"Know Racism" campaign

Biffa Bacon

What do people think about this "Know Racism" campaign? Personally I think it's the most idiotic example of state propaganda since the "Cool Choices" website. There was an ad in the Irish Times yesterday with a picture of an aul wan and a Chinese doctor. The slogan said, "What do you see, a foreigner or a doctor?" Puh-lease. Who comes up with this patronising rubbish and why haven't they been fired yet?

I won't even talk about the leaflet I got in the door a few months ago, informing me I had to go out and make immigrants feel welcome.

mike65

BB, I'd say plenty of ppl here need that sort of gentle reminder.

Getting the tone and content right is nearly impossible either you'll be condemed for being, as you put it, patronising or being to
diffident and low-key.

Mike.

yossarin

having looked at the site, I'd say it's pretty decent.

its a decent effort at a good cause, at at the very worst it is harmless. Thanks Biffa - i wouldn't have been able to lend my support to it if you hadn't drawn it to our attention.

rock on !

yoss

BuffyBot

Originally posted by mike65
BB, I'd say plenty of ppl here need that sort of gentle reminder.

Getting the tone and content right is nearly impossible either you'll be condemed for being, as you put it, patronising or being to
diffident and low-key.

Mike.

Have to agree here. Some action is better than no action. At least is something, which may provoke some people to think. If it does that much, thats useful

Biffa Bacon

From the Know Racism website:

RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion faced by minority ethnic groups.

Only minorities eh? So apartheid wasn’t racist then?

RACISM is based on the false belief that "some" races are inherently superior to others because of different skin colour, nationality, ethnic or cultural background.

The word “false” here exemplifies the Orwellian abuse of language employed by these people. No one’s opinion on this can be considered “false”, rather the use of this word is intended to stifle all debate on the issue in a classically fascist manner.

RACISM deprives people of their basic human rights, dignity and respect

No it doesn’t. Certain racially-motivated acts may constitute a denial of human rights, but racial beliefs in and of themselves do not. Of course, this is just a flagrant attempt to indoctrinate the proles with leftist ideology by declaring certain thoughts to be “badthink”.

Ireland is increasingly a multicultural society. This is a strength

Not in my opinion it’s not. Why is taxpayers’ money being used to fund a propaganda campaign exclusively in favour of one side of a contentious national political issue? And why is the issue of multiculturalism being brought up at all if not so as to implicitly equate opposition to multiculturalism with racism?

What is Racist Behaviour?
Racist behaviour can take the form of jokes or hurtful remarks, outright racist insult, persistent verbal harassment, threatening behaviour, injury to person or damage to property, racist phone calls, letters or e-mails. It can also be manifested by deliberately snubbing, avoiding or omitting to include a person or persons because of their race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin.

Wow thanks for that. And I was wondering why my friend Umbangwe stopped talking to me after I kept doing those monkey impressions whenever there were other white people around. I was being racist!
:rolleyes:

Can anyone really tell me that this sort of nonsense is a justifiable use of taxpayers’ money?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by mike65
BB, I'd say plenty of ppl here need that sort of gentle reminder.

Getting the tone and content right is nearly impossible either you'll be condemed for being, as you put it, patronising or being to
diffident and low-key.

Mike.

"Gentle" reminder? It's as subtle as a sledgehammer to the nuts.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by BuffyBot
At least is something, which may provoke some people to think.

But who could possibly be that stupid?

sceptre

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But who could possibly be that stupid?

I'd say over half of the population, but then I've little faith in the majority of people to have an opinion of their own based on some kind of fact.

yossarin

so, by your account Biffa, the Know Racism site is "classically fascist" and also exists in order to "indoctrinate the proles with leftist ideology".

in any event, the front section of the site (the entry page) is heavy handed in its views, but the rest of the site is fair in it asessments. They are calling for understanding, or at the very least an open mind. Not everybody thinks like you Biffa.

I would consider the site a valid use of government money, not the least for its community building efforts

rock less slightly on

yoss

Shinji

Only minorities eh? So apartheid wasn’t racist then?

Given that this is a campaign focused on Ireland, that's an entirely fair statement in context.

The word “false” here exemplifies the Orwellian abuse of language employed by these people. No one’s opinion on this can be considered “false”, rather the use of this word is intended to stifle all debate on the issue in a classically fascist manner.

Nobody's opinion is false, as such (well, except yours, but those who live under bridges are a bit like that eh Biffa?) - however BELIEFS can indeed be false. You know - like, the earth is flat, if you sail too far out to sea you fall off the edge of the world, black people are less intelligent than white people and they all steal. Things like that.

Of course, this is just a flagrant attempt to indoctrinate the proles with leftist ideology by declaring certain thoughts to be “badthink”.

"Leftist ideology"? Like, "hey, how about treating other people decently for a change"? Jesus christ, I'm not much of a leftie but I'll sure as hell sign up to that one.

Why is taxpayers’ money being used to fund a propaganda campaign exclusively in favour of one side of a contentious national political issue? And why is the issue of multiculturalism being brought up at all if not so as to implicitly equate opposition to multiculturalism with racism?

So now the mistreatment of people on the basis of the colour of their skin is a "contentious national political issue"? Bollocks. A "total national fúcking disgrace", maybe. And as to the question of multiculturalism, well, were it not for the increasingly multicultural nature of Ireland this wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Whether you agree with multiculturalism or not (and I have reservations myself), racism is still one hundred percent unacceptable. That's not a debatable issue. The ignorant scumbag telling black people or oriental people on the bus to "fúck off back where you came from" isn't a protest against multiculturalism, it's a demonstration of utterly disgusting stupidity and bigotry. Relatively intelligent (and I use the term loosely) people like yourself coming out with this kind of rubbish only lends support to actions like this - and it's on exactly those grounds, the "intelligent" justification of racism, that parties like the BNP exist.

I hope you're very proud.

Turnip

I doubt that Biffa has actually ever read 1984. The word "badthink" certainly doesn't appear in it.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But who could possibly be that stupid?

As sceptre said, a surprisingly amount of people in the country...

dathi1

More money wasted on promoting PC bull**** which would be better spent on health care, etc where there is real discrimination.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
More money wasted on promoting PC bull**** which would be better spent on health care, etc where there is real discrimination.

Sure...let me guess...its not affecting you so the money should be spent elsewhere???

If the government will not protect minorities, who will?

As for Biffa's tirade.....I'm trying to decide whether I believe it is trolling or just plain ignorance. I certainly havent heard anyone argue so racistly since I banned our good friend Mr. White.

I mean, after analysing the language for petty syntactical flaws, Biffa would have us blindly belief that "racial beliefs" equate to racism :

RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion...

RACISM deprives people of their basic human rights, dignity and respect

No it doesn’t. Certain racially-motivated acts may constitute a denial of human rights, but racial beliefs in and of themselves do not.

If you read the language used, Biffa, you will notice that it states that Racism involves discrimination and exclusion - neither of which you disagree with. These are not beliefs, they are actions. Therefore, while you can argue all you like that beliefs do not deny human rights...the acting on such beliefs is what is being discussed here, and these actions most certainly do deny human rights, dignity and respect.

Let me guess though...just like your "99% of knackers" comment in another thread recently, I've taken you up wrong here, and there's actually nothing inflammatory (or brane-dead) in what you're saying....or rather, in what you're implying....cause you couldnt bother explaining it in a detailed fashion first time round.

jc

Victor

I think it should actually have a higher profile than it has at the moment.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by yossarin
They are calling for understanding, or at the very least an open mind.

They are not calling for an open mind, they are presenting their subjective opinions as facts and are insisting that certain forms of behaviour are obligatory for all citizens.

I would consider the site a valid use of government money, not the least for its community building efforts

I am mystified as to how this campaign is supposed to “build communities”. Are there really people out there who were previously racist and whose minds have now been changed by it?

Originally posted by Shinji
Given that this is a campaign focused on Ireland, that's an entirely fair statement in context.

OK, so racism means one thing in Ireland and something else in South Africa? Or is it that non-white races are physically incapable of doing anything racist? Or is it that you hold non-whites to lower moral standards than whites?

Nobody's opinion is false, as such (well, except yours, but those who live under bridges are a bit like that eh Biffa?) - however BELIEFS can indeed be false. You know - like, the earth is flat, if you sail too far out to sea you fall off the edge of the world, black people are less intelligent than white people and they all steal. Things like that.

Please explain to me how you could objectively either prove or disprove the belief that "some" races are inherently superior to others because of different skin colour, nationality, ethnic or cultural background. To declare that such a belief is “false” is an abuse of language and points at an attempt to indoctrinate the reader with a specific ideology.

"Leftist ideology"? Like, "hey, how about treating other people decently for a change"? Jesus christ, I'm not much of a leftie but I'll sure as hell sign up to that one.

The ideology they are trying to promote is that multiculturalism is good and those who oppose it are racist.

So now the mistreatment of people on the basis of the colour of their skin is a "contentious national political issue"?

No, the belief that “multiculturalism is a strength” is the contentious national political issue.

The ignorant scumbag telling black people or oriental people on the bus to "fúck off back where you came from" isn't a protest against multiculturalism, it's a demonstration of utterly disgusting stupidity and bigotry.

I agree. Of course, when I call such people “knackers”, people like bonkey bite the head off me and call me a troll. “Scumbag” is obviously much better.

Originally posted by Turnip
I doubt that Biffa has actually ever read 1984. The word "badthink" certainly doesn't appear in it.

Seems you’re right Turnip. Could’ve sworn it did. Oh well.

Originally posted by BuffyBot
As sceptre said, a surprisingly amount of people in the country...

What I was asking was if there was any so stupid that they would only start questioning their racism as a result of this patronising campaign.

Originally posted by bonkey
If the government will not protect minorities, who will?

The government is not protecting minorities. This campaign does nothing to dissuade racially-motivated behaviour. At present, there is very little danger of anyone who verbally abuses minorities on the street facing legal sanction as a result of their actions.

I certainly havent heard anyone argue so racistly since I banned our good friend Mr. White.

Thanks bonkey. But I don’t suppose you could point out any racist arguments I’ve used on this thread, apart from “RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion faced by minority ethnic groups” because I was just quoting the website there, it wasn’t actually my own opinion.

I mean, after analysing the language for petty syntactical flaws, Biffa would have us blindly belief that "racial beliefs" equate to racism

I’m sorry, I would have thought that that was the common understanding of the word “racism”, that it relates to a belief-system.
From the Concise OED:
racism a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

If you read the language used, Biffa, you will notice that it states that Racism involves discrimination and exclusion - neither of which you disagree with. These are not beliefs, they are actions. Therefore, while you can argue all you like that beliefs do not deny human rights...the acting on such beliefs is what is being discussed here, and these actions most certainly do deny human rights, dignity and respect.

Fine, I’ll concede the point, once we recognise I was using a different definition of “racism” to that used on the website.

As for my not disagreeing with discrimination and exclusion, I don’t object to them per se as they are a corollary of the right to free association. Neither do I object per se to laws outlawing discrimination and exclusion in the public arena. What I do object to is publically-funded campaigns telling me, in an exceptionally condescending manner, how to think and behave, while simultaneously promoting a political agenda (i.e. multiculturalism) that I disagree with.

Let me guess though...just like your "99% of knackers" comment in another thread recently…

The one you’ve just quoted incorrectly and which you didn’t substantively disagree with?

dathi1

here we go again....."The Know Racism" campaign to me seems like a over run, over hyped, and over budget waste of money which will do no favours for ethnic minorities. The real issues of discrimination in Irish society are to be seen around us in housing, health care etc. the priority of these campaigns (to me) seems to create an air of hype around supposed racist elements in our society. Irish people are not racist and we don't need some new quango set up under an umbrella of quasi do good / middle class / leftist D4/ Irish times people telling the rest of us that we're racist. I think the objective of these people which include unions etc..is to make people think that they are racist i.e.: thought criminals. ..for instance somebody (like myself) who would object to uncontrolled immigration. Unfortunately this newspeak thought criminal agenda is having some success...I was at a public meeting in driminagh in south Dublin last summer where residence were rightly concerned about local immigrants setting up a Muslim library in their area. They were immediately shouted down as racist by a rough element in the crowd well planted by local SF and labour members. Now...there's nothing wrong with setting up a Muslim library but some people were trying to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly that it might lead to a mosque with minarets and prayer calling 5 times a day in their area...problem was they didn't even get a chance to speak as they were heckled and booed by the thought police. Needless to say the gallery was very quiet after wards with people looking at each other to see who would dare question the hacks at the back. The local immigrants changed their minds later anyway.
Why not start a new campaign about discrimination against members of society like the homeless?, the sick?, the poor? we could call it Know Realism Campaign....but we couldnt have that could we.. D.

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
Now...there's nothing wrong with setting up a Muslim library but some people were trying to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly that it might lead to a mosque with minarets and prayer calling 5 times a day in their area...

(a) What does a library have to do with a mosque? - not a lot.
(b) Does the mosque in Clonskeagh have "prayer calling 5 times a day"? (Is it five times a day?) - no.
(c) Would these be the very people complaining if restrictions were put on bells tolling in a church - probably.
(d) Are these the people who cause a public nuisance coming home drunk from the pub after midnight - quite possibly.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Please explain to me how you could objectively either prove or disprove the belief that "some" races are inherently superior to others because of different skin colour, nationality, ethnic or cultural background.

Well, its actually simple. You start with an assertion : define clearly what is meant by superiority, and show that a particular race has this, through physical, mental, sociological testing etc.

Failure to do so implies that one race is not superior to another.

I think you will find that any balanced study will categorically fail to provide proof for any definition of superiority. Ergo, you cannot prove superiority.

You can also easily reverse this logic to disprove a base assumption of superiority.

I agree. Of course, when I call such people “knackers”, people like bonkey bite the head off me and call me a troll. “Scumbag” is obviously much better.

Knacker, as you are well aware from the multitude of times it has been brought up, is a colloquialism for an itinerant in much of Ireland. It may not be in your neighbourhood, but it has been pointed out on this forum previously. It is, at best, an ambiguous statement when taken in context with the expected audience. More probably, the interpretation taken would not be the one you intend. You are aware of this and yet persist in using the term openly. The only sense I can make of this is that you do so on the grounds that you know what you are referring to, so thats alright.

Scumbag, on the other hand, does not have any common alternate colloquial meanings that I am aware of. If you'd care to prove me wrong, I will - naturally - concede the point.

Thanks bonkey. But I don’t suppose you could point out any racist arguments I’ve used on this thread,

Certainly - your argument that racism does not undermine human rights, dignity, etc. Or, perhaps, your implication that the belief in the superiority of one race over another is a valid and acceptable one.

As with your 99% post, it takes at least one follow-up post for you to start explaining why those remarks that many took as inflammatory were, in fact, perfectly reasonable.....

Fine, I’ll concede the point, once we recognise I was using a different definition of “racism” to that used on the website.

Sure, I recognise that you read and quoted a definition, and then proceeded to use a completely different one.

As for my not disagreeing with discrimination and exclusion, I don’t object to them per se as they are a corollary of the right to free association.

You are directly implying here that it is fine to exclude based on any reason you like, and that this is somehow associated with "free association". So free association would make it alright for Dublin Bus to introduce "whites-only" buses? Any maybe we could have "whites-only" pubs n clubs. Yeah - freedom of association and all that. No racism here. Honest.

No, the belief that “multiculturalism is a strength” is the contentious national political issue.

And, you know, if that sentiment was expressed in any nation which had more than one dominant culture, it would be termed racism. In fact, your entire anti-multiculturalism stance would be classed as racism in a nation such as the US.

Funnily enough - werent you the one trying to say to Shinji that racism doesnt mean different things in different places? Or did I misunderstand your comment when you asked :

"OK, so racism means one thing in Ireland and something else in South Africa?"

So - whch is it? Your mono-cultural stance wouldnt be taken as racist in a multi-cultural nation, or racism means different things in different places?

The one you’ve just quoted incorrectly and which you didn’t substantively disagree with?

Sorry Biffa - your lines just arent memorable enough for me to care enough to memorise them verbatim.

jc

dathi1

(a) What does a library have to do with a mosque? - not a lot.

yer right..Nothing

(b) Does the mosque in Clonskeagh have "prayer calling 5 times a day"? (Is it five times a day?) - no.

no not from minarets or on loudhailers as agreed by council etc.

c) Would these be the very people complaining if restrictions were put on bells tolling in a church - probably.

no..but the host culture is predominantly Christian..wouldn't ask the Turks, Saudis, Yemenites or Iranians to do the same.

(d) Are these the people who cause a public nuisance coming home drunk from the pub after midnight - quite possibly.

I don't know...do u know them? is there something wrong with coming home drunk after being in the pub? or are we going to ban that aswell?..[joke hell we could go one step further and implement sharia law and have them flogged or stoned for being Irish and drunk /joke]

listen..none of the above is relevant to my argument..I'm expressing my concern freedom of thought and expression by Irish citizens on the immigrant issue without being thought criminals.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
I was at a public meeting in driminagh in south Dublin last summer where residence were rightly concerned about local immigrants setting up a Muslim library in their area.

Rightly concerned? What was so right about their paranoid concern?

Now...there's nothing wrong with setting up a Muslim library

Then why were these peoone rightly concerned?

but some people were trying to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly that it might lead to a mosque with minarets and prayer calling 5 times a day in their area...problem was they didn't even get a chance to speak as they were heckled and booed by the thought police.

And if these Muslim people tried opposing a new church being built in the area, I wonder how much respectful silence they'd be given to voice their concerns (rightly or wrongly).

Why not start a new campaign about discrimination against members of society like the homeless?, the sick?, the poor? we could call it Know Realism Campaign....but we couldnt have that could we.. D.

We could, but given the protests about a campaign which probably affects a larger number of people, and (I would imagine) leads to more violence....I doubt very much that anyone would be placated by the extra cost.

jc

p.s. Why is it posters are intimating that there is something incorrect in telling you what is not acceptable in society? Thought police? badthink? Leftist Ideology? Sheesh. Whats next? Ban teaching - its corrupting our minds by telling us what to think and how to think it? Give the soundbites a rest. Please.

dathi1

Rightly concerned? What was so right about their paranoid concern?

So now if you're concerened rightly or wrongly ..you're paronoid! so shut up and dont speak.

Then why were these peoone rightly concerned?

Because they have a right to be.

And if these Muslim people tried opposing a new church being built in the area, I wonder how much respectful silence they'd be given to voice their concerns (rightly or wrongly).

when in rome......

Why is it posters are intimating that there is something incorrect in telling you what is not acceptable in society?

Posters telling us that we're racist I have a problem with...its racist.
ps..any chance of not hitting the return button as much...the gaps scrool down the whole page.

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
(d) Are these the people who cause a public nuisance coming home drunk from the pub after midnight

Originally posted by dathi1
is there something wrong with coming home drunk after being in the pub?

Why did you misquote me - I said "public nuisance ... after midnight"? And, yes, there are health, safety and other reasons not to be drunk going home.

Originally posted by dathi1
or are we going to ban that aswell?..[joke hell we could go one step further and implement sharia law and have them flogged or stoned for being Irish and drunk /joke]

How is this a "joke"? all I am suggesting is that excessive drinking has contributed to the strong rise in crime here in the last few years.

dathi1

y did you misquote me - I said "public nuisance ... after midnight

ok..if thats the case I'll go back and tell them that anybody who objects to Muslim librarys in their area are liable to be drunk and a public nuisance after midnight.

How is this a "joke"? all I am suggesting is that excessive drinking has contributed to the strong rise in crime here in the last few years.

so it is..but do you really believe in sharia law?

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
but do you really believe in sharia law?

What relevance does this have to the topic? I don't know the ins and outs of sharia law, but I suspect, like other systems of laws it has it's good and bad points. However, I personally object to the extreme punishments used in it's name. My beliefs would be closer to what Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's"

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, its actually simple. You start with an assertion : define clearly what is meant by superiority, and show that a particular race has this, through physical, mental, sociological testing etc.

Failure to do so implies that one race is not superior to another.

I think you will find that any balanced study will categorically fail to provide proof for any definition of superiority. Ergo, you cannot prove superiority.

You can also easily reverse this logic to disprove a base assumption of superiority.

So if I were to define racial superiority as relating to say, average sprinting speed over 100m, I would expect to find no differences between races? Of course not. Using your proposal, we would expect to find that some races are superior to others, given whatever definition we use. The notion of racial superiority surely relates to indefinable and unmeasurable qualities, such as morality, intellectual ability, fitness to rule etc.

Knacker, as you are well aware from the multitude of times it has been brought up, is a colloquialism for an itinerant in much of Ireland. It may not be in your neighbourhood, but it has been pointed out on this forum previously. It is, at best, an ambiguous statement when taken in context with the expected audience. More probably, the interpretation taken would not be the one you intend. You are aware of this and yet persist in using the term openly. The only sense I can make of this is that you do so on the grounds that you know what you are referring to, so thats alright.

So despite the fact that you are fully aware of the context I use it in, and the context that most people in Ireland use it in, you still accuse me of trolling whenever I use it?

Certainly - your argument that racism does not undermine human rights, dignity, etc.

As you are also fully aware, that argument was based on the definition of racism as a belief-system, rather than as a mode of behaviour. You have not disputed that such a belief-system cannot in and of itself undermine human rights or human dignity.

Or, perhaps, your implication that the belief in the superiority of one race over another is a valid and acceptable one.

My implication was that the belief in the superiority of one race over another cannot be said to be objectively false. Your inference above is entirely baseless.

As with your 99% post, it takes at least one follow-up post for you to start explaining why those remarks that many took as inflammatory were, in fact, perfectly reasonable.....

You were the only one to take my 99% post as inflammatory, despite knowing full well the context in which I used the term you took offence to, and you did not substantively disagree with the opinions expressed therein, despite having described me as a troll and ignorant.

Sure, I recognise that you read and quoted a definition, and then proceeded to use a completely different one.

I defined the word as it is used and understood in everyday language. Pardon me.

You are directly implying here that it is fine to exclude based on any reason you like, and that this is somehow associated with "free association".

It is the very definition of free association. I am not making any moral judgments on discrimination here, rather I am asserting that this civil liberty of necessity guarantees the individual the right to discriminate and exclude.

So free association would make it alright for Dublin Bus to introduce "whites-only" buses?

As Dublin Bus is a semi-state body I would object to any move to introduce “whites-only” buses. If a privately-owned bus company were to segregate its buses, I would not use their services. Recognising the right to free association does not imply moral approval of choices made regarding who to associate with and who to exclude.

Any maybe we could have "whites-only" pubs n clubs. Yeah - freedom of association and all that. No racism here. Honest.

Such a policy would almost certainly be racially-motivated. What’s your point?

And, you know, if that sentiment was expressed in any nation which had more than one dominant culture, it would be termed racism. In fact, your entire anti-multiculturalism stance would be classed as racism in a nation such as the US.

By idiots.

Funnily enough - werent you the one trying to say to Shinji that racism doesnt mean different things in different places? Or did I misunderstand your comment when you asked :

"OK, so racism means one thing in Ireland and something else in South Africa?"

So - whch is it? Your mono-cultural stance wouldnt be taken as racist in a multi-cultural nation, or racism means different things in different places?

I don’t see the contradiction. I see racism as meaning the same thing no matter what the society. My mono-cultural stance might very well be taken as racist by the feeble-minded, but this does not mean there is any inconsistency in my use of the term.

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So if I were to define racial superiority as relating to say, average sprinting speed over 100m, I would expect to find no differences between races? Of course not. Using your proposal, we would expect to find that some races are superior to others, given whatever definition we use. The notion of racial superiority surely relates to indefinable and unmeasurable qualities, such as morality, intellectual ability, fitness to rule etc.

The fatal flaw with your argument here Biffa, is that superiority is a subjective term, incredibly so. And if your assertion is that people use racist language and slang because a certain race can run the 100m, swim, or play cricket better than another, you're sadly mistaken. Discrimination against blacks and hispanics in the US isn't because Kobe can race around the court or because J-Lo can belt out a few tunes(ok, humor me on the J-Lo part). You see what I'm getting at? Genetic, or even in many cases *social* disposition towards success in a particular field isn't what pi$ses people off. If you can demonstrate to me convincingly that these black 100m athletes suffer unduely high levels of discriminations due to their profession I will of course withdraw the argument.

As you are also fully aware, that argument was based on the definition of racism as a belief-system, rather than as a mode of behaviour. You have not disputed that such a belief-system cannot in and of itself undermine human rights or human dignity.

I see, so if I qualify an unjust set of principles in the semantic cocoon of a 'belief system' it no longer undermines human dignity? Brilliant! Well, those damn apartheid regimes should have just put forward the idea as a belief system like the Nazis did! Maybe then they'd have been justified. Belief systems have and will continue to marginalize those who deserve better. To think otherwise is callous, downright amoral.

My implication was that the belief in the superiority of one race over another cannot be said to be objectively false.

That's not the point though. Racism is based on a discriminatory point of view/actions. The type of superiority you have alluded to is NOT the primary motivator of racist actions/belief. The notion that certain races are naturally inferior because of their inability to say, command the English language adequately is far more common. It stems from ignorance and social bigotry.

You were the only one to take my 99% post as inflammatory, despite knowing full well the context in which I used the term you took offence to, and you did not substantively disagree with the opinions expressed therein, despite having described me as a troll and ignorant.

Second-guessing one another isn't going to get us anywhere. Of course this should be obvious...just not to some. I don't think most of us grasp any plausible meaning you infer which isn't racist in some way shape or form. Also, I fail to see how he could substantively disagree with a position fundamentally lacking in substance. It would require an argument of policy on your part to convince anyone of moral conscience to countenance these ideas. Outrageous policy ideals should require an outrageously high standard of both proof and open-minded direction, neither of which were evident in your position.

I defined the word as it is used and understood in everyday language. Pardon me.

Such an every-day definition cannot be anything but hopelessly inadequate when dealing with a problem as complex and with such a wide base of cause as this one Biffa. It would be like me trying to explain embryonic evolution using play-dough- I could certainly make certain basic concepts clear, but beyond that I would struggle.

It is the very definition of free association. I am not making any moral judgments on discrimination here, rather I am asserting that this civil liberty of necessity guarantees the individual the right to discriminate and exclude.

It is particularly difficult to ascertain your meaning here Biffa. The vagaries of this statement lead me to conclude that it is the right of an employer to disqualify female staff from any employment position on the grounds that they might have children and disrupt the workforce. Discrimination on grounds the individual has little control over or that impedes equity of rights is just not on, I'm sorry. There is nothing you could possibly say to me that will convince me that disqualifying someone from any official application on grounds of their race, sex, religion or belief system isn't morally bankrupt.

This is just the problem with your mistaken notion that private companies should be allowed to discriminate against employees on whatever basis they see fit. Even GIVEN the current climate of European human rights law, it still occurs at an extremely unhealthy level. Women physicians are routinely screened out of surgical careers by medical boards on a variety of ridiculous grounds. Given that such a prejudice is practically self-evident in the private sector with current legislation, it seems foolish and irresponsible (to me at least) to restore such a dangerous choice to a private sector that has historically abused them beyond reason.

Such a policy would almost certainly be racially-motivated. What’s your point?

Part of his point I believe is that the local US administrations in the 1960s didn't see them as racist either. In other words, they sought segregation as a means to preserve social harmony and keep order. Which ironically enough is the same sort of argument you seem to be advocating here. Such policy harks back all the way to colonial times, where segregation in Rhodesia for example, led to the discontent burning in the breast of every native-born Zimbabwean. We are living with the consequences of such an idiotic state policy to this very day, history has shown us what not to do, and yet you still persist with this line of reasoning- why? Every social circumstance that has been laid out for us in history shows that discontent is born of exclusion, not inclusion, bigotry, not tolerant coexistence.

Governments have more than just a duty to reflect public opinion. Take the death penalty- many european states have 65% of their population supporting such a sentence. But governments in Europe choose to *lead* public opinion, and set a morally outstanding (in most cases) example. Else why even have government one might argue, just let the mob rule our affairs.

By idiots.

Remarks like that certainly don't help to convince me that your view is not based on intolerance. Practicality is your claim, yet your views exhibit both a chilling amoral pragmatism and an undercurrent of intolerance. Now that's just my opinion, and not an expert one either- but the responses on this thread indicate I'm not the only one getting those feelings.

I don’t see the contradiction. I see racism as meaning the same thing no matter what the society. My mono-cultural stance might very well be taken as racist by the feeble-minded, but this does not mean there is any inconsistency in my use of the term.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is the feeble-minded who would purport such a policy. Especially given its dismal and embarassing track-record. I tend to be of the view that monocultural ideals are racist by definition. That particular brand of intolerance has shown itself in historical terms to engender racist ideology. If only for that reason we should chuck the notion. Then there's the simple truth that cultures evolve. Homogenizing values only lasts for so long, Ireland is a mish-mash of genetic stock, cultures, heritages even within its borders. To assert there is a unique national identity formed by lines drawn on a map is sheer lunacy- THAT is facist, not a philosophy that encourages tolerance.

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

So you don't mind foreigners as long as they don't happen to be in Ireland. That's what it sounds like to me- if so, then that is a position I find abhorrent, to be avoided at all cost. Take Paul McGrath- his cultural roots certainly aren't entirely Irish- would he play for the Republic if you were the team's manager? Or would multicultural bias give you the right to exclude him. These are dangerous ideas you're playing with Biffa- and at the core you find at the very least an isolationist ostrich-headed policy, at the most, a fertile breeding ground for racism. Social tension and alienation as I have said, result from exclusion, not political correctness.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Such a policy would almost certainly be racially-motivated. What’s your point?¨

My point is that such a policy is a completely reasonable extension of what you are arguing. You are consistently failing to draw a line between your want for cultural isolationism and racism.

By idiots.

Ah yes...those idiots who decided that (as Occy pointed out) the cultural segregation evident up until the 60s was, in fact, just another form of racism and racial discrimination. People like Malcolm X, Marthin Luther King, their myriad of followers, and teh modern-day politicians who have learned the error of the ways of their predecessors and approach the issue from a somewhat more egalitarian and open-minded solution?

Those idiots? The same ones who have already figured out that cultural segregation does not work.

Well - I guess that explains why they are idiots...if they weren't, you'd be wrong.

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

Sure. Its leads to fracturing of society due to exclusionist attitudes. Theyre not wanted here, because if they come here, we will treat them badly (because we dont want them), resulting in them never becoming part of our community, resulting in them having to turn inwards.

Its a chicken and egg situation. You are effectively saying that we dont want them here because we will exclude them if they come, and this will lead to problems.

Again - I must remind you - I live in a nation where foreigners are (by and large) welcomed. Every so often there are large influxes of single-culture groups - the Italians, the Turks, the Tamils, the ex-Yugslavians, etc. In each case there is initial conflict as these groups try deperately to hold on to their old ways, ignoring the sensibilities of those who have welcomed them. This is tolerated, and typically, after a single generation, the issue is no longer an issue, and the cultures have melded themselves into Swiss society.

Switzerland is no less Swiss than it was a century ago, despite having welcomed all these influxes. The secret is that they welcome these people. They want them to have jobs, to do well, and to fit in. Funnily enough, the newcomers soon realise that this too is what they want.

Compare with Ireland where its an attitude of "they come here, take our jobs, take our welfare, and force their culture on us." No wonder these people cling so tightly to their own identity - they see no offer of inclusion, no hand of welcome.

And then you complain that it is they who are to blame for cultural fragmentation?

I would also point out that the "cultural purity" that you seem so set on protecting is already a mish-mash of cultures, built over centuries. Funny that...if multiculturalism really was divisive, then surely this nation would have self-imploded a long time ago.

jc

jc

dathi1

Switzerland is no less Swiss than it was a century ago, despite having welcomed all these influxes. The secret is that they welcome these people.

by about 3000 votes last week.
The crux is...if we accept them..will they accept us? Oldham, Bradford, Marseils. etc..

dathi1

the Turks, the Tamils,

are very recent arrivals to Switz and you are yet to experience how culturally different they are and if they will accept the swiss model...Italians etc ..are what Switz is.

dathi1

Funny that...if multiculturalism really was divisive, then surely this nation would have self-imploded a long time ago.

there is no comparison between now and a long time ago. Ireland is now experiencing the largest immigrant influx (since our economy went on the up) in its history. 10,000 illegal immigrants (Colonialism by stealth) a year make the Vikings look like a tea party. ..and speaking of Multiculturalism, immigration, self implosion and Irish history...The Ulster Plantation? Multiculturalism ..my arse!!

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
by about 3000 votes last week.

And do you know what the vote was about?

The vote was about what to do with asylum seekers who had "targetted" Switzerland - should the Swiss accept them regrdless, or return them to the last safe-nation that they passed through but chose not to stop in.

The bill was rejected, but even had it been accepted, it would have been no more than an implementation of one of the most common practices when dealing with asylum seekers.

It in no way limited the openness of Switzerland.

are very recent arrivals to Switz and you are yet to experience how culturally different they are and if they will accept the swiss model...Italians etc ..are what Switz is.

OK - lets quickly test your knowledge. When did the Tamils come to Switzerland en masse, and roughly in what numbers? Cause if you dont actually know this, then your above comment is utterly ridiculous. Id like the same info about the Turks as well. Just so I know that you know what youre talking about.

Secondly, I am not tralking about the Swiss Italians. I am talking about the Italians[/] who came to Switzerland (in the 60s, mostly from Southern Italy IIRC)

Then again, I suppose youll claim that "this is different" for similar reasons to Typedef claiming that all German-speaking nations are effectively the same.

jc

dathi1

The vote was about what to do with asylum seekers who had "targetted" Switzerland - should the Swiss accept them regrdless, or return them to the last safe-nation that they passed through but chose not to stop in.

Swiss an open model? jc you're getting very watery..very watery there...I wont mention the openess of the Swiss / Jewish WW2 debacle.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Swiss an open model? jc you're getting very watery..very watery there...I wont mention the openess of the Swiss / Jewish WW2 debacle.

What debacle?

The one where Switzerland admitted more Jews per capita than any other nation on earth? Or the one where they stopped admitting Jews because Germany threatened to cease honouring their neutrality if they didnt?

No nation covered itself in glory with the treatment of Jews in WW2, so picking on one is a bit pointless. Incidentally, I seem to recall that the US also tiurned away some Jews...for even shakier grounds than the Swiss, and yet they arent the ones youre complaining about.

I would also point out that this is completely irrelevant. Switzerland today has more immigrants than Ireland. It has a more open policy. It may not have as large a problem with illegal immigrants, but thats not the question here, is it. Id be the first to say that Ireland needs to enforce its rules. I do not favour an open-door approach, but I equally oppose a closed-door approach as Biffa seems to be encouraging.

1 in 6 people in this country is not Swiss. Of the remainder, there are a large number of first-and second-generation "naturalised" foreigners. There is no significant problems from multiculturalism.

Explain to me how this can be so if multiculturalism is fundamentally a problem? It does not compute. Given that the people are coming here from similar nations to Ireland, one must also conclude that it is not the immigrants who would appear to be the problem. Who does that leave? The "natives"...

jc

dathi1

Switzerland: Ethnic groups: total population - German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%
Note : Swiss nationals - German 74%, French 20%, Italian 4%, Romansch 1%, other 1%

That’s not multiculturalism...that’s a bunch of Europeans with little or no cultural difference living in a Mountain locked country in the middle of Europe with a token ethnic minority.
D.
ps; they’ve a sizable right wing party!

bonkey

I dunno where you get your info from, but a quick google search provided the following info on ethnic minorities in Switzerland from ethnologue.com

Kurmanji 13,000,
Serbo-Croatian 142,000,
Turkish 53,000,

Yeah - I can see how over 200,000 people from just three large ethnic groups is only a "token ethnic minority". Remind me again the numbers of the "non-token" minority which is the problem in Ireland? 10,000 a year was it? Goodness...if you sustain that for a decade, youll approach the per-capita headcount of just these three groups in Switzerland today, ignoring that these figures are several years out of date, and that Switzerland will continue to take in refugees over the coming decade as well.

Funny how your standards change. 10,000 a year (.25% of the population) is a massive problem in Ireland, but 200,000 in Switzerland (from just 3 ethnic groups - the total figure would probably be close to double that for non-western-European ethnic groups) is only a token in a nation with approx 2x the Irish population?

Give it maybe 20 years of your current "crisis" and you might just catch up with Switzerland in terms of your "colonisation by stealth". Give it 30 or 40 years (unchanged) and you might actually have enough for you to consider it more than a token minority.

And yet Ireland has a problem with these "vast" numbers and Switzerland is not a good example of how it can work, because its not really multicultural? Riiight.

So - care to explain these double standards, or would you like to find some other blustering noises to avoid having to admit that youre barking up the wrong tree?

jc

dathi1

http://www.kmike.com/country/szdemog.htm from the cia world facts book.
that ethnic log thingy is a language site which gives a breakdown on languages spoken

Funny how your standards change. 10,000 a year (.25% of the population) is a massive problem in Ireland, but 200,000 in Switzerland (from just 3 ethnic groups - the total figure would probably be close to double that for non-western-European ethnic groups)

If you think 350 million euro a year isnt a problem...

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
If you think 350 million euro a year isnt a problem...

OK, lets cut to the chase here, because Ive had enough of this pointless running in circles while you consistently fail to actually show a flaw in my argument and just keep taking new tacks instead.

Outline exactly what the problem with multiculturalism that you have is please.

Note - multiculturalism is nothing to do with refugees or immigrants, legal or otherwise. It has nothing to do with the cost to the state, nor anything like that. If you have a problem with the number of immigrants, then fine....but that is a seperate issue...it is not an issue with multiculturalism per se, but rather with the amounts our government are choosing to spend on something which you see as unimportant. You could level your 350 million a year at a number of other issues where the govt wastes money and it would have equally as much to do with multiculturalism.

The cost of immigrants and refugees in Ireland are not the issue here, and I would rather not get sidetracked. I was trying to point out to Biffa that the concept of multiple cultures living in harmony is not actually impossible, and you stepped in trying to show that Im not talking about multiculturalism, or that Switzerland isnt a good example.

Having failed utterly in your quick broad-sides, your now off on a complete tangent, talking about the cost of immigration. This has SFA to do with the problems of multiculturalism.

Penniless Immigrants are not building a muslim library (your entry in the the fray), so the cost of immigrants to the state has nothing to do with what you see as a problem.

So....lets have it. What is the problem here? Just so I can answer the actual issue, rather than have you dancing from topic to topic to avoid having to concede that you, quite frankly, havent got a very strong argument at all.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
from the cia world facts book.
that ethnic log thingy is a language site which gives a breakdown on languages spoken

Right. The CIA book which lists Switzerland as having a 6% "other" ethnic group, and which lists Ireland has having nothing but "Celtic, English" cultures (in its 2002 edition, no less).

Furthermore, it lists no "foreign" ethnic groups in Ireland, nor non-national spoken languages (it doesnt even supply a percentage for Irish, just mentions that its used).

So if these figures for Switzerland are accurate and small enough to be "a token" (your interpretation), I think we can again safely say that Ireland has nowhere near the ethnic diversity as Switzerland, and clearly couldnt have a problem, because there are no significant ethnic groups present at all.

Dont blame me...its your chosen source.

jc

dathi1

more accurate than a bloody linguistic site!!

anyway the 350 million a year extra to tax payers is only part of the problem....we have to pay for stupid PC agenda campaigns like the Know Racism Campaign.
I think I'll move to Bern.

Bateman

What I was asking was if there was any so stupid that they would only start questioning their racism as a result of this patronising campaign.

---

To use your logic, how would you propose to prove that campagns like this
don't change people's minds?
Almost everyone else on this thread has signalled that YES, there are people that stupid out there, and anything like this can only be as someone said, at worst harmless.

MrPudding

Originally posted by dathi1
The crux is...if we accept them..will they accept us? Oldham, Bradford, Marseils. etc..

Are you holding these places up as examples of places were imigrants were accepted and then bit the hand that fed them?

If so Marseils is a great example, the welcome there was really good. The Super rightwing city council tried to put some great policies in place. For example, they wanted to give a nice cash gift(can't remember the amount 1000FF maybe) for having a baby. The only stipulation was both parents had to be white and French.

As for England, they can't really be held up as the bastion of racial acceptance. In my limited experience some of the people there are almost as racist as some of the idiots I have met in Dublin. My uncle was selling a house near Manchester, he got a visit from some concerned, rightly or wrongly you decide dathi1, neighbours who wanted to make sure that he didn't sell the house to, and I quote: "n*****rs, pakis or rag heads"

Originally posted by Biffa

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

[/B]

IMO social tension and alienation is caused by racists, idiots, a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to give other cultures and beliefs a chance not,multiculturalism

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
anyway the 350 million a year extra to tax payers is only part of the problem....we have to pay for stupid PC agenda campaigns like the Know Racism Campaign.

Obviously you have no interest then in the tens of billions of euros of products the people in their home countries buy from us every year or the billions of euros this contributes to the exchequer.

mike65

Beyond showing that dathi1 is a nasty flake is there any point in keeping this thread going?

Mike.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The fatal flaw with your argument here Biffa, is that superiority is a subjective term, incredibly so.

Er…yes that was precisely my point. So how can racial superiority ever be shown to be “true” or “false” by recourse to empirical testing, as bonkey is contending? To suggest that a particular subjective opinion is objectively false is simply dogmatic.

I see, so if I qualify an unjust set of principles in the semantic cocoon of a 'belief system' it no longer undermines human dignity? Brilliant! Well, those damn apartheid regimes should have just put forward the idea as a belief system like the Nazis did! Maybe then they'd have been justified. Belief systems have and will continue to marginalize those who deserve better. To think otherwise is callous, downright amoral.

I think I’ve been somewhat disingenuous in my objection to the assertion that racism undermines human dignity. It’s not so much the semantic difference between a belief and an action, it’s just that it’s so condescending. It’s like something you’d find in a primary school religion book.

I don't think most of us grasp any plausible meaning you infer which isn't racist in some way shape or form.

Well in all honesty I think that’s very closed-minded of you. My objection to this campaign is based on three things:
a. It is patronising,
b. It is extremely unlikely to effect any reduction in racially-motivated behaviour and is thus a waste of public funds, and
c. It seeks to promote a multiculturalist agenda, a political position I strongly disagree with.
There is no hidden racist agenda here that people should feel the need to rebut.

Also, I fail to see how he could substantively disagree with a position fundamentally lacking in substance. It would require an argument of policy on your part to convince anyone of moral conscience to countenance these ideas. Outrageous policy ideals should require an outrageously high standard of both proof and open-minded direction, neither of which were evident in your position.

Er…what are we talking about here?

Such an every-day definition cannot be anything but hopelessly inadequate when dealing with a problem as complex and with such a wide base of cause as this one Biffa. It would be like me trying to explain embryonic evolution using play-dough- I could certainly make certain basic concepts clear, but beyond that I would struggle.

Is this in contrast to the “Know Racism” campaign’s definition? And anyway, so what? Bonkey was drawing inferences from a statement based on a definition of racism that he knew I was not using.

The vagaries of this statement lead me to conclude that it is the right of an employer to disqualify female staff from any employment position on the grounds that they might have children and disrupt the workforce.

I would have thought that as a self-professed libertarian you would support such a right?

Anyway, I’m not saying that always and everywhere discrimination should be allowed, I’m saying that discrimination should not always and everywhere be outlawed. I do support people’s right to discriminate in some situations, for example barring Travellers from pubs. I also support the state’s right to outlaw discrimination in other areas, for example racial segregation on public transport.

There is nothing you could possibly say to me that will convince me that disqualifying someone from any official application on grounds of their race, sex, religion or belief system isn't morally bankrupt.

Acknowledging the individual’s right to free association does not imply moral approval of the exercising of that right in any particular situation.

Part of his point I believe is that the local US administrations in the 1960s didn't see them as racist either. In other words, they sought segregation as a means to preserve social harmony and keep order.

If that was genuinely their intention then I would not consider those policies to be racist. But I don’t believe it was their intention, or else they would have provided the same rights and same standards of services to blacks as they did to whites.

Which ironically enough is the same sort of argument you seem to be advocating here.

Yes, in the sense that I’m putting forward non-racist arguments against multiculturalism.

Such policy harks back all the way to colonial times, where segregation in Rhodesia for example, led to the discontent burning in the breast of every native-born Zimbabwean.

Surely you mean “every black Zimbabwean”? I’d hope you wouldn’t suggest that the descendants of immigrants could not be considered “native-born” to their adopted country?

Anyway, the situation in Rhodesia was different as it was treating certain races better than others.

Every social circumstance that has been laid out for us in history shows that discontent is born of exclusion, not inclusion, bigotry, not tolerant coexistence.

To take some examples from (recent) history: why did Czechoslovakia decide to peacefully split apart? Were the Czechs and Slovaks just racists who didn’t want to live in the same country as each other? Why do so many Québecois want to split from Canada? Do they hate Anglo-Canadians? No, they just want to preserve and protect their own unique national identity.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is the feeble-minded who would purport such a policy. Especially given its dismal and embarassing track-record.

Examples of societies with a “dismal and embarrassing track-record” as a result of their being monocultural, please.

I tend to be of the view that monocultural ideals are racist by definition.

So when I outline my non-racist reasons for being opposed to multiculturalism, am I just lying or what?

That particular brand of intolerance has shown itself in historical terms to engender racist ideology. If only for that reason we should chuck the notion.

I can give you examples of multicultural societies that have engendered racial violence. Does this mean we should chuck the notion of multiculturalism?

Then there's the simple truth that cultures evolve. Homogenizing values only lasts for so long, Ireland is a mish-mash of genetic stock, cultures, heritages even within its borders.

Cultures do evolve, but this doesn’t mean that the societies in which they dominate become multicultural.

To assert there is a unique national identity formed by lines drawn on a map is sheer lunacy- THAT is facist, not a philosophy that encourages tolerance.

In any monocultural society, there will exist a unique national heritage (I am not implying a uniformly practiced common culture) that the majority would consider themselves to belong to. Foreigners coming from completely different cultures such as China or Nigeria would find it extremely difficult to relate to this national identity or to see themselves as part of it. Conversely, the existing population would find it very difficult to make any connection with the culture of the immigrants. Thus we have a multicultural society, where there is no common national identity. This can lead to alienation from society among both the existing and immigrant populations.

So you don't mind foreigners as long as they don't happen to be in Ireland.

No, I don’t mind foreigners at all. Any foreigner who lives here is fine by me. I just don’t want so many of them coming in that they fail to integrate into Irish society.

Take Paul McGrath- his cultural roots certainly aren't entirely Irish- would he play for the Republic if you were the team's manager?

Nah, he has a dodgy knee.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
My point is that such a policy is a completely reasonable extension of what you are arguing.

Racial segregation is a completely reasonable extension of opposition to multiculturalism? I don’t see how.

You are consistently failing to draw a line between your want for cultural isolationism and racism.

I never called for cultural isolationism. Monocultural societies do not have to be culturally isolated.

As for my being racist, did these comments not give you any clues?
As Dublin Bus is a semi-state body I would object to any move to introduce “whites-only” buses. If a privately-owned bus company were to segregate its buses, I would not use their services.

Ah yes...those idiots who decided that (as Occy pointed out) the cultural segregation evident up until the 60s was, in fact, just another form of racism and racial discrimination. People like Malcolm X, Marthin Luther King, their myriad of followers, and teh modern-day politicians who have learned the error of the ways of their predecessors and approach the issue from a somewhat more egalitarian and open-minded solution?

I didn’t mean that people who opposed segregation were idiots. I meant that those who refuse to countenance that there might be any non-racist objections to multiculturalism are idiots.

Sure. Its leads to fracturing of society due to exclusionist attitudes. Theyre not wanted here, because if they come here, we will treat them badly (because we dont want them), resulting in them never becoming part of our community, resulting in them having to turn inwards.

Its a chicken and egg situation. You are effectively saying that we dont want them here because we will exclude them if they come, and this will lead to problems.

No, even without exclusionist attitudes, it is quite conceivable that immigrants would fail to integrate fully into society. Just look at the Asian population of the UK. Do you refuse to accept the possibility that some immigrants would simply not want to integrate into the society they migrate to?

Again - I must remind you - I live in a nation where foreigners are (by and large) welcomed. Every so often there are large influxes of single-culture groups - the Italians, the Turks, the Tamils, the ex-Yugslavians, etc. In each case there is initial conflict as these groups try deperately to hold on to their old ways, ignoring the sensibilities of those who have welcomed them. This is tolerated, and typically, after a single generation, the issue is no longer an issue, and the cultures have melded themselves into Swiss society.

Switzerland is no less Swiss than it was a century ago, despite having welcomed all these influxes.

So Switzerland isn’t multicultural then?

I would also point out that the "cultural purity" that you seem so set on protecting is already a mish-mash of cultures, built over centuries.

Why put the words cultural purity in quotes as if I ever used them?

Funny that...if multiculturalism really was divisive, then surely this nation would have self-imploded a long time ago.

I take it you’ve never read an Irish history book.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bateman
To use your logic, how would you propose to prove that campagns like this
don't change people's minds?

That would not be using my logic as I never insisted on proof that campaigns like this do change people's minds.

Almost everyone else on this thread has signalled that YES, there are people that stupid out there, and anything like this can only be as someone said, at worst harmless.

Well I would be stunned if there were people that brainless.

And it's not harmless, it costs taxpayers' money which could be better spent on something like...housing asylum seekers.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No, even without exclusionist attitudes, it is quite conceivable that immigrants would fail to integrate fully into society. Just look at the Asian population of the UK. Do you refuse to accept the possibility that some immigrants would simply not want to integrate into the society they migrate to?

I look at them every day, and work with and hang around with them. And it usually doesn't occur to me, or almost anyone else here, to consider how 'integrated' 'Asians' are with the rest of the UK population. Most of them are as 'integrated' as it's possible to be - and I suspect that a lot of people (not necessarily you) who demand yet more integration won't be satisfied until they change their skin colour. But integration does NOT require cultural assimilation - there's plenty of Asian people who follow Asian religions and cultural traditions, but as far as I've experienced it isn't an issue unless someone tries to use it as the basis for discrimination.

There's plenty of examples of Asian people who don't want to integrate into the wider UK society - just like there's examples in Ireland of people of every colour and background who don't want to 'integrate', with everyone else. Maybe they're stubborn, maybe they're too old to change, maybe they're just cranks. People like this exist all over the world. Assuming that they're choosing not to 'integrate' on the basis of culture or ethnicity is actually often not justified.

Considering how much vitriol has been flung at them over the years, most immigrants and the children of immigrants from Asia have been remarkably toldernt of English culture and willing to accomodate it. Most English people now see the benefits of returning the favour.

The disturbances in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford during 2001, meanwhile seem to have had more to do with poverty, crime and too much (rather than too little) segregation.

dathi1

The cost of immigrants and refugees in Ireland are not the issue here, and I would rather not get sidetracked. I was trying to point out to Biffa that the concept of multiple cultures living in harmony is not actually impossible, and you stepped in trying to show that Im not talking about multiculturalism, or that Switzerland isnt a good example.

Multiculturalisim is costly and expensive socially and financially ..end of story

Having failed utterly in your quick broad-sides, your now off on a complete tangent, talking about the cost of immigration. This has SFA to do with the problems of multiculturalism.

as above

Penniless Immigrants are not building a muslim library (your entry in the the fray), so the cost of immigrants to the state has nothing to do with what you see as a problem.

no the Multicultural democratic Saudi regieme funds most of the costs.

So....lets have it. What is the problem here? Just so I can answer the actual issue, rather than have you dancing from topic to topic to avoid having to concede that you, quite frankly, havent got a very strong argument at all.

now now touchy touchy..u look grouchy enough!! I know you always have to have the last say... The Know Racisim Campaign is a waste of money.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Er…yes that was precisely my point. So how can racial superiority ever be shown to be “true” or “false” by recourse to empirical testing, as bonkey is contending? To suggest that a particular subjective opinion is objectively false is simply dogmatic.

Regardless, it is an irrelevant argument. If I can prove that the average caucasian is (for example) superior to the average afro-american (to take two groups), this says absolutely nothing about the superiority of a caucasian individual over an afro-american individual.

So even should you continue to insist that the belief of the superiority of one race over another is somehow valid, you must surely acknowledge that nothing can be inferred from it - that it still does not lend any credence to actions taken based on said belief.

At the very least, it is an unacceptable belief to base anything on. And, well, thats the whole point of beliefs, isnt it - to use them to form the basis for your decisions and actions.

In life, we deal with individuals. Racial superiority is inapplicable here. It is, at best, an unacceptable or unuseable belief.

It’s not so much the semantic difference between a belief and an action, it’s just that it’s so condescending. It’s like something you’d find in a primary school religion book.

So condescending that you had to insist it was untrue? I think that highlights the necessity of it right there. It may be condescending, but until you present bare, simple statements that people cannot mount an argument against, they can continue to stick their heads in the sand.

I’m saying that discrimination should not always and everywhere be outlawed. I do support people’s right to discriminate in some situations, for example barring Travellers from pubs. I also support the state’s right to outlaw discrimination in other areas, for example racial segregation on public transport.

OK - draw the line then. Outline how you can implement a policy which clearly defines what types of discrimination can be allowed, and which are not. Think about how this can work in practice.

I mean - pubs can ban travellers. What about Blacks? Or people with funny accents? Or women? Why not them? Weve had this argument before, and at the end of the day, the government is not willing to allow the ostracization of an entire culture because of the actions of a sub-set within it....despite what you may like.

And then, why not ban them everywhere? Why not just lock them up or shoot them to solve the problem. OK, thats obviously being hyperbolic, but where do you draw the line? HOW do you draw a line?

Funnily, I remember reading an article some years ago which argued that Ireland was one of the most racist/culturally intolerant nations in Europe, based on our attitudes to the travelling community, who classify as (at least) a distinct ethnic group. It continues to amaze me how its fine for us to try and make laws which target this ethnic minority specifically (allow their banning in pubs), but if you were to make the same suggestion about any non-indigeneous etnic group, youd have cries of racism rebounding from the highest rafters.

Still...thats for another thread, I guess.

Yes, in the sense that I’m putting forward non-racist arguments against multiculturalism.
...
So when I outline my non-racist reasons for being opposed to multiculturalism, am I just lying or what?

Biffa, you can call them non-racist as much as you like, but I would strongly urge you to compare your non-racist arguments to what is being said by many racists. Much of your initial reasoning is identical to that put forward by racists. How are we supposed to know the difference?

You can claim its non-racist, and it may not be intended racially, but when your argument is indistinguishable from that of a racist, youre on a losing track.

You dont do yourself any favours here by framing your initial arguments in what is almost definitely a racist tone, and then spend post after post clarifying (as you are now doing) that what you said wasnt really what you meant, or wasnt the whole story, or that we misunderstood you. Its too late at this point - first impressions and all that.

In any monocultural society, there will exist a unique national heritage (I am not implying a uniformly practiced common culture) that the majority would consider themselves to belong to.

You can drop the word "monocultural" from that sentence without it being any less true...which scuppers the rest of your argument.

Any foreigner who lives here is fine by me. I just don’t want so many of them coming in that they fail to integrate into Irish society.

Any foreigner...as long as he/she is not the "one too many" or any one after that. So "Any foreigner" doesnt actually mean "any foreigner". It means that "any foreigner until a quota has been reached". OK...its a start. Tell me., though...whats the limit? How many foreigners is "too many"? Is it an overall critical mass, or critical mass per "incoming culture/race" ??? Would 100 be too many? Does their dispersal throughout the nation matter? Does their willingness to embrace Irish culture matter? Do the same limits apply to other native english-speaking nations as not? How about religion - same treatment for Catholics and non-Catholics?

See - this is where I always have the problem. Once you decide a line should be drawn, you have to decide how to draw the line, and that (realistically) is impossible to do without discrimination.

jc

Bateman

>What I was asking was if there was any so stupid that they would only start questioning their racism as a result of this patronising campaign.

---

That is asking for evidence. Without being specific, again, most people here have said that yes, there ARE actually people that stupid out there.