”I could go on.”
Please, the only meaningful contribution included was the English language, which is spoken by a fifth of Ukrainians, the remainder is a muddle - referencing British rebellions while lauding Zimbabwe’s Protestantism and love of cricket.
Greeks see themselves as being like Northern Europeans because what the don’t see themselves as , Turks, rather than what they actually are. Greeks in western Thrace cans Turks in eastern Thrace are almost the same people though sharing a heritage going back thousands of years, as much as they want to tell themselves they are more Norwegian
and I don’t get your point on multiculturalism when my whole point was that Europe was already multicultural and there is no such thing as a single European identity or culture as much as you want to tell yourselves there is
Two can play at this over simplistic nonsense. Here is a picture of European civilisation prior to African immigration
90% of Zimbabweans speak English. We were both occupied by and expelled the English, many sporting pursuits are the same, common law legal systems, clientalist political representatives, religion in the western rather than eastern Christian tradition, both places had a golden age prior to being occupied...I could go on.
Tell yourself that the impoverishment of parts of Africa is in in no way caused by the treatment of Africa by Europeans and many others. Live your Blinkered fiction
Economics and globalisation. Mass manufacturing in America, Europe and Asia, along with the shifts in consumer markets have caused most of the impoverishment in Africa, if we're only looking at external forces. Textile industries in Africa shutdown because of all the cheap products sent to Africa to clothe Africans because of the Aid agencies. The list is rather extensive at how international economic trends have screwed Africa.
But internally? Shoddy government policies, corruption at most social levels, ignorance, pollution, etc.
. It's not one or the other. Nigeria is doing damn well for itself, as are a number of other African nations. The general corruption, greed, etc within African cultures tends to cause serious problems though... and that doesn't come from western nations.
You're applying your own blinkered views..
You could probably count on one hand the amount of people who moved here for cultural reasons.
And right there, you've shown that you have no real idea what this thread is about, or how the term multiculturalism is applied.
The last thing on the minds of anyone who supports "multiculturalism" is culture.
Then you haven't been paying much attention.
Culture equal identity. Without a distinct identity, assimilation occurs, and multiculturalism cannot exist. Whereas when cultural identities are elevated/protected, foreign groups are encouraged to retain their original identities, leading to a society which is made up of a diverse selection of cultures, distinctly different from each other.
Which leads to discrimination and racism, furthering the positions of those who advocate for multiculturalism because activism leads to great book deals, conferences, and NGO appointments.
Expand on the reasoning for this thought, simply saying it is meaningless.
Tell yourself that the impoverishment of parts of Africa is in in no way caused by the treatment of Africa by Europeans and many others
Right, before Europeans they were wealthy and advanced. Like this:
How is Europe impoverishing Africa?
Glad to see that you acknowledge that examples mulitculturalism like the Balkans and NI are nothing to emulate 😂
I know quite a few Greeks, they definitely would see themselves as having much more in common with Northern Europeans than they would with North Africans perhaps they just need you to lecture them endlessly to disabuse them of their bigoted notion that Europeans have a shared heiritage.
I also understand that you're shifting goalposts. But let's go with this then. The boundaries/borders drawn in Africa were only done to a limited degree by European empires, but many of them were drawn by the powers of the time, and also the influence of Turkish states. Yes, I'm sorry, but there were African kingdoms that continued throughout the eras of colonialism, and retained their own borders. Then there were also borders drawn along geographical lines, due to disease belts which prevented expansion by the European powers.You've decided to exaggerate the practical influence of the European Empires, because if you look at some of the older maps of Africa which relate to the more powerful (and even some lesser) tribes, the modern (1900s) borders align pretty well with what they had.
Africa is a tribal nation, where different tribes often hate each other, often commiting outright genocide, but enslaving their enemies when it was profitable. Yes, the colonial powers scattered the Tribes, but it happened too by the Africans and the Muslims before the European empires landed in Africa. Centuries before.
As for propping up warlords and dictators, yes, definetely. During the colonial/imperial era, and again during the war of ideologies with Communism/Capitalism... but you're fooling yourself if you're so willing to dismiss the fact that these regimes were enabled by the African people themselves. After all, their armies/police forces were Africans.. those who worked the economies that supported them were Africans.
But nah. It's so much easier to pass it over to the Western powers, and absolve Africans of all responsibility throughout history.
And even allowing for that which continent has killed more of its own people in inter ethic or national violence in the past 100 years, and subsequently impact global peace . Is it a, nice lovely “white” Europe or “brutal” Africa?
I've read this three times, and I still don't get what you're trying to say.
The only obsession with race tends to come from posters like yourself accusing others of having such an obsession. This claim came up before (which the mods deleted) and it matches pretty well with what you've just posted. I countered it then, and honestly, I can't really be bothered to counter it again. Some people just want to focus on the racism angle rather than counter/deal with the actual objections raised.
Especially since most posters have referred to the cultures involved and how that encourages integration/assimilation, whereas you've decided that it's all about skin colour.
You started off reasonably well. Oh, you've applied convenient selections when it comes to history with quite a bit of revisionism, but at least you were attempting to engage in a discussion. The above, though? Seriously?
Meh.
Take a random person from Dublin , Bulawayo and Donestk and you would likely find that are far more common cultural reference points between Dublin and Bulawayo than either have with Donetsk
Yes, tell yourself there are no slums in Europe. Live in your blinkered fiction.
Tell yourself Europe is all peace and light, and ignore Kosovo, Bosnia, Russia, NI from the last 30years alone, before we even go back just another generation of two and see how “civilised” European culture can be.
Tell yourself that it’s not just skin colour and religion that informs your view of a single European “culture” when in fact Europe itself, old Europe, is multicultural with many distinct cultures throughout the continent, some of which overlap each other to a greater or lesser extent and some of which overlap those in other continents, to a greater or lesser extent. Mediterranean people have more in common with each other than Greeks have with Norwegians or Lebanese with Indians or Egyptians with Congolese.
And where do Bosnians or Albanians or Turks from Thrace or Azerbaijanis fit into your Europe? Because they are Europeans.
I suspect I will get back more Gates of Vienna type stuff
In fairness, even in the examples intended primarily to disprove any idea of a pan-European identity, you appear to rely on geographical and historical proximity: Greece-Lebanon, Spain-Morocco. In that respect then, regardless of whether Greece is culturally closer to Lebanon or Norway, it would be difficult to envisage a case where Nigeria or Zimbabwe is culturally closer to Ireland than Ukraine. Ukraine is certainly on the periphery of Ireland’s European cultural interactions, despite that though it is geographically closer and Ukraine has, at times throughout its history had Celtic and Viking (Nordic) influences.
Many would argue Greece is a failed state
I would love to hear their reasons. Until then, it's not
their religion is shared by close to 40% of the population of Lebanon
And by close to 80% of the population of European countries like Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania.
Morocco is an emerging democracy
Unlike most European countries, which is also the birth place of democracy
picture of a township created as part of the system
For whatever reasons and for whoever to blame, these things are not present in Europe
All in the effort to maintain your personal fiction that “white = same, dark = different”
I never pointed any differences in skin colour. Europe is much more developed and civilized than Africa and this is a fact that is in no way dependant of skin colour, which you're the only one that keep bringing it on.
LE: you may want to double check your "facts" - the majority of Christians in Lebanon are Catholic, and they represent less than 30%. Greek Christians are 90+% Orthodox, like many of the Eastern European Christians.
Many would argue Greece is a failed state. Either way, culturally they are very close to the levant, as well as geographically and their religion is shared by close to 40% of the population of Lebanon.
Morocco is an emerging democracy than has had a significant shift post 2014 and is one of the safer parts of Africa. Much more democratic and safer than Russia at least. Replace Siberia with the Russian plain and the conclusion remains
And really, a picture of a township created as part of the system of apathied imposed upon the non white population of that area as evidence that Minsk is closer in culture to London than Cape Town? All in the effort to maintain your personal fiction that “white = same, dark = different”
Greece is a civilized and safe democratic country, Lebanon is a failed state. Siberia is not European and Spain is also a civilized and safe democratic country, unlike Morocco. You won't find this in London or Minsk
Is Greece closer to Lebanon or Norway culturally? Is Andalusia closer to Morocco or Siberia. Is someone from London going to have more shared references with someone from Cape Town or Minsk?
The idea that there is a single “European” culture that you seem to be suggesting is laughable to be honest. It only exists in your unconscious bias that white skin = same, dark skin = different
What a load of nonsense. Eastern Europe IS Europe and its culture is European, just like the Western, Southern, Northern and Central Europe. And its culture is native European, not imported through colonialism. It was Christian before the great schism that created the Catholic and Orthodox separation, so no need for western missionaries either. Yes, maybe it was a bit behind western Europe through some times in history, but it developed all by its own, not through colonialism.
Absolutely it is a con in its current form…
hospital waiting lists… colossal… There are now 902,000 people on some form of hospital waiting list, up more than 93,500 in the last two years…
Social housing waiting lists… colossal… between 60,00-70,000 not people ! Households waiting…
and still we are advocating bringing in multiples more people who require all this assistance themselves, ffs… just nutsville. 🤪
"Multiculturalism" has nothing to do with culture.
It's an invented term used by hypercapitalist vultures.
Money? Yes. Opportunity? Yes. For their own advantage? Yes.
Housing scarcity, asset values pumped, cheap labour? Yes please, say the profiteers.
Fragmentation of a unified society to undermine collective efforts against the likes of de-unionisation, privatisation, social standards? You bet.
Just like colonialism hollowed out entire countries for the vast profits of the few, it is a similarly minded grouping now that are hollowing out countries now. Destruction is left in its wake, the profiteers skip town, and the existing culture, as you say is "diminished", if not erased.
They'll tell you "multiculturalism" is great for you, best thing in the world. Its nothing new though, it's just the latest con.
You do understand that most of Africas politely boundaries were drawn to suit colonial powers and not in any way representative of the actual ethic and cultural boundaries on the ground. And that even when colonial powers departed competing post colonial powers created and propped up the “dictators” and “warlords” in order to advance their geopolitical and economic interests.
The obsession here with skin colour is instructive. People seriously suggesting that culturally a Ukrainian would have more in common with an Irish person than a west African just because they are white? In large parts of Africa they would share far more cultural references with us than Eastern Europe due to British / French colonialism and its legacy, catholic missionary’s and American culture etc etc, than orthodox Eastern Europe. And many more large parts of Africa would share far less culture. It is nothing to do with skin colour as seems to be obsession, where’s as it’s just a minor genetic difference than has a visible physical expression but zero cultural expression
Except that the push for multiculturalism has come from western nations. It's not colonialism, because the host culture remains, albeit diminished in importance as the diversity drive is pushed.
History will likely state it as a misguided, naïve, and short-sighted viewpoint with few benefits and a host of negatives, because of the lack of interest in researching viable methods of stabilising the new society. Multiculturalism could have worked quite well if it had been properly investigated before committing so many resources to it, and had there been interest in limiting it with a mind of merging foreign groups with the host population, rather than allowing them to remain distinctly separate.
As I've said many times, I'm not against multiculturalism, per se. I believe it could be a wonderful opportunity for any nation, but the practical considerations need to be considered, rather than this hopeful wishful thinking that has been present so far. And throughout it all, the native group should be protected, and always held as being more important than the foreign groups, at least, until those foreign groups have successfully managed to merge with society, and become self-sufficient, without any strong social or economic negatives.
But that's not going to happen.. so I'm against multiculturalism. Maybe it will improve when these virtue signallers are kicked out, and we see a more pragmatic perspective applied.
in contrast to African-Americans that were the product of colonial chattel slavery or even British and French-Africans that were (originally at least) arguably the product of economic migration born of a colonial legacy,
And yet, most of them have zero experience of colonial matters within their country's history or culture, beyond the most superficial of connections. ie. being told about it in school. The truth is that most African nations have been "free" for multiple generations, and few remember the effects of colonialism, or even were exposed to those who were directly influenced by colonialism themselves. Rather they've been exposed to the corporate aspect of western culture, and the mishmash of political/ideological philosophies that tend to be present, which did come from western nations but have morphed into something else through the application by Africans themselves (dictators, warlords, popular figures, religious leaders).
There is far too much interest in passing responsibility on to a colonial legacy, when for decades the aspects of tribalism, superstition, corruption, brutality by their own people, have reigned. Also, in spite of the desire to elevate slavery or even the effect of colonial possessions in Africa, the simple truth is that many Africans (of the time) were never directly exposed to colonialism. It's not like India where the British heavily invested themselves in the region, Africa brought far less attention in terms of settlers or administrative/operations for colonialism. It's only in particularly unique nations such as South Africa or Zimbabwe/Rhodesia where such things happened, but the presence of colonialism was pretty light in most areas. When it comes to those within French territories, the dynamic is different due most being from Northern Africa, which is very different from southern, and the brutality of French colonialism which continued into the 70s (or even present day, depending on your perspective of the shite they get up to)
But from travelling/working in south/western Africa (decade ago), and meeting a lot of Africans in Asia.. I think colonialism is a convenient scapegoat for what has happened over the last 60 years plus. Americanism has had a far greater impact on Africa than British/French colonialism, as has the spread of Islam from the M.East.
"Multiculturalism" is a nonsensical term invented to cover the extraction of profit via the destabilisation of society.
It's this era's colonialism, and history will state it as such.
It's racism, that's what it is. They feel closer to those foreigners from London just because they have the same skin colour.
A nebulous and obscure but vaguely obtainable sense of belonging based on race. Irish-Africans parrot British-Africans for the exact reason that British-Africans and West Indians parrot African-Americans - they represent a culturally relevant (i.e. culturally prominent) racially identical community in the “West”. To a lesser extent even French-Africans, despite linguistic distance, mimic African-Americans viz. the popularity of the NBA, attributable, in part at least, to French immigrant communities from Sub-Saharan Africa. Cultural commentators tend to reduce this phenomenon to cultural and social marginalisation but, academic politicking aside, I suspect that this phenomenon would persist regardless. Irish-Africans are, predominantly, the product of lax asylum policy and Jus Solis citizenship policy, in contrast to African-Americans that were the product of colonial chattel slavery or even British and French-Africans that were (originally at least) arguably the product of economic migration born of a colonial legacy, Irish-Africans are less a product of egregious victimisation than they are of egregious opportunism. In Ireland, that purported fabric of colonial cultural and social marginalisation is beyond threadbare.
The irony is women are those who vote for this immigration, and women suffer the consequences, LOL!
Rubbish. How many of us have voted for "this" immigration?
The electorate is not allowed to vote on issues such as these. Political parties are voted in, but their agendas aren't restricted to what is proposed during the election campaign.
The simple truth is that this all comes down to what politicians want. It's not "women". It's not "men". It's the politicians, and the various lobbies they pander to.
Identity crisis.
What's with black Irish lads and apparent London accents? This evening a big group in the local store standing there forcing London accents at each other. What's the story with that? They must have to work hard to keep it up. 'Bruv', 'Innit'...
Funny cause every now and then it goes back to a Dublin accent when they lose concentration 😁 Gas
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
