Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p="
I think what strikes me as odd in all this is that those of us said to be "multiculturalists" in this country are really "melting pot" types. We want all races, creeds, religions, etc. to work together and live together under a shared set of values based on democracy, responsibility, and reason...
In contrast, those most outspoken against "multiculturalism" seem to be multiculturalists themselves... though probably more uniculturalists... desiring continuous segregation, divide, and animosity for every group in the population, touting how their "culture" should battle to control institutions and restore its privilege, and in short tearing the country apart.
The vocabulary has been wrong all along.
Culture Warriors are the real multiculturalists.
|
You bring up an interesting point JavaBlack. I think you're right but I don't see it as part of the problem. I think radically differnent people who become minorities do it for both reasons. A. They are against accepting another religion or culture like most are and B. They are not for the abandonment of their ancestral traditions. Understanding this, the melting pot theory has only worked with as many fifth graders it can fool. This is why I argue, it's best not to mix radically different people because it breeds tension (to put it mundanely) and hurts both cultures (not to mention this same argument gets to people on both sides internally). It has the potential to divide families on either side, too. It's just not healthy and helps nothing. I personally believe that 'Multiculturaism' is a term they made up to accomodate people that have failed to assimilate. Basically it's saying to embrace social segregation for no reason at all except for the fact people live in an area which people understand will never be embraced by the other and are not supposed to be. It's a real destructive, stupid term that is a bunch of horse sh** like so much else IMO