OK to Beat Gays and Women? Or Untenable Postions...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]makkun wrote:

As for German “immigration” policy: Germany’s approach to this has off long been very problematic. As opposed to the NL or the UK, it has followed a quite clear non-integrative approach, treating its de facto (but not de jure) immigrants as “guests” only - for example not granting citizenship, even if you are born into the Country in 3rd generation. But, in this (silly) approach, they have also tried to ignore socio-cultural conflicts arising. This makes it different from the UK and the NL, but the mix is off course similarly explosive.

Makkun[/quote]

I can understand how to some germany’s approach seems odd. However one should consider their history.

Back in the thirties when they tried to deport their jews noone else would take them.

This is their way of avoiding that situation.

It’s certainly different from the approach Britians liberals forced on their people. The British were making people citizens and giving them passports even before they had left their home country. Some of the people they brought in were virilantly racist against the English and also against some of the other immigrant groups.

The labour party used a practice called gerrymandering, where they would build new council homes in areas where they needed to shore up their support, then instead of filling them up with people from the local community, they would import people from the third world. They would be given free housing, food, clothing, health care, even pocket money for the kids. All that was asked in return was a vote for labour in the next general election. This is why one third of London’s population of 15 million people isn’t English.

In England both my mother and grandmother have both been victims of racist attacks by immigrants. While the neighborhood my fathers family grew up in, is too dangerous for anyone from my family to visit. I feel safer in the worst part of Detroit.

The problem I have with liberals is the hypocritical attitudes they have about prejudice. They will denounce hate from one group but then turn around and try to understand and justify it from another.

Just because a religion has taught hatred of a group for over a thousnad years doesn’t mean it’s right. It just means they have been wrong for over a thousand years.

22

Sifu,

[quote]Sifu wrote:
makkun wrote:

As for German “immigration” policy: Germany’s approach to this has off long been very problematic. As opposed to the NL or the UK, it has followed a quite clear non-integrative approach, treating its de facto (but not de jure) immigrants as “guests” only - for example not granting citizenship, even if you are born into the Country in 3rd generation. But, in this (silly) approach, they have also tried to ignore socio-cultural conflicts arising. This makes it different from the UK and the NL, but the mix is off course similarly explosive.

Makkun

I can understand how to some germany’s approach seems odd. However one should consider their history.

Back in the thirties when they tried to deport their jews noone else would take them.[/quote]

The jews were German citizens (many of them with a strong urge to integrate into the rest of society), with a centuries old tradition of living in Europe and Germany. Although they were hardly popular (antisemitic progroms and persecution have a long tradition in Europe), they were part of society, not newly admitted immigrants, introducing an unknown culture. Actually, Zygmont Baumann even argues that the strong wish of the jewish community to blend into German society led to the strong resentment coming from the non-jewish community.

Well, “they” came up with quite a dreadful “solution” within the 30ies…

Yes, but as opposed to Germany which lost its colonies in 1918, it was slowly giving up its empire, granting its former people entrance. Pretty much the same as France did. Both countries are indeed still carrying their colonist heritage. For good or bad, that remains an interesting discussion.

Hm, I think that might be kind of a simplified view, but given the fact that German’s conservatives did something similar with so called latecoming expatriates (“Spaetaussiedler”), I see your point.

Although I recognise that this personal experience must have been very unsettling, I am not convinced that it is the immigrants’ fault that neigbourhoods are not safe anymore. Social injustice plays a role, and that often is linked to racial discrimination.

I think that is definitely over-simplified. No true democrat (liberal or conservative) shall accept prejudice, hatred or violence. Explaining it is something different than justifying it. I think that often get’s lost in the discussion.

Yes. I absolutely agree. Any group teaching hatred of another should reconsider its opinions.

Makkun

23

I think the gist of this post was to call into question the validity of “cultural relativism” in the face of burgeoning social diversity. Am I correct?

As more and more culturally and socially diverse groups become “mixed into the pot” cultural relativity has to fall to the way-side.

How can one live in a society where rules and laws become convoluted by the many “truths” that exist in differing societies?

I think the answer is an obvious one: You can’t. I think both liberals and conservatives can agree on this issue–it is most certainly not just a “liberal” politics problem. This is why a democracy is a good thing–people (indirectly, in the US’s case) ultimately decide on the laws they want to follow. It a society like ours cultural relativity is indeed untenable–that is, I don’t see how we can pass laws to protect individuals and then go and over-ride them becuase we have to consider cultural differences.

That’s my two cents.

24

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
I don’t quite see what you are trying to say.

I’m guessing you are saying (that the author is stating) that in Europe liberal groups are unwilling to take a stand against culturally driven abuse?

The laws of the land are supposed to override any cultural practices… are they not?

They are. However, many liberal groups refuse to take a stand – even on issues they would supposedly champion, i.e. feminists and female-abuse – because of the untenable nature of their hallowing of the idea of relativism in cultural values. They won’t claim that Western ideas of individual rights for women should trump cultural (at least if it’s not Western culture) mores. They won’t come out and condemn beliefs in non-Western cultures.

And it’s blatantly hypocritical.[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you. (That won’t happen often.)

Some definitions of what is right, or wrong, will differ from culture to culture.
But when it comes to serious violence, or oppression, moral relativism is bullshit! Some things are just inherently wrong, regardless of culture or religion.

25

[quote]makkun wrote:The jews were German citizens (many of them with a strong urge to integrate into the rest of society), with a centuries old tradition of living in Europe and Germany. Although they were hardly popular (antisemitic progroms and persecution have a long tradition in Europe), they were part of society, not newly admitted immigrants, introducing an unknown culture. Actually, Zygmont Baumann even argues that the strong wish of the jewish community to blend into German society led to the strong resentment coming from the non-jewish community.

This is their way of avoiding that situation.

Well, “they” came up with quite a dreadful “solution” within the 30ies…

Their solution was obviously terribly bad. My family has freinds who were german jews, who still live in germany. They say the germans are capable of doing it all again.

It’s certainly different from the approach Britians liberals forced on their people. The British were making people citizens and giving them passports even before they had left their home country. Some of the people they brought in were virilantly racist against the English and also against some of the other immigrant groups.

Yes, but as opposed to Germany which lost its colonies in 1918, it was slowly giving up its empire, granting its former people entrance. Pretty much the same as France did. Both countries are indeed still carrying their colonist heritage. For good or bad, that remains an interesting discussion.

The labour party used a practice called gerrymandering, where they would build new council homes in areas where they needed to shore up their support, then instead of filling them up with people from the local community, they would import people from the third world. They would be given free housing, food, clothing, health care, even pocket money for the kids. All that was asked in return was a vote for labour in the next general election. This is why one third of London’s population of 15 million people isn’t English.

Hm, I think that might be kind of a simplified view, but given the fact that German’s conservatives did something similar with so called latecoming expatriates (“Spaetaussiedler”), I see your point.

In England both my mother and grandmother have both been victims of racist attacks by immigrants. While the neighborhood my fathers family grew up in, is too dangerous for anyone from my family to visit. I feel safer in the worst part of Detroit.

Although I recognise that this personal experience must have been very unsettling, I am not convinced that it is the immigrants’ fault that neigbourhoods are not safe anymore. Social injustice plays a role, and that often is linked to racial discrimination.

I agree that you can’t blame immigrants. I do think that the liberals were more interested in retaining power than looking out for the best interests of their constituents. That was bound to cause resentments. I really have to question where is the social injustice in bringing someone who is uneducated, unemployed and living in poverty in a third world slum over to one of the coolest cities in the first world for free, then giving them free housing, free food, free clothes, free medical care, free pocket money and access to first world jobs and income. Where is the injustice? I don’t see it in Britain and I certainly don’t see it in Holland where they have an even better social system than Britain

The problem I have with liberals is the hypocritical attitudes they have about prejudice. They will denounce hate from one group but then turn around and try to understand and justify it from another.

I think that is definitely over-simplified. No true democrat (liberal or conservative) shall accept prejudice, hatred or violence. Explaining it is something different than justifying it. I think that often get’s lost in the discussion.

Perhaps I did over simplify. However the gaybashing incident in BB’s initial post is not at all explained by social ill’s. I think those Morrocans would have done the same thing if they were in Morrocco. They did that simply because they hate gay people. Trying to see it as anything else is trying to give reasonable explanation to an unreasonable act.

Just because a religion has taught hatred of a group for over a thousnad years doesn’t mean it’s right. It just means they have been wrong for over a thousand years.

Yes. I absolutely agree. Any group teaching hatred of another should reconsider its opinions.

I’m glad to see that we can find some common ground.

26

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
I don’t quite see what you are trying to say.

I’m guessing you are saying (that the author is stating) that in Europe liberal groups are unwilling to take a stand against culturally driven abuse?

The laws of the land are supposed to override any cultural practices… are they not?

They are. However, many liberal groups refuse to take a stand – even on issues they would supposedly champion, i.e. feminists and female-abuse – because of the untenable nature of their hallowing of the idea of relativism in cultural values. They won’t claim that Western ideas of individual rights for women should trump cultural (at least if it’s not Western culture) mores. They won’t come out and condemn beliefs in non-Western cultures.

And it’s blatantly hypocritical.[/quote]

Exactly!

27

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Massif wrote:

…

Positive aspects of all cultures should be encouraged. If someone’s culture is directly at odds with where they are moving to, then either change your views or don’t move. That’s why I’ll never live in Iran. Or Utah.

I agree with this, but your first statement begs the question of how we determine what is positive, especially if people refuse to embrace the idea that some cultures and ideas at least have aspects that are better than others. The complete embrace of cultural relativism makes that well nigh impossible.[/quote]

Something that is positive will generally bring people of a nation together. A positive outcome will enhance both cultures concerned.

An example:

Last weekend, the Greek community of Brisbane (the capital of Queensland) entered the Guinness Book of Records by staging the world’s largest “Zorba” dance as part of their annual Greek festival. Apparently, this was a great day, and introduced many people to Greek culture. It made the national news, and elevated the public perception of the local Greek community. Clearly a culturally positive outcome.

Things such as gay bashing, forced marriages and racism divide communities and lessen the “perceived value” of an individual’s culture, and therefore should not be seen as positive.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
… especially if people refuse to embrace the idea that some cultures and ideas at least have aspects that are better than others. [/quote]

Someone refusing to believe that someone else’s culture could have better aspects than someone else’s culture is reiforcing a negative part of their own culture. Like I said, this should be discouraged.

This might seem like a simplistic answer, but I’m a pretty simple guy:)

28

Zeb, identify the guilty parties approrpiately and have at them… I don’t think anybody here will have issue with that.

Just don’t play silly games and try to lump people into groups they don’t belong in. Talk about trying to label people…

29

Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali,(a muslim) on why she broke with the Dutch multicultural left.

Because the left is exactly like the Muslims! I wanted to give priority to the defense of immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. They said to me: ?No, that?s not a priority! The problem will take care of itself when the immigrants have jobs and are integrated.? It is exactly what the Imams say who demand that we accept oppression and slavery today because tomorrow, in Heaven, God will give us dates and raisins … . I think we need first to defend the individual. The left is afraid of everything. But fear of giving offense leads to injustice and suffering. The sexual revolution, the affirmation of individual rights, improving the living conditions of immigrants ? these were once the great causes of the Dutch left. In their eyes, the simple fact of belong to a minority gives one the right to do anything.

This multiculturalism is a disaster. All one has to do is scream ?discrimination? and all doors are open to you! Scream ?racism? and your opponents shut up! But multiculturalism is an inconsistent theory. If one wants to let communities preserve their traditions, what happens when these traditions work to the detriment of women or homosexuals? The logic of multiculturalism amounts to accepting the subordination of women. Nonetheless, the defenders of multiculturalism do not want to admit it.

30

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think the gist of this post was to call into question the validity of “cultural relativism” in the face of burgeoning social diversity. Am I correct?

As more and more culturally and socially diverse groups become “mixed into the pot” cultural relativity has to fall to the way-side.

How can one live in a society where rules and laws become convoluted by the many “truths” that exist in differing societies?

I think the answer is an obvious one: You can’t. I think both liberals and conservatives can agree on this issue–it is most certainly not just a “liberal” politics problem. This is why a democracy is a good thing–people (indirectly, in the US’s case) ultimately decide on the laws they want to follow. It a society like ours cultural relativity is indeed untenable–that is, I don’t see how we can pass laws to protect individuals and then go and over-ride them becuase we have to consider cultural differences.

That’s my two cents.[/quote]

I think this is exactly right. The problem is that for decades we’ve been being fed a line of crap about how everything is relative so you can’t make judgments between cultural practices – except to denounce imperialism and anything created by Dead White European Males. THere are a lot of academics whose whole careers are wrapped around that idea – and political groups whose ideas are based on the academics’ ideas.

It basically was a way to shut down any productive discussions on values, as in which are the values we think are superior and why we think that they are. Those types of discussions on values, which are the basis on which we do things like vote and make laws, are crucial in a representative democratic government like ours. And we need to be able to have them without getting instantly shouted down as racist/xenophobic for even asking the questions, let alone taking positions.

31

[quote]redswingline wrote:
Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali,(a muslim) on why she broke with the Dutch multicultural left.

Because the left is exactly like the Muslims! I wanted to give priority to the defense of immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. They said to me: ?No, that?s not a priority! The problem will take care of itself when the immigrants have jobs and are integrated.? It is exactly what the Imams say who demand that we accept oppression and slavery today because tomorrow, in Heaven, God will give us dates and raisins … . I think we need first to defend the individual. The left is afraid of everything. But fear of giving offense leads to injustice and suffering. The sexual revolution, the affirmation of individual rights, improving the living conditions of immigrants ? these were once the great causes of the Dutch left. In their eyes, the simple fact of belong to a minority gives one the right to do anything.

This multiculturalism is a disaster. All one has to do is scream ?discrimination? and all doors are open to you! Scream ?racism? and your opponents shut up! But multiculturalism is an inconsistent theory. If one wants to let communities preserve their traditions, what happens when these traditions work to the detriment of women or homosexuals? The logic of multiculturalism amounts to accepting the subordination of women. Nonetheless, the defenders of multiculturalism do not want to admit it.

[/quote]

Redwings,

This is a great insight. I completely agree – and it gets to the heart of the “diversity” chant that’s been going on for a long time. The idea that diversity for the sake of diversity is a good thing needs to be seriously contemplated and discussed – and when you attempt to have these discussions or question the underlying assumptions, often all you get from the other side is called racist/xenophobic. We need to step beyond the simplistic idea that all things different are good, which is how “diversity” is normally sold.

And that gets back to the main point, which is that we need to be able to discuss why we believe certain ideas and practices are superior to others.

Once you have that sort of discussion, then you can move to the question of how much assimilation you require of immigrants, and what conditions are attached to citzenship and what are the values that define the society and nation.

Those are all key questions that need to be discussed in the open. There’s a loud constituency of left-wing special interests that has built itself on the idea that they should not be asked, let alone debated.

32

Here in Canada, multicult is an official policy. We have a a department within the Canada Heritage department (odd, hu?) dedicated to the following claptrap:

Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding, and discourages ghettoization, hatred, discrimination and violence.

When I grew up here in the 70/80 (i’m an immigrant) the absoulte WORST thing you could be called was a racist. You’d have rather been called a pedo, such was the climate.

Aside from the fact that some of these principles are demonstratably untrue, the result is this: people dance around in their funny ethnic costumes once a year, and import all the prejudices from their homeland. What is Canada to them? Weak (we won’t even stand up for our own values); and how do immigrants view Canada? Nothing more than a hotel; a layover that has many benefits of a first world and a convenient passport.

You can argue (as I would) that the cult of multicult is in fact damaging our society. In urban Canadian areas, people tend to congregate with people of their ilk - so we have urban “ghettos” (using the term loosely - they’re not bad areas) where many like minded people settle. It’s not a strength of society, it’s a weakness.

33

United we stand, divided we fall.

Which part does multiculturalism fit?

34

from blogger Mike Brock…

Canada?s biggest problem when it comes to patriotism and national unity is that modern Canadian liberalism ? in its premise ? discourages these very things.
While liberals are perhaps the most vocal about the importance of having strong national unity under a federalist system, they also shiver at the idea of nationalism.

The diversity-first priority of modern day liberalism – a reactionary product of the racism and bigotry of years past – ultimately regurgitates a nasty byproduct: a national identity that is based on not having a national identity…

… For most Canadians, healthcare is not exactly the most romantic ideal by which to mount your national identity atop. But it of course, one of the only ideals which we can rely upon, given that other types of nationalism are considered offensive and unprogressive through the eyes of moral and cultural relativism.

… The flaw of the whole concept rears its ugly head when the will of a cultural community comes to bear against the society, demanding special recognition, special rights or a different set or rules to be applied specifically for them.

35

Boston,

“I think this is exactly right. The problem is that for decades we’ve been being fed a line of crap about how everything is relative so you can’t make judgments between cultural practices – except to denounce imperialism and anything created by Dead White European Males. THere are a lot of academics whose whole careers are wrapped around that idea – and political groups whose ideas are based on the academics’ ideas.”

Exactly right - could not have been expressed better.

“It basically was a way to shut down any productive discussions on values, as in which are the values we think are superior and why we think that they are. Those types of discussions on values, which are the basis on which we do things like vote and make laws, are crucial in a representative democratic government like ours. And we need to be able to have them without getting instantly shouted down as racist/xenophobic for even asking the questions, let alone taking positions.”

So true - the cottage industry of relatavism grew into the dominant paradigm, and it was created and sold as a way to undermine the engine of imperialism and domination of the ‘other’. The expansion of the Europeans was predicated on the idea that Western civilization was superior and thise outside of it were inferior savages - something that left-wing academics didn’t like, so that started with a result they wanted - cultural relativism and the idea that oe culture was not better than another so was no moral reason to assert superiority through conquest - and created a theory backwards in order to try and dissolve any moral superiority. Maybe not the beginning of ‘results-based’ social science, but certainly one of the biggest examples.

The problem is the theory doesn’t add up - and the sad fact is its endorsers don’t even think so. Cultural relativism has been cherrypicked by the academics - all ideas are relative and there are no universal truths, except for those that the academics liked such as egalitarian society, minority rights, pagan religion, etc.

These academics went blank-faced when some asked them that if they thought cultural relativism permitted subjugation of women, caste systems, and death chambers for homosexuals - all of which are cultural practices that should just be ‘different, not neither better nor worse’ under their faddish theories.

As is, hopefully we are coming to the end of a cruel joke, but unfortunately the way we are all discovering the failures of the ideas is by being shocked at what we have tolerated up to this point in the name of the theory.

36

So I want to play devil’s advocate for one sec. Also I want to point out a difference between cultural relativity and diversity. Diversity is not just accepting someone because they are a minority or different but accepting them because they are an individual. It is the individual differences summed up in a community that give us diversity.

Relativity, on the other hand, is validating behavior based on culture of origin. As I stated earlier relativity has no place in a land of concrete law.

I then ask, is teaching diversity counterintuitive to teaching nationalism?

Any thoughts?

37

[quote]vroom wrote:
Exactly!

Zeb, identify the guilty parties approrpiately and have at them… I don’t think anybody here will have issue with that.

Just don’t play silly games and try to lump people into groups they don’t belong in. Talk about trying to label people…[/quote]

vroom:

I’m sorry that you have a difficult time following along.

I think it’s obvious at this point that the liberals who ushered in the era of the politically correct are having a difficult time balancing justice with their warped sense of what is (or should be) “Politically correct.”

Is there something you don’t like about that?

Please tell me…

38

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So I want to play devil’s advocate for one sec. Also I want to point out a difference between cultural relativity and diversity. Diversity is not just accepting someone because they are a minority or different but accepting them because they are an individual. It is the individual differences summed up in a community that give us diversity.

Relativity, on the other hand, is validating behavior based on culture of origin. As I stated earlier relativity has no place in a land of concrete law.

I then ask, is teaching diversity counterintuitive to teaching nationalism?

Any thoughts?

[/quote]

I don’t think they’re necessarily counterintuitive, but I do think that the idea of why diversity is good needs modification.

Or at least you need to tease out the kind of individual differences that are good and the kind that are bad, whether they be individual or cultural in nature – which brings us back to our values issue.

Basically, diversity has been sold/promoted on the idea that difference, in and of itself, is good – without any reference or examination of the nature of the difference. I think that’s ridiculous on its face – good or even neutral differences may be good, but negative differences, e.g. cultural practices of honor killings of women, cannot be positive just because they are diverse.

Heck, even something as seemingly innocuous as a cultural difference in bathing habits could be viewed to have negative effects in a given situation (like, say, you’re in a cubicle next to someone who has very different ideas on showering and deodorant than you have). Some differences will obviously be of more import than others, but we need to examine things in terms of values and ultility.

And that’s something that just isn’t addressed generally – at least not in most diversity lit or in the silly seminars I’ve attended.

39

[quote]I’m sorry that you have a difficult time following along.

I think it’s obvious at this point that the liberals who ushered in the era of the politically correct are having a difficult time balancing justice with their warped sense of what is (or should be) “Politically correct.”

Is there something you don’t like about that?

Please tell me…[/quote]

Grow up Zeb.

It’s not nice to say people believe in X, when X isn’t something they believe in.

Perhaps you’d like it if people loudly proclaimed you to be a Satanist?

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with me. The laws of the land clearly override any cultural background of the people choosing to live in that land.

That being said, if people wish to retain or remember aspects of their history, within those laws, who gives a crap.

Please commence twisting my words…

40

My head hurts after reading this.

… I’ll have to get back to this one…

GAINER