advantages of multiculturalism

[Hokuto]

hello! i dislike multiculturalism.

give me some advantages of multiculturalism and ill tell you what i think about them(cos i dont think there are any).

[Qayin]

:rolleyes:

[Sentinel]

hello! i dislike multiculturalism.

give me some advantages of multiculturalism and ill tell you what i think about them(cos i dont think there are any).

How about you tell us a little about your own beliefs first. After all, you are the one making a positive assertion here -- that 'multiculturalism' somehow is a bad thing. It's thus your 'job' to provide arguments to try to justify this assertion, not ours to disprove it.

So why you dislike 'multiculturalism', how do you define it, and what are it's disadvantages according to you? And what do you think should be done about it?

[danyboy27]

look like the stormfront party van has arrived.

[Rangi]

What other option is there apart from multiculturalism?

[ComradeOm]

What other option is there apart from multiculturalism?Integration and assimilation. Not the same thing, despite what some would argue

Timely enough, I've just finished a general history of 20th C France and one particular thing that jumped out at me was the degree to which "multiculturalism" is regarded as something of a dirty word there - implying first and foremost distinct communities living in near isolation. Yet the same term can be used to describe France's undoubtedly rich culture that draws extensively from many diverse origins. So definitions are needed before this discussion goes any further

Edit: And with the first definition I would certainly agree with the OP. Any 'multicultural' policy that leads to two essentially self-contained societies within the one city/country is hardly admirable by any standard. Certainly not one that insists on working class unity. Such policies inevitably, albeit inadvertently, result to 'ghettoisation' which is a real problem throughout Europe, even France

[Dimentio]

That depends on how you define multiculturalism.

If multiculturalism mean that we have an area inhabitated by several different communities which are pursuing their own lives and happiness without forcing anyone to be a part of the community or attacking other communities (physically or instigating to violence), then I am all for it.

If multiculturalism means that each community is going to have its own laws within the same territory, and that we may not criticise archaic customs like gender mutiliation or honour killings, then I am all for integration/assimilation.

Some social customs are just revolting and needs to be put a stop with.

In the Rwandan civil war, war-criminals used to say that it was a part of Hutu culture to kill Tutsis. Therefore, it would be racist to prosecute them.

I think that Dixies who lynched coloured people in the south also thought it was terrible of the federal government to ban lynching, that "glorious" part of southern culture.

This is one of the reasons that I am wary of anti-imperialism, as I have seen that many anti-imperialists often confuse the cause of liberation with archaic cultural customs existing on ground in the area to be liberated (just see the excuses for various islamist factions today).

[RGacky3]

when you try to 'control' culture it stops being culture, either way, either forced intigration or forced seperation or whatever.

Culture flows naturally it changes, its the way of the world, as the world changes cultures change, thats all there is to it.

multiculturalism is something that happens naturally when cultures are around each other, its not positive or negative, its just the way of the world.

[Trystan]

Unless you are interested in different cultures (as I am) there are no "advantages", and there are no disadvantages either.

[ComradeOm]

when you try to 'control' culture it stops being cultureAnd then what, pray tell, does it then become?

[graffic]

What other option is there apart from multiculturalism?

Nationalism

[danyboy27]

Nationalism

wich lead to my main reasonning concerning the OP of this topic.
he a troll coming from stormfront.

its just amazing that nobody here noticed that already.

[RGacky3]

And then what, pray tell, does it then become?

Law. :p. Artificial culture.

[Raúl Duke]

Don't see the deal...assimilation always seems to happen to a degree no matter what.
Usually those that have a problem about "multiculturalism" hurl the word/overblown "bogeyman" around so to rally up some anti-immigrant/xenophobia crap.

[Hokuto]

wich lead to my main reasonning concerning the OP of this topic.
he a troll coming from stormfront.

its just amazing that nobody here noticed that already.

incorrect.

however

there are two different types of trolls i know of. one is to post inflammatory threads and never come back or continue to post shit,

the other is to 'sneak' in mentions of ideas, arguments, viewpoints, bands, the truth

i havent done either and not really tried the 2nd, although, i have i asked some very relevant questions which as of now have yet to be answered.

i have been polite, people have been unable to directly confront my arguments or are unable to recognize new ideas, instead linking anti-multiculturalism with stormfront(as spetznaz has just done) or overpopulation with fascism/primitivism.

by the way... i hope i dont sound annoying or anything, but

nobody has posted any advantages of multiculturalism.

[Hokuto]

wich lead to my main reasonning concerning the OP of this topic.
he a troll coming from stormfront.

its just amazing that nobody here noticed that already.

incorrect.

however

there are two different types of trolls i know of. one is to post inflammatory threads and never come back or continue to post shit,

the other is to 'sneak' in mentions of ideas, arguments, viewpoints, bands, the truth, as to entice the forum member into thinking... "hmm.. perhaps he is right?" and whet their appetite for more information leading to the agenda of the troll

i havent done either and not really tried the 2nd, although, i have i asked some very relevant questions which as of now have yet to be answered.

i have been polite, people have been unable to directly confront my arguments or are unable to recognize new ideas, instead linking anti-multiculturalism with stormfront(as spetznaz has just done) or overpopulation with fascism/primitivism.

by the way... i hope i dont sound annoying or anything, but

nobody has posted any advantages of multiculturalism.

[S.O.I]

nobody has posted any advantages of multiculturalism.

the more cultures the better!

[Hokuto]

the more cultures the better!

haha. nah. i believe all cultures deserve respect, and i think disrespect is to take cultures all over the world and stuff them in the same town and let it turn to shit. multiculturalist towns lack the strong communities of the unique less globalized towns. i love cultures so i think they deserve to be left alone :)

[Invincible Summer]

The problem with multiculturalism is that it is often based on stereotypes, superficial gestures and leads to tokenism. That is, a city is considered "multicultural" if Chinese people are allowed to have their Dragon dances and sweet and sour pork and Chinese New Year celebrations, and if the mayor dresses up in traditional Chinese clothing to show "solidarity" with the Chinese community.

Multicultural policies also tend to blind society to structural problems and instead focuses on "accepting diversity" at an individual level.

[ibn Bruce]

The assumption is that Multiculturalism is somehow out of the norm, can somehow be a 'policy' or a situation, rather than simply being a product of the world in which we live. There is no such thing as a monocultural society, no 'pure' nation, all such things are illusions. The British, if we see the term in the context of 'greater Britain' is multicultural, was multicultural even before the arrival of immigrants from the colonies. The Angles, the Saxons, the Romans, the French, the Vikings, the Celts, the Normans, the Irish, Scottish etc. etc. all form what constitutes being 'British'. Similarly, the idea that Australia or America is somehow mono-cultural is ignorant in turn, there is no 'purity' in Australian or American cultural practice, all aspects of such societies constitute some form of appropriation.

Multiculturalism is not a policy, it is a reality of an interconnected world. If you are Anglo Saxon, you are the decendants of immigrants whether you like it or not. The Angles and the Saxons both came into England as conquerors and then became conquered by the Normans in turn. Even your language (English) is a mosaic of everything from Arabic to French via Latin.

So complaing about Multiculturalism is like complaining about gravity, no matter how much you complain, you will still be standing there with your multicultural shoes firmly planted on the ground.



Of course in turn, trying to turn multiculturalism into some kind of tokenistic food court extravaganza is both rediculous and patronising. The world is all colours, its the way it is, being all enthusiastic about it just shows how much you think about it. The fixation is weird, yeah sometimes I don robes, move on.

[revolution inaction]

haha. nah. i believe all cultures deserve respect,

i don't, lots of cultures are shit and should be got rid off.

[Pogue]

Although you're right to be highly suspectful. wary and critical of someone when they say they don't limke multi-cultralism, as its often from a far right perspective, there are some left-wing anti-racist arguments against multi-culturalism in its more specific definition, i.e. arguments that it creates segregation, and should be abandoned in favour of integration and what not. These arguments come from an anti-racist perspective and are vlaid, but the whole 'it takes away our culture, etc' bollocks should be condemned (obviously).

[ibn Bruce]

i don't, lots of cultures are shit and should be got rid off.

Surely it is up to those within the culture to decide whether or not their culture is shit or not, rather than for one to impose from outside your values of what constitutes shit or not?

I mean its one thing having an opinion based upon difference, its another advocating 'getting rid' of cultures whom have differences that offend you. To do so is in a sense to deny the humanity or faculty of those within the culture in question. It is to assume that you have a specific monopoly on what is or isn't ok, and that implies that you have some ability beyond or above those whom you disagree with, which, especially for an anarchist I believe is a fairly problematic assumption.


Unless you are being sarcastic, which is what I shall assume :D rather it is for those who may see and agree with your sarcastic comment.

[danyboy27]

Multiculturalism have the main advantage of contributing to society progress, different cultures, differents way of thinking together mean differents perspectives that will eventually lead to progress in science, medecine, architecture, fashion.
differents cultures also lead to more diversity in many recreational field, and lead to make people more happy: differents sports, differents types of cinema, new recreational activities, it also give to it population a more diverse view of this world.

[#FF0000]

haha. nah. i believe all cultures deserve respect, and i think disrespect is to take cultures all over the world and stuff them in the same town and let it turn to shit. multiculturalist towns lack the strong communities of the unique less globalized towns. i love cultures so i think they deserve to be left alone :)

What a ridiculous position. Human migration and the cultural changes that occur as a result is a totally natural phenomenon. People move. They have legs, you see. And they also have brains, in which they keep all sorts of neat things like ideas and language and music. Oh but that isn't all! The humans with legs like to use them, and so they move around a lot. Sometimes, they meet people who are different from them, even! And they communicate!

Also, why don't you explain why it's "disrespectful" for cultures to meet and intermingle? And where do you get the idea that people are forcing cultures to meet? Like I said, people have been traveling to foreign land since the dawn of human existence. Force only comes into play here when you try to stop this from happening.

[RGacky3]

Asking the advantages of multiculturalism is like asking the advantage of mixing Italian style food with another style, there are not advantages or disadvantages, its just different. Or like music, when you mix 2 different styles you get a different style. Its not about advantages and disadvantages like Rorschach said, its a natural phenomenon, culture and the mixing of cultures.


i don't, lots of cultures are shit and should be got rid off.

By who?

[Raúl Duke]

I would also like to add that cultures change...
That is all.

[JohnnyC]

I don't support multiculturalism.I support mixing all cultures until only one, global culture, remains.Which is already happening due to internet and social globalization.

[RGacky3]

I don't support multiculturalism.I support mixing all cultures until only one, global culture, remains.Which is already happening due to internet and social globalization.


Yeah, its called MTV and Mcdonalds.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't support multiculturalism.I support mixing all cultures until only one, global culture, remains.Which is already happening due to internet and social globalization.

I don't think, at least from my current perspective in the year 2009, that this is 100% possible...but in a way due to the internet and social globalization we are seeing people accept foreign culture (or, at least, expand their knowledge of it), however usually in their own terms. One example could be Japan, it has borrowed a bit of Western/American culture but usually in the process of borrowing it they made it somewhat their own.

[Vanguard1917]

We have to differentiate between the reality of 'multiculturalism' and the political project of multiculturalism.

The reality of 'multiculturalism' -- the fact that societies contain people from different cultural, racial and ethnic backgrounds -- is, of course, not a bad thing. It enriches society and makes it a more cosmopolitan place. It creates opportunities to establish stronger bonds between people from all over the world.

It's multiculturalism as a political outlook -- one which emphasises human difference and diversity over human commonality, and which insists that difference should be 'celebrated' and promoted as an end in itself -- that should be criticised. As ComradeOm pointed out, such an outlook has the effect of encouraging the further ghettoisation of society and the promotion of social divisions within the working class.

[RGacky3]

The reality of 'multiculturalism' -- the fact that societies contain people from different cultural, racial and ethnic backgrounds -- is, of course, not a bad thing. It enriches society and makes it a more cosmopolitan place. It creates opportunities to establish stronger bonds between people from all over the world.

It's multiculturalism as a political outlook -- one which emphasises human difference and diversity over human commonality, and which insists that difference should be 'celebrated' and promoted as an end in itself -- that should be criticised. As ComradeOm pointed out, such an outlook has the effect of encouraging the further ghettoisation of society and the promotion of social divisions within the working class.

I agree, ultimately no matter what multiculturalism does, it really does'nt matter, its pointless to try and politicize it.

[ibn Bruce]

I think that 'policies of multiculturalism' are often total bull. I believe Asian Dub Foundation said 'you're multicultural, we're anti-racist'. Policies of multiculturalism end up being resigned to the food court and paper over the real issues faced by minorities amongst a dominant culture.

Also, I think anyone who believes that a homogenous 'world' culture will somehow emerge needs to think long and hard about it. Systems of power and oppression are replicated in cultural interaction. The impact of Egyptian culture in the US is nothing compared to the impact of US culture in Egypt. The power balance is vastly different. Any 'global culture' will be one defined by the dominant cultural force, not in validity (as no culture is superior) but in economic power.

[RGacky3]

Systems of power and oppression are replicated in cultural interaction. The impact of Egyptian culture in the US is nothing compared to the impact of US culture in Egypt. The power balance is vastly different. Any 'global culture' will be one defined by the dominant cultural force, not in validity (as no culture is superior) but in economic power.

Your absolutely right, American Culture dominates because American Business dominates, during the Roman empire, Greco-Roman culture dominated, Same during the british empire.

Culture is ultimatly a natural reflection of many different things, power being one of them, so any attempt to control is is futile, culture follows the circumstances, not the other way around.

[rioters bloc]

i don't, lots of cultures are shit and should be got rid off.

Care to extrapolate on which cultures you're referring to, and how we should go about getting rid of them?

:)

[revolution inaction]

Care to extrapolate on which cultures you're referring to, and how we should go about getting rid of them?

:)

Cultures which are sexist, racist that sort of thing. They should be got rid of by people abandoning them and encouraging others to do so to.

[rioters bloc]

Cultures which are sexist, racist that sort of thing. They should be got rid of by people abandoning them and encouraging others to do so to.

I would say that most all cultures have sexist and racist elements within them, or at the very least there exist racist and sexist people who are part of the culture who push their bigoted views and use culture as a justification. So if people were to "abandon" their cultures (not sure how one would go about doing this on a practical level) they wouldn't really have anywhere to go..

Perhaps the issue is trying to get rid of racism and sexism etc. generally, and not eradicating individual cultures.

[revolution inaction]

Surely it is up to those within the culture to decide whether or not their culture is shit or not, rather than for one to impose from outside your values of what constitutes shit or not?

I mean its one thing having an opinion based upon difference, its another advocating 'getting rid' of cultures whom have differences that offend you. To do so is in a sense to deny the humanity or faculty of those within the culture in question. It is to assume that you have a specific monopoly on what is or isn't ok, and that implies that you have some ability beyond or above those whom you disagree with, which, especially for an anarchist I believe is a fairly problematic assumption.


Unless you are being sarcastic, which is what I shall assume :D rather it is for those who may see and agree with your sarcastic comment.

I don't understand your reply, do you think all ideas and philosophies are equal?
Do you think a culture where women are inferior to men is as good as one where sexual discrimination is unacceptable?
Are you saying I shouldn't be be offended by racial discrimination because its part of someone else's culture and so none of my business?

[RGacky3]

I don't understand your reply, do you think all ideas and philosophies are equal?
Do you think a culture where women are inferior to men is as good as one where sexual discrimination is unacceptable?
Are you saying I shouldn't be be offended by racial discrimination because its part of someone else's culture and so none of my business?

A culture is not a philosophy, its not thought out, its not planned, its a way of life, theres a difference, cultures follow many factors, one being the dominant philosophy. So attacking a philosophy is ont thing, but attacking a culture is pointless, cuilture is just a way of life, that reflects the enviroment.


Cultures which are sexist, racist that sort of thing. They should be got rid of by people abandoning them and encouraging others to do so to.

Exactly, which, when circumstances change, will happen naturally.

[ibn Bruce]

I don't understand your reply, do you think all ideas and philosophies are equal?
Do you think a culture where women are inferior to men is as good as one where sexual discrimination is unacceptable?
Are you saying I shouldn't be be offended by racial discrimination because its part of someone else's culture and so none of my business?
Ideas and philosophies are different to 'culture', the assumption that there is no separation is extremely problematic. Secondly, the assumption of superiority is even more so, you assume that such things are not prevalent in every culture, which is blatantly wrong. I would say that if anarchism or socialism are 'cultures' (which they can't accurately be described as) then there are just as many racists and sexists as in any other 'culture'.

Culture does not oppress people, individuals do.

[Jazzratt]

Ideas and philosophies are different to 'culture', the assumption that there is no separation is extremely problematic.

What is a culture but a set of shared philosophies, attitudes and ideas? Or are we playing the game where words mean whatever the hell you want them to?


Secondly, the assumption of superiority is even more so, you assume that such things are not prevalent in every culture, which is blatantly wrong.

Yes but in some cultures they exist to a far greater extent than in others. Some cultures are more enthusiastically anti-choice (white christian culture in america for example), some have a less than enlightened approach to cutting up people's genitals (Islamic somali culture, jewish culture) and still others have backward views on new arrivals in a nation ("middle england"). Spineless relativism doesn't change this and these aspects of the cultures should be eradicated. This isn't to say that each culture that supports these ideas doesn't provide anything positive or that there is indeed a flawless culture but that cultures can and should be improved.


I would say that if anarchism or socialism are 'cultures' (which they can't accurately be described as) then there are just as many racists and sexists as in any other 'culture'.

I'm sure you would. But since you can't qualify your statement then you're just blowing smoke out of your arsehole.


Culture does not oppress people, individuals do.

This has to be one of the most mind damagingly stupid sentences I've had the misfortune of seeing in this forum. Individuals don't do squat, even the most cursory of glances at history proves this. Societies, systems, classes and, yes, cultures can oppress people. Individuals are simply too small a unit to matter, even tyrants and dictators are simply inevitable extensions of their material circumstances.

[revolution inaction]

A culture is not a philosophy, its not thought out, its not planned, its a way of life, theres a difference, cultures follow many factors, one being the dominant philosophy. So attacking a philosophy is ont thing, but attacking a culture is pointless, cuilture is just a way of life, that reflects the enviroment.


Culture includes philosophy, and not all ways of life are equally acceptable.
It seems you want to define culture as just the nice or harmless differences between people and put any bad stuff out side of culture, the thing is culture includes bad stuff as well as good.

[RGacky3]

Culture includes philosophy, and not all ways of life are equally acceptable.
It seems you want to define culture as just the nice or harmless differences between people and put any bad stuff out side of culture, the thing is culture includes bad stuff as well as good.

Culture may include philosophy, but like I said, culture is a reflection of circumstances, if you want to change the circumstances change the circumstances, trying to attack the culture is like trying to attack a shadow.

[revolution inaction]

Culture may include philosophy, but like I said, culture is a reflection of circumstances, if you want to change the circumstances change the circumstances, trying to attack the culture is like trying to attack a shadow.

Peoples attitudes and actions are determine by circumstances to a significant extent. By your logic we shouldn't challenge people who have reactionary ideas or who behave in a reactionary way.

[RGacky3]

By your logic we shouldn't challenge people who have reactionary ideas or who behave in a reactionary way.

Not really, if you think it effective to go around "Challenging" people, then you have something else comming. Our goal is'nt to challenge people, its to empower the workers to take matters into their own hands, but also wrong ideas (I won't say reactionary) about certain things, such as what socialism is, the nature of captalism and the state and so forth should obviously be addressed, but in a humble way, and only to show them that they should stand up for themselves.

Its not a leftists job to be going around preaching to people about how reactionary they are or their ideas are, thats the job of self righteous douche bags.

[revolution inaction]

Not really, if you think it effective to go around "Challenging" people, then you have something else comming. Our goal is'nt to challenge people, its to empower the workers to take matters into their own hands, but also wrong ideas (I won't say reactionary) about certain things, such as what socialism is, the nature of captalism and the state and so forth should obviously be addressed, but in a humble way, and only to show them that they should stand up for themselves.

Its not a leftists job to be going around preaching to people about how reactionary they are or their ideas are, thats the job of self righteous douche bags.

I wouldn't call my self a leftist, but I didn't say any thing about preaching to people, nor did i say anything to make it look like i thought we should.

But are you saying that if some one is racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever you think we shouldn't say any thing cause that would make us "self righteous douche bags"?

[RGacky3]

But are you saying that if some one is racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever you think we shouldn't say any thing cause that would make us "self righteous douche bags"?

Well your right there, but there is a fine line, for example, saying I was in South Africa talking to white workers or black workers, I probably would'nt bring up racism, I would focus on class struggle, why? Because lecturing them on integration could make me come off as a "self-rightous douche bag", why? Because I'm not in their situation. Another example would be the sexism in some fundamentalist muslim sects, again I generally would'nt bring it up, I might talk about racism and class struggle, but I would'nt lecture them on sexism, because of how it might come off.

Our goal is'nt to confront people, its to help empower them against oppressors.

But there is a difference between confrontong sexism and racism (which I agree is compleatly appropriate at different times) and trying to change peoples cultures.

[ibn Bruce]

What is a culture but a set of shared philosophies, attitudes and ideas? Or are we playing the game where words mean whatever the hell you want them to?

No culture is monolithic or static. Which is the assumption. Were I to describe American culture, or 'Western' culture as something without nuance or change, you would see me as an ignorant fool. Yet this is the assumption that is made, Somali culture is one thing, Islamic culture is one thing etc. etc. but they are not. Culture is constantly changing, adapting and moving.


Yes but in some cultures they exist to a far greater extent than in others. Some cultures are more enthusiastically anti-choice (white christian culture in america for example), some have a less than enlightened approach to cutting up people's genitals (Islamic somali culture, jewish culture) and still others have backward views on new arrivals in a nation ("middle england"). Spineless relativism doesn't change this and these aspects of the cultures should be eradicated. This isn't to say that each culture that supports these ideas doesn't provide anything positive or that there is indeed a flawless culture but that cultures can and should be improved.

Improved by whom? Who defines what is a flawed culture? You? The UN? The US? It is not a case of pick: 'spineless relativism', or imperialist universalism. People are people, and more than capable of deciding WHAT defines their own culture. To talk about flawed cultures is to imply that a: you possess perfect culture yourself and b: the people within that culture are themselves flawed for coming to such assumptions.


I'm sure you would. But since you can't qualify your statement then you're just blowing smoke out of your arsehole.

Under your definition of culture, anarchism and socialism are both. Or even one culture (rev-left). In this culture I see so much homophobia, HUGE amounts of sexism, racism and ignorance. I so often see a patronising imperialist, white, middle class and with the good luck to get an education, posturing as though He speaks for the mass of the working class. How many on this forum are male and white? Yet no doubt most of them believe they know what is for the good of everyone, even people whos life experience is the exact opposite of theirs. A lot of the left come off as a bunch of patronising, arrogant, self righteous jerks. And I am probably one of them! However they are as much a product of their culture as anyone else, and thus I do not believe they have the incapacity to realise how they look and change it. If they do not, that is the way it is.

People are so used to speaking in theory that they forget the products of their belief. All this talk of flawed cultures is the exact same rhetoric used from Falastin to Kakadu.


This has to be one of the most mind damagingly stupid sentences I've had the misfortune of seeing in this forum. Individuals don't do squat, even the most cursory of glances at history proves this. Societies, systems, classes and, yes, cultures can oppress people. Individuals are simply too small a unit to matter, even tyrants and dictators are simply inevitable extensions of their material circumstances.
If that was what you got from it, that reflects your understanding of it, not my meaning. How is it that you can believe that people are a product of the 'inevitable extensions of their material circumstances' and yet believe that culture is not included in this? What is culture if not a reflection of societal conditions? Does not culture change with the conditions of a society? Are not polygamous relationships most prevalent in societies where warfare is commonplace and there are many war widows? Do not birth rates increase with lower economic status? Yet it is these things we identify with culture.. one cannot try and 'change' culture while situation remains static.

For all I know that is what you are saying? But it doesn't appear like that. For all the random reader knows you support every 'intervention' from the Northern Territory in Australia to the War in Iraq.

[spice756]

Culture includes philosophy, and not all ways of life are equally acceptable.
It seems you want to define culture as just the nice or harmless differences between people and put any bad stuff out side of culture, the thing is culture includes bad stuff as well as good.


A culture is a way of life ,type of food ,music,dress and custom.It has nothing to do with religion.

If they are racist, sexist, homophobic ,religious extremist that is not culture .

[RGacky3]

Or even one culture (rev-left). In this culture I see so much homophobia, HUGE amounts of sexism, racism and ignorance. I so often see a patronising imperialist, white, middle class and with the good luck to get an education, posturing as though He speaks for the mass of the working class.

Really? Damn, well if your pissed off at rev-left and you think revleft is biggoted wait till you get to the outside world, man your gonna loose your head.


People are so used to speaking in theory that they forget the products of their belief.

A better cretique of the left could'nt be given, some people are always talking in theory and the such to the point to where they almost ignore real situations and real life.


one cannot try and 'change' culture while situation remains static.

Again, Could'nt have said it better myself.


A culture is a way of life ,type of food ,music,dress and custom.It has nothing to do with religion.

If they are racist, sexist, homophobic ,religious extremist that is not culture .

Yes it is, you can't define things based on whether or not you like it.

[ibn Bruce]

A culture is a way of life ,type of food ,music,dress and custom.It has nothing to do with religion.

Why then do Christian, Atheist, even socialist Arabs say 'alhamdulillah' most of the time when they are asked how they are? (meaning all praise is due to God, I am well). I honestly think that is an outrageous claim


If they are racist, sexist, homophobic ,religious extremist that is not culture .
So what is not culture is the things that you don't like?


Really? Damn, well if your pissed off at rev-left and you think revleft is biggoted wait till you get to the outside world, man your gonna loose your head.
The 'outside world' doesn't pretend to be anything but what it is, I feel like the left does.

I find it easier to deal with the hatred of those I expect nothing better of, than the hatred of those who claim to accept me.