Is Multi-culturism Good For A Country?

[Huey]

Slapout:"...The KKK and the Black Panthers would be hard pressed to set down for a night in the local bar together, but may ignore the other if they stay in their place..."

No. Those militant groups go out of their way to persecute the other races.

When did the Black Panthers go out of their way to persecute other races?

[Huey]

Take ,for instance this article written in a local english newspaper writing glowingly of....'At white hart lane school in Tottenham ,children from 50 countries speak 34 languages'

Well I guess if Great Britain would not have conolozised so many countries they would not have the problems today

i guess you are one of the huge mass of brainwashed ones that believe the natives of the countries being 'colonised' had a far harder life than the white english children working in the pits and the factories and mills.

those who believe that housing illiterate and backward people used to producing huge numbers of offspring alongside those that survuved the last war was beneficial to the english working class of that time

Or Maybe he is just someone who thinks that Karma is inescapable and isn't limited to individuals but nations as well. I get kick out of English complaining about the foreigners in the UK as well.

What is it the Thais say? Sum Num Na.

[endure]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that?

For the same reason that Brazilians rarely spoke up against the IRA. The actions of the terrorists have nothing to do with them.

Poor analogy. Does the IRA claim to be fighting the cause of Brazilians? It is an anti-British, Irish-nationalist terror group. Of course it has nothing to do with Brazilians.

The analogy is not poor. Brazil is an overwhelmingly Catholic country so, following your line of reasoning, Brazilians ought to condemn the actions of the largely Catholic IRA but the actions of the IRA have nothing to do with your average Brazilian in the same way that the actions of Al Qaeda have nothing to do with your average UK Muslim.

[Datsun240Z]

The Netherlands, shows in the top 5 of Multicultural open ( easy accesable ) countries.

Yes, but that famous Dutch tolerance wasn't enough to prevent the vicious murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh and repeated death-threats against Aayan Hirsi Ali, all real heroes for risking death to exercise their free speech and warn others of the danger they saw. What happened to them should dispel any doubts that they were right.

Those people had nothing against immigrants. It's all part of the freedom of speech here. You CAN be killed. That's the danger you have to except, when saying things like that in NL. Anti-Islam, Mr. Geert Wilders, PVV now has also continues body guards with him.

In general there where not much radical anti-foreigner parties here in the past, so it always kept calm.

[dumbnewbie]

For the same reason that Brazilians rarely spoke up against the IRA. The actions of the terrorists have nothing to do with them.

Poor analogy. Does the IRA claim to be fighting the cause of Brazilians? It is an anti-British, Irish-nationalist terror group. Of course it has nothing to do with Brazilians.

The analogy is not poor. Brazil is an overwhelmingly Catholic country so, following your line of reasoning, Brazilians ought to condemn the actions of the largely Catholic IRA but the actions of the IRA have nothing to do with your average Brazilian in the same way that the actions of Al Qaeda have nothing to do with your average UK Muslim.

I see what you're trying to say. Well, I'm a non-Irish American, so maybe there's something I'm missing about the IRA, but I thought it was more ethnic/nationalist and even leftist rather than Catholic (they had close ties to the PLO, another leftist terrorist group). Of course I know there is a Catholic/Protestant angle to the conflict, but I still think it's very different situation. Why? Well, as far as I know, Catholicism doesn't have any counterpart to Islamic concept of "jihad". Holy war, you say? The Crusades? Yeah, that was a long time ago and it was actually a belated reaction to centuries of Islamic conquest of Christian lands - the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa were all Christian before being conquered and Islamized by Muslims. Finally Christians fought back. I know - you've never heard this before, but it's true. But I don't think any Christian sect, including Catholicism, has a formal doctrine of holy war where they are supposed to fight against non-Christians to conquer territory and forcibly convert or kill non-Christians.

Has the IRA ever said that it's fighting a Catholic holy war? I don't think so. Anyway, that is the only "Catholic" terrorist group I know of, so that makes it a poor analogy compared to what's going on with Islam all over the world (see list of conflicts in my previous post). Those conflicts are called jihads by the Muslims fighting them. Muslims connected to Al Qaeda did commit terror attacks in London, so it does very much pertain to the average UK Muslim.

[dumbnewbie]

The Netherlands, shows in the top 5 of Multicultural open ( easy accesable ) countries.

Yes, but that famous Dutch tolerance wasn't enough to prevent the vicious murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh and repeated death-threats against Aayan Hirsi Ali, all real heroes for risking death to exercise their free speech and warn others of the danger they saw. What happened to them should dispel any doubts that they were right.

Those people had nothing against immigrants. It's all part of the freedom of speech here. You CAN be killed. That's the danger you have to except, when saying things like that in NL. Anti-Islam, Mr. Geert Wilders, PVV now has also continues body guards with him.

In general there where not much radical anti-foreigner parties here in the past, so it always kept calm.

I know those people had nothing against immigrants per se. And I know that the Netherlands hasn't had much anti-foreigner sentiment, so obviously the problem isn't coming from the native Dutch people. What these heroes were warning about is the danger of "radical Islam" (or just Islam), and for that they were murdered, thus proving their point.

In other words, by letting so many of these uneducated, illiberal fanatics into their country, Dutch people now have to live in fear and be careful of what they say in their own country. It's no wonder so many Dutch are leaving the Netherlands. It's an intolerable situation.

Instead of caving in to these savages, the Dutch government should've gone on the offensive to make clear that Dutch people will not be terrorized into censoring their speech, and have every right to criticize Islam, Mohammad, and whatever else they feel like criticizing without fear, and if Muslims don't like that, they've come to the wrong country and are more than welcome to leave.

Mr. Geert Wilders is a hero; the West needs more people like him.

[bangla]

dude.. fortuyn was killed by a white animal rights activist.

had nothing to do with islam.

geert wilders is a <deleted>.

the west already had someone like him.

that guy killed himself in '45.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Mr. Geert Wilders is a hero; the West needs more people like him.

They certainly do.

I must commend you for a number of excellent posts in this thread.

[4.real]

I wonder at the many that compare immigration to england with those of us that settle in Thailand.

We all know the rules we have to keep to remain in this country.We all know that we have no say in the government of thsi country and we all know that we are regarded as inferior to thai people in the courts of this wonderful country.

I have no problem with that.

But in england with its MASS immigration policy and giving voting rights,housing benefits and all free hospital /medical treatment.it is a different thing entirely.

Take the 'vote'

All governments know that ,come general election time 90%+ of labour voters will ALWAYS vote labour...

Same for the tory vote...

Therefore with mass immigration it is in the politicians favour to grant more benefits to this minority [don't they just love that word] that could mean the difference between a seat in parliament or on the opposition benches.

[dumbnewbie]

dude.. fortuyn was killed by a white animal rights activist.

had nothing to do with islam.

Yeah, so I heard. Do you buy that? Please explain it to me. Was Fortuyn anti- animal rights or something? Was he agitating for more abuse of animals? I've never heard anything about Fortuyn that would explain why an "animal rights activist" would murder him.

What I do know about Fortuyn was that he was spoke out against the rising tide of Islamist hate-speech and violence. And his popularity with the Dutch people was skyrocketing. He was on the verge of doing very well in an election. The Dutch establishment was alarmed. And then he was shot down. If I'm missing some critical information here, I'd like to hear it.

geert wilders is a <deleted>.

the west already had someone like him.

that guy killed himself in '45.

You mean Hitler? Geert Wilders is like Hitler? How so? Hitler was a big admirer of Islam - a "great warrior religion" and the enemy of Hitler's enemies - the Jews, Brits, Americans and Commies. He even plotted with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (a Muslim leader at that time) and incorporated a Muslim division into his Waffen SS.

So maybe you better re-think that one.

[bangla]

Yeah, so I heard. Do you buy that? Please explain it to me. Was Fortuyn anti- animal rights or something? Was he agitating for more abuse of animals? I've never heard anything about Fortuyn that would explain why an "animal rights activist" would murder him.

come on man. they caught the guy who killed him.

he's in jail right now and i've never heard anthing about him growing a beard and getting on his knees 5 times a day to pray to mekka.

there is absolutely no proof muslims have anything to do with it.

the guy is just a moron, he killed a hi profile guy to get his 15 minutes of fame.. crazy people do crazy things.

especially animalrights activists.

What I do know about Fortuyn was that he was spoke out against the rising tide of Islamist hate-speech and violence. And his popularity with the Dutch people was skyrocketing.

well, dutch people are racist morons.

look how many votes the PVV is pulling in.

wilders has nothing to say and has no solutions for anything.

the only thing coming out of his mouth is that muslims are bad.

over and over again.

there are 1 million muslims living in holland with most of them having a dutch passport.

he's gonna kick them all out?

he's gonna ban the islam?

the guy is a mindless idiot.

He was on the verge of doing very well in an election. The Dutch establishment was alarmed. And then he was shot down. If I'm missing some critical information here, I'd like to hear it.

oh now the dutch government assassinated fortuyn..

man you make me laugh..

You mean Hitler? Geert Wilders is like Hitler? How so?

read what he wants but substitute the word muslim with jew.

then you'll get the picture

[dumbnewbie]

Yeah, so I heard. Do you buy that? Please explain it to me. Was Fortuyn anti- animal rights or something? Was he agitating for more abuse of animals? I've never heard anything about Fortuyn that would explain why an "animal rights activist" would murder him.

come on man. they caught the guy who killed him.

he's in jail right now and i've never heard anthing about him growing a beard and getting on his knees 5 times a day to pray to mekka.

there is absolutely no proof muslims have anything to do with it.

the guy is just a moron, he killed a hi profile guy to get his 15 minutes of fame.. crazy people do crazy things.

especially animal rights activists.

I didn't say Muslims had anything to do with his death. I don't know. You're right - I was thinking the Dutch government did it, because I had read about how worried they were about his wild popularity with the Dutch voters. All I said was that I don't buy that he was killed by an animal rights activist and that's the end of the story. It doesn't make sense. Even crazy people have their own reasons, which kinda-sorta make sense. I've never heard any explanation whatsoever why an animal rights activist would kill Pim Fortuyn. (If you've heard some reason, please tell me.) So unless Fortuyn was some kind of animal-hater, there has to be more to the story. Maybe the animal-rights activist did kill him, but in that case someone must've put him up to it, and probably set him up to get caught. I mean really - why do you buy that story at face value? Help me out here. "People do crazy things"? That's it? That's enough for you to accept this?

You mean Hitler? Geert Wilders is like Hitler? How so?

read what he wants but substitute the word muslim with jew.

then you'll get the picture

Geert Wilders wants to kill all the Muslims? I don't think so. (And if he did, I wouldn't support him.)

In any case, it's not a good comparison. All the Jews ever did was take care of themselves and each other. (And yeah, after 2,000 years of persecution and massacres and being run out of one country after another, some of them want to live in peace in their own little tiny country of Israel - really not too much to ask, I think, especially when Arabs have 21 mostly huge, oil-rich countries of their own.) Anti-semites hate Jews primarily out of jealousy because they're successful. There's nothing in the Jewish religion about imposing their religion or values on anyone else, much less "killing infidels" or waging "jihad", etc.

I'm not saying Muslims should be persecuted or discriminated against. All I'm saying is that Islam is a very dangerous, inhuman worldview that is causing a lot of suffering all over the world (not least for Muslims themselves), and people have a right to point that out without being censored or murdered.

[Harcourt]

Geert Wilders wants to kill all the Muslims? I don't think so. (And if he did, I wouldn't support him.)

In any case, it's not a good comparison. All the Jews ever did was take care of themselves and each other. (And yeah, after 2,000 years of persecution and massacres and being run out of one country after another, some of them want to live in peace in their own little tiny country of Israel - really not too much to ask, I think, especially when Arabs have 21 mostly huge, oil-rich countries of their own.) Anti-semites hate Jews primarily out of jealousy because they're successful. There's nothing in the Jewish religion about imposing their religion or values on anyone else, much less "killing infidels" or waging "jihad", etc.

I'm not saying Muslims should be persecuted or discriminated against. All I'm saying is that Islam is a very dangerous, inhuman worldview that is causing a lot of suffering all over the world (not least for Muslims themselves), and people have a right to point that out without being censored or murdered.

This could really go off on a tangent that might not be appreciated by the forum nettiquette of keeping to topic, but if this angle was resolved, the discussion would get back on track......

People are censored and murdered because of hate speech.

Either because they made a speech which incites hatred, or because inspiration by a speech led to hate and thus the commission of murder.

If we take the most recent major conflict between Jews and Muslims, the January attack on Gaza, we all know the Isreali justifications, but if you look at the balance of casualties in the attack, one might think that the global Islamists have a some sort of argument to be carrying out what in another theatre of war with different combatants might be called guerilla warfare.

Mullahs make hate speeches as IDF generals carefully craft pep-talks....same results.

This is an emotive argument for many people. I think that the only way to look at the subject is with dispassionate logic if one is to get their head around it.

Israel and the West are a victim of Islamist terrorism, no doubt. Islam and Muslims are victims of Western and Israeli attacks. Tit for tat. Going back generations.

I feel a diatribe coming on but it's Friday night and I'm a bit bourbon-impaired....I'd better not .

[Datsun240Z]

well, dutch people are racist morons.

You mean have some kind of feeling of nationalistic pride? Who wouldn't have? I thought as foreigner we are threated this way in Thailand right? But then again the Dutch people are tolerance on foreigner and gives them the same rights on the working market. Not for nothing most of the foreigners that immigrate here, study high courses right away.

[bangla]

Maybe the animal-rights activist did kill him, but in that case someone must've put him up to it, and probably set him up to get caught. I mean really - why do you buy that story at face value? Help me out here. "People do crazy things"? That's it? That's enough for you to accept this?

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

not everything is a conspiracy.

Geert Wilders wants to kill all the Muslims? I don't think so. (And if he did, I wouldn't support him.)

i'm no historian, but i doubt that hitler made it clear from the start that he would kill off all jews.

a lot of germans didn't even know what happened 'til after the war was finished.

I'm not saying Muslims should be persecuted or discriminated against.

wilders wants to close the dutch border for all non-western (read: muslim) people.

that includes husbands or wifes of dutch passport holders.

sounds like discrimination to me.

since thai people are non-western as well it will be impossible to get your thai partner a resident permit.

and the immigration laws in holland are extremely difficult already.

All I'm saying is that Islam is a very dangerous, inhuman worldview that is causing a lot of suffering all over the world (not least for Muslims themselves), and people have a right to point that out without being censored or murdered.

all religions are dangerous.

christianity isn't a picknick either.

how many millions of people in africa are HIV infected because the almighty pope says it's a sin to use condoms.

that's genocide.

anyways,

wilders is like a muslim extremist.

only interested in his own cause and he doesn't give a rat's @ss about who he has to hurt to get what he wants.

Edited August 14, 2009 by bangla

[bangla]

well, dutch people are racist morons.

You mean have some kind of feeling of nationalistic pride? Who wouldn't have?

normal nationalistic pride (lol are you sure you're dutch?) and nationalism are 2 different things.

I thought as foreigner we are threated this way in Thailand right? But then again the Dutch people are tolerance on foreigner and gives them the same rights on the working market. Not for nothing most of the foreigners that immigrate here, study high courses right away.

yup, dutch tolerance for foreigners looks good compared to the very very very very very very VERY xenophobic way that the thai look at foreigners.

but i think you weren't really serious with that comment.

[elkangorito]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work?

Yes it can & it does.

All people have to have is a more "open mind". But in "indoctrinated" countries, it may take a little more time.

[Harcourt]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work?

Yes it can & it does.

All people have to have is a more "open mind". But in "indoctrinated" countries, it may take a little more time.

In 10 pages of this discussion, this would be the most concise, direct, (and in my view correct) reply.

Hear hear!

[ClaytonSeymour]

[

All people have to have is a more "open mind". But in "indoctrinated" countries, it may take a little more time.

Indeed, we know all about the "open mindedness" of immigrants, fully indoctrinated with a religious theology that belongs in the dark ages.

[Harcourt]

[

All people have to have is a more "open mind". But in "indoctrinated" countries, it may take a little more time.

Indeed, we know all about the "open mindedness" of immigrants, fully indoctrinated with a religious theology that belongs in the dark ages.

Just as we know all about the open mindedness of (for example) citizens the Bible Belt, USA, fully indoctrinated with religios theology..... dogmatic attitudes exist in all populations.

[dumbnewbie]

People are censored and murdered because of hate speech.

Speaking out against Islamist hate and violence is not "hate speech". That's like saying speaking out against neo-Nazism is hate speech.

If we take the most recent major conflict between Jews and Muslims, the January attack on Gaza, we all know the Israeli justifications, but if you look at the balance of casualties in the attack, one might think that the global Islamists have a some sort of argument to be carrying out what in another theatre of war with different combatants might be called guerilla warfare.

According to this logic, the Allies were in the wrong in WWII because the Axis powers suffered disproportionate casualties.

Israel and the West are a victim of Islamist terrorism, no doubt. Islam and Muslims are victims of Western and Israeli attacks. Tit for tat. Going back generations.

That's fine as far as it goes, but you're making a moral equivalence between secular liberal-democratic Western societies and Islamist Taliban societies. Are you sure you want to do that? Would you say the same thing in regards to WWII? Both sides attacked each other, therefor "tit for tat"?

[dumbnewbie]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work?

Yes it can & it does.

All people have to have is a more "open mind". But in "indoctrinated" countries, it may take a little more time.

I also agree with the first part, but the second part must be modified to: But in "indoctrinated" countries (or with indoctrinated immigrants), it may take a little more time, or a lot more time, or may be impossible.

[Harcourt]

People are censored and murdered because of hate speech.

Speaking out against Islamist hate and violence is not "hate speech". That's like saying speaking out against neo-Nazism is hate speech.

Sure. But speaking out against it in a manner that incites hate or violence is itself hate speech.

You can couch hate speech in pleasant tones and unhateful words, but if the result is to incite hatred, then surely it is hate speech... Rumsfeld's WOMD speeches for instance riled an entire nation to go to war.

If we take the most recent major conflict between Jews and Muslims, the January attack on Gaza, we all know the Israeli justifications, but if you look at the balance of casualties in the attack, one might think that the global Islamists have a some sort of argument to be carrying out what in another theatre of war with different combatants might be called guerilla warfare.

According to this logic, the Allies were in the wrong in WWII because the Axis powers suffered disproportionate casualties.

No, you've missed the logic: Grievous hurt will justify retaliation, and in OTHER conflicts where the little guy uses stealth and suprise it's got a different label.

Israel and the West are a victim of Islamist terrorism, no doubt. Islam and Muslims are victims of Western and Israeli attacks. Tit for tat. Going back generations.

That's fine as far as it goes, but you're making a moral equivalence between secular liberal-democratic Western societies and Islamist Taliban societies. Are you sure you want to do that? Would you say the same thing in regards to WWII? Both sides attacked each other, therefor "tit for tat"?

Secular liberal-democratic or Islamist Taliban...labels. Each group has it's own POV. Morals are, after all, only a matter of opinion, there is no absolute right or wrong moral value.....unless you take moral values as God-given, which I doubt you do.

Just as taxation laws differ from country to country, so do moral values, human rights, and religious outlook.

[Harcourt]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work?

Yes it can & it does.

All people have to have is a more "open mind". But in "indoctrinated" countries, it may take a little more time.

I also agree with the first part, but the second part must be modified to: But in "indoctrinated" countries (or with indoctrinated immigrants), it may take a little more time, or a lot more time, or may be impossible.

I agree with that.

DN, your concern with MC is with indoctrinated immigrants, and I empathise with that, even agree to a degree. Your concern is not xenophobia. I do wonder though, how indoctrinated you yourself are with post 9/11 hype. Does a brainwashed person realise that he has been brainwashed? Not saying your brainwashed, but indoctrination is simmilar, isn't it?

Hehe, for that matter, how indoctrinated am I??? Only an unbiased outsider could really tell, I suppose.

[dumbnewbie]

Harcourt -

I don't know - I'm probably biased. See, I'm half-Persian. My father grew up in Iran back in the 1920's and 30's (I'm not that old - I just had an old father - his second marriage). At that time, Iran had a very good government, under a secular-minded king (Reza Shah) who did his best to modernize the country, and he made incredible progress. At that time, people were not religious; in fact, mullahs were looked down on much as priests are looked down on today - moreso really - they were seen not just as boy-molesters, but as backwarded idiots. They, of course, had no power at that time, so all they could do was sit in their seminaries and stew in their hatred. In those days, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Baha'is - all got along - religion was nothing. Women didn't have to dress like black ghosts, they had rights, everyone was getting educated, the idea was to embrace math, science, technology, French, German and English and catch up with the West so everyone could have a better life and feel proud of their country.

Then, all that changed when the US and UK engineered the downfall of the Shah and put the mullahs in power. I grew up a regular American kid, nominally Christian (mainstream, not evangelical or any non-sense, but I rejected even mainstream religion in high school thanks to my secular-minded public school teachers). I never knew or cared much about Iran or Islam until 9/11. I mean, after 1979, my father was so disgusted with what was happening there, he just told me to forget about that stupid country and that I was American and that's it. I totally understand his thinking. He was proud to be an American. He wasn't ashamed of being Persian, but was horrified and disgusted by how those medieval clerics destroyed the country and undid almost all of the progress that had been made. At this point, it's just embarrassing to be associated with that country. Normally, I don't tell anyone I'm part Persian.

It was only after 9/11 that I really took an interest and started doing my own research on Islam. And just like when I read the Bible in high school, I didn't like what I learned at all. In my opinion, Islam is even worse than Christinsanity. A lot worse. I heard a lot of horrible things that went on (and still go on) in Iran that the Western media never report on. I heard these things from friends and relatives of my father who still went back to the country now and then, so I guess they knew what they were talking about. Really horrible stuff. And it all comes from the learned clergy, the Koran and the hadiths. It is not corruption or distortion of the religion - it is the religion.

So I guess I'm biased. I feel like I know more about Islam than the vast majority of Westerners, especially leftists, who for some reason sympathize with Islamists even though Islam is against everything liberals stand for (and I consider myself liberal - just not the anti-American, pro-communist, pro-Islamist kind). The thing is, Islamists don't love leftists. For example, the Iranian revolt in 1979 was conprised of two groups - mullahs and leftists, both of which hated the Shah for their own reasons. Guess what happened after the mullahs took over? They massacred the leftists. Just rounded them up, tortured them, shot them, hung them, after cursory kangaroo court "trials". Why? Because they don't believe in god, of course. And they believe in women's rights. Education for girls. Modernization. All the things Islam is against. So just call me biased. I can't help it. It just pisses me off that I have to be ashamed of my ethnic heritage. Everyone else can have pride in their heritage. But not Persians. We're ashamed.

[dumbnewbie]

Why ashamed? Because in the 1970's Iran was a great country, on the verge of becoming a first world country and one of the great powers. (Hey, it's got a bigger population than the UK or France, so why not?). But now, it's just another F-ed up Muslim country, and everyone thinks that's what Iran is all about. The first thing everyone pictures is scowling, crazy Ayatollahs, fearful women scurrying around in black sheets, bearded savages waving their fists in the air and screaming "Death to America! Death to British! Death to Israel!", etc. People are stoned to death for having sex. Girls are whipped until bruised and bloody for not covering all their hair, have their lips sliced with razor blades for wearing lipstick, etc. Virgins are raped before being executed because virgins can't go to hel_l. The kind of torture that goes on there every day these last 30 years makes anything that happened at Guantanamo or Abu Graib look like a joke by comparison. It's hel_l on earth, and it's terribly embarrassing.

This world is a very strange place. That same year that Iran fell from grace and descended into hel_l, China went the opposite direction. In 30 years time, those two countries essentially traded places. Through no virtue of their own, ordinary Chinese people can feel pride today. Through no fault of our own, ordinary Persians feel horrible shame instead. Try to understand how this must feel. The way I deal with it in my own mind is to say "look - ethnicity and religion are two different things. I can't help being half-Persian. There shouldn't be any shame in that. But Iran isn't so messed-up because of ethnicity. It's messed-up because of religion, and people can change their religion. In fact, Islam isn't the original religion of Persia - it was imposed on the people by brutal invaders, just like Catholicism was forced on the indiginous peoples of Latin America. (Guess where the Catholics learned it from?) I'm against that religion because it ruined the country of my heritage, is causing untold suffering there and all around the world, and ruined the image of Persian people everywhere."

Back in the 70's, the Persian passport was a valuable, prestigious document that earned it's bearer a warm welcome almost everywhere in the world. Iran was seen as a wealthy, exotic, fascinating land; the people were considered charming, fun, intelligent and civilized. Today, it is one of the worst passports to travel with - only about 7 countries grant visa-free entry, it's very hard to get visas to other countries, and even then you'll be treated with suspicion. And rightly so. Sad. Shameful. Embarrassing. Think about it sometime.

[Harcourt]

Why ashamed? Because in the 1970's Iran was a great country, on the verge of becoming a first world country and one of the great powers. (Hey, it's got a bigger population than the UK or France, so why not?). But now, it's just another F-ed up Muslim country, and everyone thinks that's what Iran is all about. The first thing everyone pictures is scowling, crazy Ayatollahs, fearful women scurrying around in black sheets, bearded savages waving their fists in the air and screaming "Death to America! Death to British! Death to Israel!", etc. People are stoned to death for having sex. Girls are whipped until bruised and bloody for not covering all their hair, have their lips sliced with razor blades for wearing lipstick, etc. Virgins are raped before being executed because virgins can't go to hel_l. The kind of torture that goes on there every day these last 30 years makes anything that happened at Guantanamo or Abu Graib look like a joke by comparison. It's hel_l on earth, and it's terribly embarrassing.

This world is a very strange place. That same year that Iran fell from grace and descended into hel_l, China went the opposite direction. In 30 years time, those two countries essentially traded places. Through no virtue of their own, ordinary Chinese people can feel pride today. Through no fault of our own, ordinary Persians feel horrible shame instead. Try to understand how this must feel. The way I deal with it in my own mind is to say "look - ethnicity and religion are two different things. I can't help being half-Persian. There shouldn't be any shame in that. But Iran isn't so messed-up because of ethnicity. It's messed-up because of religion, and people can change their religion. In fact, Islam isn't the original religion of Persia - it was imposed on the people by brutal invaders, just like Catholicism was forced on the indiginous peoples of Latin America. (Guess where the Catholics learned it from?) I'm against that religion because it ruined the country of my heritage, is causing untold suffering there and all around the world, and ruined the image of Persian people everywhere."

Back in the 70's, the Persian passport was a valuable, prestigious document that earned it's bearer a warm welcome almost everywhere in the world. Iran was seen as a wealthy, exotic, fascinating land; the people were considered charming, fun, intelligent and civilized. Today, it is one of the worst passports to travel with - only about 7 countries grant visa-free entry, it's very hard to get visas to other countries, and even then you'll be treated with suspicion. And rightly so. Sad. Shameful. Embarrassing. Think about it sometime.

I wouldn't be ashamed. Sins of the father etc.

My father is Fijian. His great great grandfather cut out the heart of his enemy and ate it on the battlefield to signify his victory. Barbaric. I'm not ashamed, in fact I'm proud of my ancestor's prowess. But do something like that here and now.....Hannibal Lecter! It's all relative.

I don't blame you for your bias.

Again....I wonder how many of us are indoctrinated, whether it's by the "system" or by more subtle means.

From where I stand, I suppose I am biased too. I detest the way the US bullies sovereign nations for it's own agenda, and I tend to stand up for the underdog......but if I were American, perhaps I would have a different world view.

Having experienced racial discrimination from whites and blacks, being half caste, and every time I've experienced it I have known that the racist is ignorant and fearfull, I have a perspective that makes me biased against bias .

I find it hard to tolerate intolerance.

[4.real]

Why ashamed? Because in the 1970's Iran was a great country, on the verge of becoming a first world country and one of the great powers. (Hey, it's got a bigger population than the UK or France, so why not?). But now, it's just another F-ed up Muslim country, and everyone thinks that's what Iran is all about. The first thing everyone pictures is scowling, crazy Ayatollahs, fearful women scurrying around in black sheets, bearded savages waving their fists in the air and screaming "Death to America! Death to British! Death to Israel!", etc. People are stoned to death for having sex. Girls are whipped until bruised and bloody for not covering all their hair, have their lips sliced with razor blades for wearing lipstick, etc. Virgins are raped before being executed because virgins can't go to hel_l. The kind of torture that goes on there every day these last 30 years makes anything that happened at Guantanamo or Abu Graib look like a joke by comparison. It's hel_l on earth, and it's terribly embarrassing.

This world is a very strange place. That same year that Iran fell from grace and descended into hel_l, China went the opposite direction. In 30 years time, those two countries essentially traded places. Through no virtue of their own, ordinary Chinese people can feel pride today. Through no fault of our own, ordinary Persians feel horrible shame instead. Try to understand how this must feel. The way I deal with it in my own mind is to say "look - ethnicity and religion are two different things. I can't help being half-Persian. There shouldn't be any shame in that. But Iran isn't so messed-up because of ethnicity. It's messed-up because of religion, and people can change their religion. In fact, Islam isn't the original religion of Persia - it was imposed on the people by brutal invaders, just like Catholicism was forced on the indiginous peoples of Latin America. (Guess where the Catholics learned it from?) I'm against that religion because it ruined the country of my heritage, is causing untold suffering there and all around the world, and ruined the image of Persian people everywhere."

Back in the 70's, the Persian passport was a valuable, prestigious document that earned it's bearer a warm welcome almost everywhere in the world. Iran was seen as a wealthy, exotic, fascinating land; the people were considered charming, fun, intelligent and civilized. Today, it is one of the worst passports to travel with - only about 7 countries grant visa-free entry, it's very hard to get visas to other countries, and even then you'll be treated with suspicion. And rightly so. Sad. Shameful. Embarrassing. Think about it sometime.

I wouldn't be ashamed. Sins of the father etc.

My father is Fijian. His great great grandfather cut out the heart of his enemy and ate it on the battlefield to signify his victory. Barbaric. I'm not ashamed, in fact I'm proud of my ancestor's prowess. But do something like that here and now.....Hannibal Lecter! It's all relative.

I don't blame you for your bias.

Again....I wonder how many of us are indoctrinated, whether it's by the "system" or by more subtle means.

From where I stand, I suppose I am biased too. I detest the way the US bullies sovereign nations for it's own agenda, and I tend to stand up for the underdog......but if I were American, perhaps I would have a different world view.

Having experienced racial discrimination from whites and blacks, being half caste, and every time I've experienced it I have known that the racist is ignorant and fearfull, I have a perspective that makes me biased against bias .

I find it hard to tolerate intolerance.

I find it hard to be expected to live alongside people that have such a different culture to me as to be intolerable.

We are NOT all the same.Those of african origin are physically different .but of little academic brains.

[they had not even invented the wheel when whites first got to africa]

Muticulturism has the same effect as comprehensive schooling...Put all groups into one class with no effort in 'streaming' which will benefit all.

Comprehensive schooling and muticulurism brings about the same effect.An uneducateed/illiterate,easily managed working class.

Read [it is banned in England ] the chapter on 'The real reason for coloured immigration to Britain' in The Longest Hatred by Jane Birdwell.

Of notable interest is the fact that the 1920 version of Encyclopedia Brittanica has since had the chapter about the outcome of inter marriage between the portugese and the africans brought to Portugal in the 16th century removed.

[Harcourt]

See, that's the kind of <deleted> that is born of ignorance. I don't deign to respond directly.

[4.real]

See, that's the kind of <deleted> that is born of ignorance. I don't deign to respond directly.

No.Because you and millions like you are quite happy to have your heads stuck in the sand by your respective governments who impose illiterates on communities and go to extremes of propaganda to keep them quiet.