the Taliban.”—Rush Limbaugh, October 9, 2009

Or let's move it up a level, and read American Taliban. (whoops - edited to swap out a wonky touchstone for a hotlink...)

(Amazon product description: America’s primary international enemy—Islamic radicalism—insists on government by theocracy, curtails civil liberties, embraces torture, represses women, wants to eradicate homosexuals from society, and insists on the use of force over diplomacy. Remind you of a certain American political party? In American Taliban, Markos Moulitsas pulls no punches as he compares how the Republican Party and Islamic radicals maintain similar worldviews and tactics. Moutlitsas also challenges the media, fellow progressives, and our elected officials to call the radical right on their jihadist tactics more forcefully for the good of our nation and safety of all citizens.)

I'll overlook the insults and your misrecollection of your supposed superiority over me.

I don't support everything Rush says. It's probably been 20 years since I listened to him. I don't know in what context he would make such a claim. Is it possible that it is you who are wrong?

Next, you quote a description of a book written by a liberal. OF COURSE, it is going to make outrageous claims about the Republican Party. No one in the "radical right"—whoever that is—uses "jihadist tactics." That's absurd. We all know what jihadists do. We should, anyway. That is just inflammatory rhetoric and red meat for mindless liberals.

Give up while your behind, Bob. Chalk it up to liberal propaganda which you would like to believe but in rational moments, when they exist, you know is foolish.

Is Rush a conservative? Is he on the same side as OTHER people who oppose equal rights for women and homosexuals?

Sure, it's possible that I'm wrong.

Is it possible that we see similar political views emerging from similar religious views? Fundamentalists have much in common with other fundamentalists, and have less in common with progressives. How is this - what I said at #74, and what seems to have again set you off - in any way untrue?

But seriously - if you haven't talked to any real live American dominionists, you need to get out more.

I find the argument so obvious that it isn't even worth making. It's safe to say you will not vote Republican any time soon. If you want to compare us to jihadists, go ahead. Have a good night.

I find the argument so obvious that it isn't even worth making.

I'll take that as agreement, then. American dominionists - conservatives - share the same goals as Islamic fundamentalists - who are also conservatives.

Good night, deniro.

>69 AsYouKnow_Bob:, 74
You can't really defend the practice of letting husbands rape their wives by pointing out that liberals used to be against it. All that does is remind everone reading this that liberals used to be against it.

>71 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
I like how you walked into the plainly visible wall I put up in 70: "Yawn. What's a rape or two while your case is being appealed?"

No, no, deniro, Bob's totally right - being against gay marriage is totally the same as having a legal system that ensrines killing gays. Being against affirmative action for women is totally the same as not letting them have driver's licenses or attend college, etc.

The Limbaugh quote, now with actual conext!

I think that everybody is laughing. Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the (Nobel) award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban.

Well, no, the POINT is that - somewhere in America - there was ONE judge who thought the defendant was making a perfectly valid defense of his actions.

Chances are, that judge was a conservative, who agreed with the defendant on the proper relationship between husbands and wives. There's not enough information in your NR link to really tell.

>72 Arctic-Stranger:
Yeah, and in another thread yesterday I misspelled "the" as "thee." If we're going to go after each other's spelling errors, it's going to be a long dayy, weeek, monnth...

Bachmann is proof of Goebbels maxim, the bigger the lie, the more they believe it.
Oh my God, you forgot an apostrophe! You lowbrow!

In any case, whether the argument was about internal this or external that, it doesn't change the facct that itt was lot of things, in particular a bizzzzarrrrre tuuuuu quoqueeee argument.

PS: Did you see what I did there with the tu quoque thing?

being against gay marriage is totally the same as having a legal system that ensrines killing gays.

Hmmmm.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/11/uganda_republicans

I guess that you're right, American fundamentalists are practically progressives when it comes to the rights of homosexuals.

"Might I also remind you that our country was founded by Christians and Christianity influences our founding documents. If you want nonreligious leaders, you'll have to omit, say, Washington and Lincoln from our history.

78 -- Nowhere on this site will you find where I have linked liberalism and communism. In the past liberals have been soft on communism. But I don't think I even said that. I certainly never said the two were interchangeable." -part of post 81-deniro

Reading down this page I found this post and see so many things wrong that I just could not resist the urge to respond.

First off all those founding fathers that are considered the greatest (aka George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin) were significantly more influenced by deism than Christianity when it came to political thought. With those three the degree to which they were deist or Christians is a heated debate. The only main founding father(that comes to mind) with which there is no argument over their religion is John Adams who was most definitely christian. Christianity may influence our founding documents, but in the same way that Christianity would influence a surgery performed by a christian surgeon. By this I mean that when you look at the debate in the constitutional convention, the founders did not argue whether the Virginia plan would be more christian than the Hamilton plan. When debating the term limit for senators James Madison would not go home and read the bible for inspiration but perhaps roman history (although I am sure some founders did go home and read the bible just not for the purpose of determining their votes in the convention).

It is not religious leaders that most people are concerned with but rather leaders who use their religions as the end all solution to every decision they would make in a secular position. Washington and Lincoln were religious yes ,but when you look at how they rationalized their decisions it was based generally in secular ideology.

Liberals have been soft on communism eh? I am going to guess that McCarthy got it just right for you then.

If anyone is interested in getting back on track to the topic at hand, here is a reference point:

http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html

"Cultural minorities need special rights, it is argued, because their culture may otherwise be threatened with extinction, and cultural extinction would likely undermine the self-respect and freedom of group members. Special rights, in short, put minorities on a footing of equality with the majority."

"Thus, the four types of case in which cultural defenses have been used most successfully are: kidnap and rape by Hmong men who claim that their actions are part of their cultural practice of zij poj niam or "marriage by capture"; wife-murder by immigrants from Asian and Middle Eastern countries whose wives have either committed adultery or treated their husbands in a servile way; mothers who have killed their children but failed to kill themselves, and claim that because of their Japanese or Chinese backgrounds the shame of their husbands' infidelity drove them to the culturally condoned practice of mother-child suicide; and—in France, though not yet in the United States, in part because the practice was criminalized only in 1996—clitoridectomy. In a number of such cases, expert testimony about the accused's or defendant's cultural background has resulted in dropped or reduced charges, culturally-based assessments of mens rea, or significantly reduced sentences."

#92 Touchy, aren't we.

When I said "it is not anodyne," I was talking about your statement, not your spelling. What I meant was that swatting down the statement was not anodyne. I added the corrective because I had to look the word up, and it is a good word. I wanted to make sure that was the word you meant.

But one place where I am a true libertarian is in spelling. As Thomas Jefferson may have said, I cannot abide a man who can spell a word only one way.

> 98 Thomas Jefferson may have said

Monticello gives this its own page.

~97

Once again, Toolroomtrustee: neither you making up unreferenced assertions and characterizations or a reporter making up unreferenced assertions and characterizations makes those assertions true. None of the references in this article are to case reports. The only reference that is to any sort of legal material reads "Similarly, the overwhelming majority of "cultural defenses" that are increasingly being invoked in US criminal cases concerning members of cultural minorities are connected with gender—in particular with male control over women and children.21" That is from a law review article. Opinions in law review articles are personal opinions of the author, not the rulings of a court.

Give us ONE EXAMPLE where any defendant in a U.S. Court has successfully defended against a criminal or tort charge on the basis that their cultural background would lead to conclusion different than the established American law of torts or crimes. You don't seem to "get" that the American legal system simply does not allow such a defense.

Boogiemen and urban myths are not a good basis on which to reach political conclusions, no matter how much you may want your political conclusion to be true.

>100 lawecon:

I think he was asserting that it was a mitigating factor in sentencing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd be interested to know what is known about female genital mutilation in the United States. From what I gather, people assert it's not done, and there have apparently been very few cases. I simply can't believe that it's not done more frequently, however. In Egypt alone rates are estimated to be above 95%, and its considered a core question of family honor and religious duty. It strains credibility that among Children among or to the 200,000-800,000 Egyptian-Americans (although more likely to be Copts, who have cast of the practice to a greater extent), the rate has gone from 95% to 0%.

>101 timspalding:
What I've read is that the mutilation done under religious sanction is done back in the home country, an option that would be for wealthier people.

Also, there are surgeons in the States who offer "tightenings" to restore intense sexual pleasure, but most of the customers, facing cultural pressures, want to appear as virgins when they marry. Again, an option for those with financial resources.

There isn't much western governments can do about these practices, and presumably the American surgeons are operating under acceptable medical practices anyway.

To pick up on something you wrote earlier, Tim, if we take "multiculturalism" to mean "tolerance of peaceful, non-western cultural practices", it's not a problem at all, and in fact has generally been part of American history. But there is some evidence that some people are aligning it with other intellectual trends to create a toxic mixture.

Aboriginal ancestry already is a mitigating factor in sentencing in Canadian courts. At some point, somebody is going to say, "What about us?"

~101 & 102

We seem to be flipping back and forth on this topic. In one post "multiculturalism" is a threat to Western law and values. "We" are going to be overwhelmed with our Judges applying Sharai law (or maybe even, gasp, Halacha or Canon Law), in any case, some fereign notions that are clearly UNAMERICAN. In the next post it really doesn't have to do with practices carried out in the U.S., may actually represent an established aspect of "American history," and, at the very worst, reduces to considering a criminal defendant's background in sentencing him for a crime. Incidentally, the last is done all the time and has been done for at least 50 years. That some of the background being considered may be religious would be cheered by "traditionalist conservatives" in any other context.

Like most librarything discussions I have been involved in this one seems to lack analytic focus and a basis in facts. Maybe it is time that those who think that they know what multiculturalism is and that it is either good or bad step forward with a definition that comes from some place other then their own imagination and facts illustrating why it is good or bad.

>93 Jesse_wiedinmyer:, 95. ACORN advised people how to cover up their child prostitution activities on tax forms, etc.

Therefore, it is a mainstream position within the left to cover up child prostitution activities on tax forms, etc.

~104

Must also have something to do with multiculturalism, since it is in a thread on that topic.

Oh, wait, I see the connection. THEY believe in multiculturalism. THEY probably are associated with or support ACORN. ACORN staffers have been associated with child prostitution. THEY, therefore, must support child prostitution.

QED multiculturalism is the advocacy of child prostitution.

Reasoning of a type familiar to any listener of Fox News commentaries or to any mindless bigot whose political philosophy consists of undefined boogiemen who are reducible to a label with no specificity.

Lol

"As an American pastor," Warren said in his statement, "it is not my role to interfere with the politics of other nations, but it is my role to speak out on moral issues." He told the Ugandan pastors that the bill was "unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals." The bill's requirement that Ugandans report any meeting with homosexuals to authorities, he said, would hinder the ministry of the church and force homosexuals who are HIV positive underground. He also defended the timing of his denunciation. "Because I didn't rush to make a public statement," he said, "some erroneously concluded that I supported this terrible bill, and some even claimed I was a sponsor of the bill. You in Uganda know that this is untrue." He added, "I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946921,00.html

Of course, it did take him some time to condemn it. At first he refused to, on the grounds that that would be interference with another country's internal politics. Sounds like he was too left-wing politically correct at first, actually. My God, we wouldn't want to interfere with legislation in another country. Wouldn't that be American imperialism?

Luckily, he got over that bit of leftism and condemned it.

Yup, it’s a mainstream conservative position because

1. conservatives had some contact with a group

2. in Uganda

3. that later tried to pass a law establishing the death penalty for homosexual acts.

4. And the US group didn’t know the Ugandan group did this and later expressed horror at that fact.

5. Of course, the law was then amended to strike the death penalty provision anyway, and

6. No law had passed as of the writing of the article you linked.

Given all this, I could just paraphrase you:

Which can be shortened to... the death penalty law, which never passed...”

1) is demonstrably incorrect. 4) gives you wiggle room. 5 & 6 are largely due to good reporting.

But yes, your summation does hold. Probably not for the reasons you cite, though.

Tell me, Carnophile. What is the appropriate punishment for homosexuality if the death penalty is a tad harsh?

Reasoning of a type familiar to any listener of Fox News commentaries or to any mindless bigot whose political philosophy consists of undefined boogiemen who are reducible to a label with no specificity.

Mayhap not quite the way I'd phrase it, but definitely the right general thrust.

reduces to considering a criminal defendant's background in sentencing him for a crime.

Didn't there used to be laws in certain parts of the U.S. barring certain groups from even presenting testimony?

108-111

The death penalty for hogging the conch!

Aren't you supposed to be tending the signal fire or something?

>108 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Okay, you got me. Advocating the death penalty for homosexuality is a mainstream conservative position.

Which oddly enough completely ducks the question posted above. Do you concur with Rick Warren that homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia?

A thousand pardons, o Grand Inquisitor; I thought the question was rhetorical.

Of course the question is silly, but I'm going to answer it for reasons of my own.

What you actually asked, by the way, was What is the appropriate punishment for homosexuality if the death penalty is a tad harsh?
And of course you know I don't think there should be a punishment for homosexuality.

As to your mysteriously revised question, I think pedophilia is morally wrong; homosexuality isn't. But you know all this. I'm happy to play along because it lets me ask equally pointed and reasonable questions, like this:

Do you or do you not support, as many liberals did and do, Fidel Castro, who has had homosexuals jailed?

That's an easy one!

NO!

Can we have another?

I am not sure what is going on here ^^^^^ . Perhaps y'all should re introduce yourselves to each other because this back and forth is quite pointless.

>117 Arctic-Stranger: Good to know. But I note that Jesse still hasn't answered my question.

Oddly enough, Jesse is till completely ducking the question posted above.

Jesse's not ducking the question. Jesse's not had internet for a good portion of the day. Arctic's answer works for me.

If anyone is interested in another wonderful article on the topic, I highly recommend the execrable op-ed that appeared in the WSJ the other day.

What Killed American Lit

May be the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read in months.

Since when the WSJ start a parody section?

I've read the WSJ article by Epstein and found it to be on the mark. My judgment comes from having a few letters after my name via English departments, and from having read a great deal of Epstein, a former English professor at Northwestern. This is a subject that is right up my alley and I am confident about Epstein's judgment. It should be required reading for all students of the humanities.

I have not done much post-grad work in English, but I know they are not the only department that is significantly different than they were in the 1950s.

Concerning Theology, I have noticed:

a) Most academic writing is in essay form, not book form these days. Books tend to consist of collections of essays. I think this is true in other disciplines. It may be because the whole Publish or Perish thing gets people writing for quick publication. Also fewer people outside the discipline read within the discipline. There was a time with someone like Reinhold Niebuhr would be on the cover of Time. Now serious theologians don't even show in articles, aside from a few of the usual suspects.

b) There are fewer people who want to go in the field, therefore fewer graduate students. In 1989 there was one entry level job for a theology professor in the country. (I got this from a good friend, a Duke Ph.D. who was looking for a job at the time.) Why would someone spend eight years working on a degree when there is no chance for a job at the end of the tunnel? And, given A above, no one will read your dissertation?

c) The topics for dissertations are becoming more and more focused. This is for two reasons, as best I can tell. First, all the good topics have been taken. (I watched another friend go for three years looking for a topic. After he finally found one, his literature search revealed that his dissertation had been written published already. Another friend decided to do his dissertation on OT on an obscure use of a Hebrew verb, because he knew no one had written on it yet. Unless one is a brilliant original thinker, one is going to be going down the same old trails as everyone else. Second, the disciplines are getting so specialized, that wandering outside the discipline (a theology student using NT criticism in his dissertation) is generally a dangerous thing to do. I know there is little cross pollination between fields within the same general discipline. I am not surprised that a tome on the novel would be limited to English majors, and we don't find a Perry Miller contributing to it.

And finally, the part about how becoming a English major is declaring to the world your intentions to be unemployed was brilliant.

The study of popular culture—courses in movies, science fiction, detective fiction, works at first thought less worthy of study in themselves than for what they said about the life of their times—made the next incursion against the exclusivity of high culture. Multiculturalism, which assigned an equivalence of value to the works of all cultures, irrespective of the quality of those works, finished off the distinction between high and low culture, a distinction whose linchpin was seriousness.

Who opened up the ivory tower and let the rabble in? How dare anyone tell those fuckers they can think for themselves, about themselves?

What say we leave the judgement to those who have earned their letters, Jessie-pooh?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it (but don't let the ashes burn into your tweed jacket!).

Sorry, I got carried away making incursions against the exclusive high culture.

Though one does have to wonder what the point of having a club is if we just let anyone in.

I always understood the point of having a club is having the ability to hit someone over the head with it.

Sounds just about what Mr. Epstein would think...