Is Multi-culturism Good For A Country?

[CHINWA]

As a USA citizen, I heard that in contrast to our 'melting pot' - where all residents were expected to forget ancestry and become white-bread, plain-vanilla Caucasians speaking Amurrikan English (not that there's anything wrong with that ). Canada, by contrast, was a jigsaw, a mosaic, a stew - where ancestry, language and culture were maintained.

Thailand? Asian; Thai; central Thai. Xenophobic. We farang accommodate to Thai culture. I think most Thais tolerate or ignore us, and luk-krung are neither pure farang nor pure Thai.

We farangs? speak for yourself loser. It all depends on the education you receive from birth. I'm sure yours wasn't that good otherwise you wouldn't be making such a stupid comments/affirmations. How do you expect to be accepted in any society or culture with this kind of statments? (in your case you can only be ignored of course)!. In every culture there are good and bad people and to generalize, that yes, is xenophobic. I am luk-krung and I could assimilate both cultures probably because my parents come from different backgrounds than yours (I'm sure of that) and have invested in my education avoiding this way that I become an ignorant like you. If you're living here and have children, I sorry for them!!!

[CHINWA]

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

and what would we call those countries today???

[CHINWA]

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!

Agree 100% with you

[KevinBloodyWilson]

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!

Agree 100% with you

Excellent , and I am sure you are right t do so.

Without me expressing an opinion one way or the other, would you mind please, listing any 3 benefits flowing from multi-culturalism? In any order you like...

Cheers,

Kev

Edited August 16, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[PeaceBlondie]

My apologies to luk-krung, who are somehow 100% Thai and 100% farang.

This thread of 250 posts has had nearly no connection to Thailand, which is 100% Thai.

[howmuch]

You said it!

Is this thread ever going to end?

Surely just by being in another country your adding to multi culturism. Perhaps we should ask thai people if they think Ethnic minoritys (wasps) are good for Thailand?

[Harcourt]

Excellent , and I am sure you are right t do so.

Without me expressing an opinion one way or the other, would you mind please, listing any 3 benefits flowing from multi-culturalism? In any order you like...

Cheers,

Kev

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

2. The dominant, successful genes that have benefitted geographic populations are shared.

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

4. Homogenising cultures produces less potential for inter-racial conflict.

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

6. Mixed race kids are good looking (take me and my own children as an example )

[ClaytonSeymour]

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

Whilst the statement may be correct, certainly as far as the UK is concerned it hasn't really happened has it? This would be a product of Integration, rather than Multi-Culturism. The facts are that immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, especially the Muslims, simply don't want to integrate; in-breeding is rampant i.e. they are significantly more likely to marry their first cousins than a member of the indigenous population. Should an individual rebel against this, he, or especially she, will alnost certainly feel the full wrath of the family.

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

Mixing of ideas & philosophies can be recipe for conflict, especially when they are poles apart i.e. atheism & islam.

4. Homogenising cultures produces less potential for inter-racial conflict.

In an ideal world perhaps, sadly, reality doesn't always bear such fruits.

Edited August 16, 2009 by ClaytonSeymour

[ClaytonSeymour]

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

Not entirely. Aside from the fact that I don't particularly like the food of the Sub-Continent, there was a time when the fish & chip shops closed about 30 minutes later than the pubs, the mass proliferation of these establishments as resulted in the former closing much earlier.

6. Mixed race kids are good looking (take me and my own children as an example )

Not in all cases. As for yourself & your offspring, if you'd like to post a photo, the TV members will be able to judge as to whether your statement is correct.

Edited August 16, 2009 by ClaytonSeymour

[bangla]

if you're so much against multi culturism then what the f are you doing in thailand..

[samran]

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

Whilst the statement may be correct, certainly as far as the UK is concerned it hasn't really happened has it? This would be a product of Integration, rather than Multi-Culturism. The facts are that immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, especially the Muslims, simply don't want to integrate; in-breeding is rampant i.e. they are significantly more likely to marry their first cousins than a member of the indigenous population. Should an individual rebel against this, he, or especially she, will alnost certainly feel the full wrath of the family.

So the British royal family then....

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

Mixing of ideas & philosophies can be recipe for conflict, especially when they are poles apart i.e. atheism & islam.

Catholics vs. Protestants. Not so much as whisker between those sets of beliefs, but managed somehow to beat the crap out of each other in N.Ireland for decades

[ClaytonSeymour]

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

Whilst the statement may be correct, certainly as far as the UK is concerned it hasn't really happened has it? This would be a product of Integration, rather than Multi-Culturism. The facts are that immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, especially the Muslims, simply don't want to integrate; in-breeding is rampant i.e. they are significantly more likely to marry their first cousins than a member of the indigenous population. Should an individual rebel against this, he, or especially she, will alnost certainly feel the full wrath of the family.

So the British royal family then....

Throughout history, in breeding applies to most royal families, notably the royal & noble families of Europe. If we take Ancient Egypt as an example - it was quite common for Pharaohs to marry their sisters. As you've mentioned the British royal family here's two examples of the consequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Bowes-Lyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_Bowes-Lyon

The risk of birth defects in children produced by first cousins is double that of normal relationships. Here's some interesting comments from the NHS:

Consanguineous marriage today is most prevalent in communities originating from North Africa, the Middle East, and large parts of Asia. In the British Pakistani community it is estimated that 50-60% of marriages are consanguineous, and there is evidence that this proportion is rising. Geographical or social isolation of migrant groups may play a part in this. In addition, such populations may have a degree of inbreeding due to many generations of marriage within the community, even in couples who are not formally consanguineous.

First-cousin marriages are the most common, but closer relationships such as double first cousins also occur.

Reported benefits of consanguineous marriage include:

• Keeping property and money within the family
  
• Staying within a well-understood family unit
  
• Improving the position of women by decreasing the chances of maltreatment from a husband bound by family ties
  

Full article here: http://www.library.nhs.uk/geneticcondition...&catID=7776

Even a member of the UK Government spoke out on this subject last year: "Mr Phil Woolas (Environment Minister), Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, said that often the issue was not talked about. 'If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everyone knows it's caused by first-cousin marriage."

His colleague, Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, said this:

"This is to do with a medieval culture where you keep wealth within the family," she said.

"If you go into a paediatric ward in Bradford or Keighley you will find more than half of the kids there are from the Asian community. Since Asians only represent 20%-30% of the population, you can see that they are over represented.

"I have encountered cases of blindness and deafness. There was one poor girl who had to have an oxygen tank on her back and breathe from a hole in the front of her neck.

"The parents were warned they should not have any more children. But when the husband returned again from Pakistan, within months they had another child with exactly the same condition."

Full article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle3342040.ece

Edited August 17, 2009 by ClaytonSeymour

[Harcourt]

Integration is inevitable with MC. Not all members of a community are conformists.

The problems that arise from inbreeding are a significant example that closing a community off from "outsiders" is damaging. I would venture to say the damage is irreparable. Whether it be Pakistanis in London, Appalachian hillbillies, or an allegedly xenophobic Thailand.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Excellent , and I am sure you are right t do so.

Without me expressing an opinion one way or the other, would you mind please, listing any 3 benefits flowing from multi-culturalism? In any order you like...

Cheers,

Kev

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

2. The dominant, successful genes that have benefitted geographic populations are shared.

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

4. Homogenising cultures produces less potential for inter-racial conflict.

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

6. Mixed race kids are good looking (take me and my own children as an example )

Well, it's a good start. However what you listed were some of the *consequences* of MC, and assumes that all of those consequences are benefits, without any attempt to show how they are actually beneficial in any way. In fact there are very considerable dis-benefits from attempts to make Europe and USA 'multicutural'.

So what actual *benefits* are there to be had from MC?

That question was asked in the UK some years ago, in a large survey/opinion-poll. Evidently the major (and perhaps only) benefit of MC at that time was considered to be chicken korma.

It is interesting to note that MC has become something of a euphemism, a synonym even, for racial integration - a minor triumph of the spin doctors. As it happens integration often fails exactly because people are *not* in fact able to be multicultural and are unable to prevent the prejudice that many people fall prey to as a consequence of noticing that other people are different to them in the way they do things. In my lay opinion, even legislation in the UK has not helped actual integration or multiculturalism, though it has largely prevented discrimination based on race and other grounds - rightly.

Please note I am not talking about tolerance here, I am talking about integration, which rarely actually happens. It is in the nature of people to coalesce into the human equivalent of herds. It may not be right but it is the way it is.

Controversial perhaps, certainly it is politically incorrect, but it is honest.

Edited August 18, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[4.real]

Excellent , and I am sure you are right t do so.

Without me expressing an opinion one way or the other, would you mind please, listing any 3 benefits flowing from multi-culturalism? In any order you like...

Cheers,

Kev

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

2. The dominant, successful genes that have benefitted geographic populations are shared.

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

4. Homogenising cultures produces less potential for inter-racial conflict.

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

6. Mixed race kids are good looking (take me and my own children as an example )

Well, it's a good start. However what you listed were some of the *consequences* of MC, and assumes that all of those consequences are benefits, without any attempt to show how they are actually beneficial in any way. In fact there are very considerable dis-benefits from attempts to make Europe and USA 'multicutural'.

So what actual *benefits* are there to be had from MC?

That question was asked in the UK some years ago, in a large survey/opinion-poll. Evidently the major (and perhaps only) benefit of MC at that time was considered to be chicken korma.

It is interesting to note that MC has become something of a euphemism, a synonym even, for racial integration - a minor triumph of the spin doctors. As it happens integration often fails exactly because people are *not* in fact able to be multicultural and are unable to prevent the prejudice that many people fall prey to as a consequence of noticing that other people are different to them in the way they do things. In my lay opinion, even legislation in the UK has not helped actual integration or multiculturalism, though it has largely prevented discrimination based on race and other grounds - rightly.

Please note I am not talking about tolerance here, I am talking about integration, which rarely actually happens. It is in the nature of people to coalesce into the human equivalent of herds. It may not be right but it is the way it is.

Controversial perhaps, certainly it is politically incorrect, but it is honest.

The only people to benefit from Multiculturis [done via MASS immigration] are the rulers/politicians/government.

Mass immigration was imposed upon the working class of britain from the 1950's.The people brought in were 99% illiterates Take for instance those from the west indies.These people were puposely found working on the rubbish dumps of the W/I wher they had been used to scrathing for a living amongst refuse.Done to produce the desired effect of breaking the powere of the unions and the unity of the then working class.IT WORKED.

I well remember the new arrivals .Women with short skimpy frocks showing the thin legs with the knees standing out and the men all with double breasted suits 2-3 sizes too large [handed out by whom,we were never told].

And then ..to add insult..They were given the right to vote....

they brought their 'scavenging' with them ..Soon tidy front gardens became placres to store junk washing machines /prams etc for 'scrap'.

[Harcourt]

Kevin: I listed what I consider to be consequential benefits. You've conceded that chicken korma is one benefit. Why are the other "consequences" I listed not benefits? I've already given the inbreeding reason...what are your reasons for suggesting these things are not beneficial?

[ClaytonSeymour]

Integration is inevitable with MC.

No it's not. Parallel societies are the most likely consequence.

Edited August 18, 2009 by ClaytonSeymour

[EndofDays]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work? I don't see too much of it in Thailand because most of the country is Buddhist, and other cultures seem to be scattered in tiny groups. There are certainly lots of Europeans, Aussies and North Americans who take Thai national spouses, but they just sort of blend in wherever they locate. About the only hotspot in Thailand is in the very southern end of the penninsula with the turmoil between the Islamic groups and either Christians or Thai Buddhists.

I know in Canada we are supposed to be a multi-culture country with an English speaking bias, but what I see more of is little groups all keeping separate from each other. My sister in London tells me it's the same in England. Depending on the location I can be a foreigner in my own country. I see bigotry and bias everywhere, but it's more the "New Canadiens" that perpetrate it. Many French speaking Canadians REALLY don't like the English speaking Canadians and that goes back to the 1700s, The Japanese Canadians don't integrate with the Chinese Canadians, Muslims and people from India won't integrate with any other group no matter how long they stay in Canada or how many generations pass, and First Nations people keep entirely to themselves. It's quite noticeable in Islamic communities within our cities as well.

It reminds me of that old Chad Mitchel Trio song

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls

The French hate the Germans, and the Germans hate the Poles.

Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch

And I don't like anybody very much...

Since when religion = culture?

Take for example, Muslims around the world, they have different culture based on the country they live in. Thailand is truly a multi-cultural society, however, people are not completely become part of culture, due to a vast difference in living styles, such as food etc.

However, Chinese, by all means, are those who become part of Thailand very well. Indians (mostly Sikhs who migrated from the area which is now Pakistan) did not mix so well. This goes back to the religion and not to the culture.

If you look at various countries, migrants, generally, are well off and doing good. Before the so called "war of terrorism", everything was fine, however, things changed, since dubya started a useless war against the largest religion, i.e. Islam (Catholic, being the second largest). Had this war never happened, world would have been much peaceful. I know some people would defend US, but it is a pure mistake on both sides, i.e. USA and other sides. Iraq is a classic example

Are you writing in English, because I had no idea what you just said but more than likely it was mundane. Everyhting was fine before 9-11? Are you sure?

[elkangorito]

So what actual *benefits* are there to be had from MC?

That question was asked in the UK some years ago, in a large survey/opinion-poll. Evidently the major (and perhaps only) benefit of MC at that time was considered to be chicken korma.

I'm sure you remember the UK comedy "Not the 9 o'clock news"? Perhaps you can relate to this easier?

http://www.funny-videos.co.uk/videorealism...nsiblity9c.html

[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...

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.

While I appreciate that you're trying to empathize with me and make me feel better, I have difficulty with that analogy. Cannibalism is long forgotten, and hardly anybody thinks "cannibal" when they think of Fiji, and nobody associates cannibalism with modern-day Fijians.

A better analogy would be if cannibalism had experienced a massive revival starting around 30 years ago, so that it was once again prevalent not just in Fiji but in all the islands, and also among Melanesian communities in New Zealand and other Western countries, where they killed and ate not just each other but also many non-Melanesians, year after year. Furthermore, let's say the government of Fiji announced it's intention to destroy the states of New Zealand and Australia (to liberate the "natives" and drive the rest of the populations into the sea)? To top it all off, suppose the Fijian government was developing nuclear weapons. How would you feel if today most people in the world associated the words "Fijian" with "savage" they way they do "Iranian" with "terrorist"?

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 fearful, I have a perspective that makes me biased against bias .

I find it hard to tolerate intolerance.

Well, we agree on this, except that I would argue that by tolerating Islam you are tolerating intolerance. You view Muslims as poor victims of irrational intolerance whereas I view Islam as worse than Nazism in fostering intolerance, hate and murder all over the world. There is some truth in both points of view. Muslim immigrants might suffer some discrimination even if they weren't Muslim, due to their ethnic or cultural differences from the host populations, but Islam certainly makes things much worse for them, and for all of us.

[dumbnewbie]

That question was asked in the UK some years ago, in a large survey/opinion-poll. Evidently the major (and perhaps only) benefit of MC at that time was considered to be chicken korma.

[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...

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.

While I appreciate that you're trying to empathize with me and make me feel better, I have difficulty with that analogy. Cannibalism is long forgotten, and hardly anybody thinks "cannibal" when they think of Fiji, and nobody associates cannibalism with modern-day Fijians.

A better analogy would be if cannibalism had experienced a massive revival starting around 30 years ago, so that it was once again prevalent not just in Fiji but in all the islands, and also among Melanesian communities in New Zealand and other Western countries, where they killed and ate not just each other but also many non-Melanesians, year after year. Furthermore, let's say the government of Fiji announced it's intention to destroy the states of New Zealand and Australia (to liberate the "natives" and drive the rest of the populations into the sea)? To top it all off, suppose the Fijian government was developing nuclear weapons. How would you feel if today most people in the world associated the words "Fijian" with "savage" they way they do "Iranian" with "terrorist"?

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 fearful, I have a perspective that makes me biased against bias .

I find it hard to tolerate intolerance.

Well, we agree on this, except that I would argue that by tolerating Islam you are tolerating intolerance. You view Muslims as poor victims of irrational intolerance whereas I view Islam as worse than Nazism in fostering intolerance, hate and murder all over the world. There is some truth in both points of view. Muslim immigrants might suffer some discrimination even if they weren't Muslim, due to their ethnic or cultural differences from the host populations, but Islam certainly makes things much worse for them, and for all of us.

I take your points. I take your points with the feeling that your worldview is somewhat slanted. (That's not to say that mine isn't). I can not disagree with you that some elements of the political wing of Islamist radicals preaches intolerance. I detest those elements as much as I detest the good ol' boys that wear sheets and conical masks.

There is no doubt that there are Islamist leaders that have a huge chip on their shoulder and who are a danger to the rest of the world. If Dubbya was still in power I would use him as a counter example!......I'm still outraged at some of the West's (and Israel's) actions against the Muslim world. Note that I say Muslim, not Islam, as although the stated intention is to battle Islamists, the actuality is Muslims.

Which is worse (for humanity as a whole): Abidinejad stating loudly that he wants to wipe Israel from the pages of history, or Israel, stating nothing loudly, and just going ahead with it's genocide? Both are deplorable, but personally I would rather alot of hot words than alot of hot phosphorous.

Indeed my worldview is slanted.

Perhaps the difference in our thinking comes from the fact that I tend to think of humanity as a whole, not just my kith and kin. Different.

No man is an island.

Actually, I will quote Jon Donne here...if I can remember it all:

No man is an island entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continant, a part of the maine. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

(I'm sure it's Jon Donne....correct me if I'm wrong).

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Kevin: I listed what I consider to be consequential benefits. You've conceded that chicken korma is one benefit.

Hi Harcourt.

I wasn't criticising or dissembling, most people cannot distinguish between a consequence and the benefit or dis-benefit that any given consequence might bring. I didn't actually concede that chicken korma is a benefit, I was noting (somewhat tongue in cheek) that this is the only thing people in general could identify and being a useful or beneficial outcome of MC.

To me, the benefit of chicken korma is a wider appreciation of international food, which brings eating pleasure to people whose staple may have been fish & chips or roast beef and yorkshire pudding. In any event, I see chicken korma not as a benefit of MC, but rather as a benefit of globalisation.

People do not generally integrate their cultures, nor do people generally embrace more than one. The reason for this lies in the learning patterns of children. On the contrary, immigrant peoples normally congregate to live with their own kind in enclaves, which is no less a racist behaviour than disallowing them from mixing with other enclaves (against which the UK and many other governments rightly have legislation. People are essentially racist as I pointed out before, and there is nothing whatever wrong with this provided that it is not used as a pretext to discriminate against people of other races. Its just the way it is.

Measured against the alleged benefits of MC, are the things like:

Some postcodes in London and other towns and cities are now occupied by a majority of non-English people (eg Kilburn and Newham). These quickly become no-go areas for other races/cultures, and in these areas all sorts of problems exist. Eastern European mafias, yardies, islamic revolutionaries, all these are bred in enclaves caused by people gathering together in order to avoid adopting different cultures, not as a consequence of them wishing to embrace diversity. These are all dis-benefits accruing from the consequences of MC having (inevitably) failed.

...continued

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Kevin: I listed what I consider to be consequential benefits. You've conceded that chicken korma is one benefit. Why are the other "consequences" I listed not benefits? I've already given the inbreeding reason...what are your reasons for suggesting these things are not beneficial?

OK, lets have a look:

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

This is a myth for which there is no evidence at all. In fact evolutionary scientists and Darwinists are now of the belief that the prevalent model of reproduction (sexual reprodction by genetically different couples), may actually be less efficient than other models. Sexual reproduction is actually one of the major things which scientists are in dispute about when considering the Darwinist 'natural selection' process as a vehicle for evolution.

2. The dominant, successful genes that have benefitted geographic populations are shared.

This is another myth. The most successful gene pools are those which include people who are reproductively more active rather than successful. It is a numbers thing. An example of this is the huge increase in black crime in the USA. Here, the black african gene pool has very successfully spread yet surely nobody could seriously point to how this is an evolutionary or cultural advantage or that the black african gene pool has demonstrated success rather than simple numerical dominance.

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

This is another myth. I doubt that more than 0.1% of people are the least interested in discovering some kind of philosophical truth. What is 'truth' anyway? It is a nominalisation. Meaningless. If you are talking about harmonisation of philosophies and religions and mystical systems, then the greatest expansion in those areas came during the 12th Century (the Moorish and Judaic influences in Spain), the Renaissance (Europe) and the late 19th Century (Europe), for reasons which are not understood at all but which probably had nothing whatever to do with MC, but with mystics and teachers in different cultures getting themselves together in elites groupings, not to embrace each others culture, but to compare points of difference and similarity in their mystical systems.

...continued

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Kevin: I listed what I consider to be consequential benefits. You've conceded that chicken korma is one benefit. Why are the other "consequences" I listed not benefits? I've already given the inbreeding reason...what are your reasons for suggesting these things are not beneficial?

4. Homogenising cultures produces less potential for inter-racial conflict.

Surely you are joking here, i's a completely circular argument. Racial integration brings about racial tensions which are then resolved by racial integration? Have a look at the UK. There is more racial and ethnic conflict and religious intolerance than there has ever been before. This is a considerable dis-benefit of the attempted integration and MC experiments conducted by UK and other governments in pursuit of some utopian ideal of the brotherhood of man. However lofty this ideal, it is impracticable, because people are people.

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

Yes it is. But we are back to chicken korma. It is surely the failure of the argument to note that the only real benefit of MC is that we have more and more different things to eat.

Kev

[Harcourt]

Kevin: I listed what I consider to be consequential benefits. You've conceded that chicken korma is one benefit. Why are the other "consequences" I listed not benefits? I've already given the inbreeding reason...what are your reasons for suggesting these things are not beneficial?

4. Homogenising cultures produces less potential for inter-racial conflict.

Surely you are joking here, i's a completely circular argument. Racial integration brings about racial tensions which are then resolved by racial integration? Have a look at the UK. There is more racial and ethnic conflict and religious intolerance than there has ever been before. This is a considerable dis-benefit of the attempted integration and MC experiments conducted by UK and other governments in pursuit of some utopian ideal of the brotherhood of man. However lofty this ideal, it is impracticable, because people are people.

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

Yes it is. But we are back to chicken korma. It is surely the failure of the argument to note that the only real benefit of MC is that we have more and more different things to eat.

Kev

4. No, not joking at all. I can see how you can see that it is a circular argument...but look a bit further. Once integration has progressed, there would be no racial distinctions, and if there remained individual distinctions, wholesale discrimination is unlikely because if an individual is distinct, he/she is likely to be the minority who is NOT discriminated against because the majority have some connection to the minority....by blood or common association. The melting pot, milky coffee skinned people all.

5. Sophistry! It WOULD be a failure of the argument if the ONLY benefit is a varied diet......but chicken korma is not the only argument.

[Harcourt]

[

OK, lets have a look:

1. Greater diversity of the gene pool gives greater adaptability to the human race.

This is a myth for which there is no evidence at all. In fact evolutionary scientists and Darwinists are now of the belief that the prevalent model of reproduction (sexual reprodction by genetically different couples), may actually be less efficient than other models. Sexual reproduction is actually one of the major things which scientists are in dispute about when considering the Darwinist 'natural selection' process as a vehicle for evolution.

2. The dominant, successful genes that have benefitted geographic populations are shared.

This is another myth. The most successful gene pools are those which include people who are reproductively more active rather than successful. It is a numbers thing. An example of this is the huge increase in black crime in the USA. Here, the black african gene pool has very successfully spread yet surely nobody could seriously point to how this is an evolutionary or cultural advantage or that the black african gene pool has demonstrated success rather than simple numerical dominance.

3. Mixing of ideas and philosophies has greater potential for finding the "truth". In other words, pooling of information.

This is another myth. I doubt that more than 0.1% of people are the least interested in discovering some kind of philosophical truth. What is 'truth' anyway? It is a nominalisation. Meaningless. If you are talking about harmonisation of philosophies and religions and mystical systems, then the greatest expansion in those areas came during the 12th Century (the Moorish and Judaic influences in Spain), the Renaissance (Europe) and the late 19th Century (Europe), for reasons which are not understood at all but which probably had nothing whatever to do with MC, but with mystics and teachers in different cultures getting themselves together in elites groupings, not to embrace each others culture, but to compare points of difference and similarity in their mystical systems.

...continued

1. There is no evidence that this is a myth . Furthermore, the human race is basically stuck with sexual reproduction, and I come back to the inbreeding point.

2. That's a dangerous point you make.....completely off-topic spurious, and misleading to cite black crime.

3. Truth is truth. It's not nominal. I'm not talking about harmonisation of philosophies, but filtration, ending up with an ultimate QED.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Surely you are joking here, i's a completely circular argument. Racial integration brings about racial tensions which are then resolved by racial integration? Have a look at the UK. There is more racial and ethnic conflict and religious intolerance than there has ever been before. This is a considerable dis-benefit of the attempted integration and MC experiments conducted by UK and other governments in pursuit of some utopian ideal of the brotherhood of man. However lofty this ideal, it is impracticable, because people are people.

5. Isn't it just wonderful to walk down the street and have a choice of 20 different cuisines? 20 years ago in most Western societies, we had the choice of fish and chips, hamburgers, or Chinese takeaways.

Yes it is. But we are back to chicken korma. It is surely the failure of the argument to note that the only real benefit of MC is that we have more and more different things to eat.

Kev

4. No, not joking at all. I can see how you can see that it is a circular argument...but look a bit further. Once integration has progressed, there would be no racial distinctions, and if there remained individual distinctions, wholesale discrimination is unlikely because if an individual is distinct, he/she is likely to be the minority who is NOT discriminated against because the majority have some connection to the minority....by blood or common association. The melting pot, milky coffee skinned people all.

I agree with everything you say, except that is a utopian ideal, and bound to fail because people in general are not enlightened, and not interested in multiculturalism - at least not the vast majority anyway. people are imperfect, jingoistic and in many cases, not very smart. Which is why the utopian ideal is at best far far away and at worst unattainable.

5. Sophistry! It WOULD be a failure of the argument if the ONLY benefit is a varied diet......but chicken korma is not the only argument.

Guilty as charged. I confess to having been puckish, but look on the bright side. It only said it because I acknowledge you are smart enough and that your belief is well-formed enough to see and respond to the puckishness.

Plus, puckish is fun sometimes.

Kev

[KevinBloodyWilson]

1. There is no evidence that this is a myth . Furthermore, the human race is basically stuck with sexual reproduction, and I come back to the inbreeding point.

No evidence but it appears to be an emerging scientific conclusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. That's a dangerous point you make.....completely off-topic spurious, and misleading to cite black crime.

Get out of town! It might be dangerous and politically incorrect to say, but that isn't the same as it being untrue. As you know. And I disagree, I think that black crime is exactly one of the right things to point to to counter your assertion that successful or dominant genes bring benefits.

3. Truth is truth. It's not nominal. I'm not talking about harmonisation of philosophies, but filtration, ending up with an ultimate QED.

Possibly off topic and spurious? Sorry - couldn't resist.

Truth is a nominalisation because it cannot be defined and the only value in using such a nominalisation is to appeal to the emotional levels rather than the rational levels of the mind. You scallywag...

Kev

[4.real]

So what actual *benefits* are there to be had from MC?

That question was asked in the UK some years ago, in a large survey/opinion-poll. Evidently the major (and perhaps only) benefit of MC at that time was considered to be chicken korma.

I'm sure you remember the UK comedy "Not the 9 o'clock news"? Perhaps you can relate to this easier?

http://www.funny-videos.co.uk/videorealism...nsiblity9c.html

BETTER TO REMEMBER 'TILL DEATH DO US PART'..Extremely clever propaganda and mind-shaping television.

While the blacks were infiltrating working class districts it did not matter...these people had no 'voice'.Once blacks started spreading to white collar workers areas the governments began to fret...And what better way to silence this loud voice than to portray any one who spoke out against the balcks as a foul-mouthed illiterate moron with a wife you would not wish on to your worst enemy..

BRILLIANT..It made the word 'racist' a far worse word than rapist or murderer..