Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I got a 7. They always throw in a few ringers when they make these quizzes. I didn't even know who Elias Howe was.
What about the Chinatowns in San Francisco and Boston? Boston's isn't too big, but as far as I know they live there, speak Chinese (except to the toruists), and all the stores are Asian. Maybe this isn't fully considered multiculturalism because most of the people go to the city schools and many probably have regular jobs? But I still think this is different than the Irish or Italian sections of Boston, because in those sections it's mostly but not only Irish or Italians who live there.
What you are looking for is absolute answers. Sadly, there are none. Man is imperfect, therefore his solutions are imperfect. In the dealings between different groups the goal is not absolute perfection but rather a small enough level of imperfection that all groups can live as harmoniously as possible. That is why I say Multiculturalism will not work. The melting pot is a perfect simile. All the ingredients are still there, they are simply mixed.It is like Ben franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence:
We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately
Multiculturalism tears the country apart while assimilation draws it together.
I see that you are absolving the Arabs of all responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians. Israel only controls one side of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You have completely ignored the actions of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese in the wretched conditions in which the Palestinians live.If the Israelis have to give back the land they conquered in 1948 why doesn't the US do the same for all the Native Americans whose land was stolen in North America? That is not confusing the issue either. The concept is one and the same. Right of conquest has a history going back thousands of years, it is only in the last hundred that peoples have taken to manipulating public opinion to attempt to reverse the decision on the battlefield. Palestinian terrorism and terrorism of any stripe is a policy of the weak. I happen to belong to a nation that is currently strong. Therefore, I abhor terrorism, I would probably think differently if I were in different shoes. Happily, I am not. How does the US relationship with Israel harm American interests? Face it, the only reason we care about the middle east is the oil. Without that we would care as much about the Arabs as we do about most of sub-Saharan Africa, which is not much. Our national interests are at stake in ensuring the free flow of oil. Our support for Israel is the support of one democracy for another. Never mind the horror of the Holocaust.As for the Liberty, what about the Pueblo? Do you want to see the North Koreans punished for that? The Liberty is a good stick to wave but there is little substance to the conspiracy theories surrounding that incident. I spare little thought for it, that incident is pure fodder for conspiracy theorists.The Israelis have always been open about their demands. They seek peace and the right to exist. The Palestinians seek an illusional right of return, and the destruction of the state of Israel. Both sides tend to be irrational. But I see no attempt on the part of Israel to ghetto-ize the Palestinians. In my opinion, they have only enacted reasonable security measures, given the demonstrated thereat they face. We will no doubt continue to disagree. I think the US is right to support Israel, you don't. That is fine, it is in the nature of a free society that we will not agree on everything. I did not insult your nationalism, I said exactly
"What I detect in you is an irrational hatred of Israel, who, the Liberty incident notwithstanding, has been America's one staunch ally in the Middle East since its founding"
I dont see where that impugns your national feeling.To sum my feelings up, Israel won, the Palestinians lost. Israel has spent the past 50 years defending, and even expanding their conquests. Something Europeans did in America. Why is it wrong there now, but we are not wrong for our conquests in the New World? Conquest is Conquest, the test of history is whether you can maintain those conquests, so far the Israeli's have. Lastly, I ask myself one question. Given the choice to have either an Israeli or a Palestinian by my side in combat, which would I choose. The answer is easy, an Israeli. Not because he is a better fighter, though they undoubtedly are, but because the Israeli's are more trustworthy. I have not met an Arab yet I will trust farther than I can throw him, but the few Israeli's I have met are all men of their word.We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have too much experience of the Arab man on the street to ever change it.
It is probably well to remember that the Seven Years War was not strictly a colonial affair, quite a bit of fighting also occurred in Europe. Most notably the battles between Frederick's Prussia and virtually the rest of Europe. It was not strictly a British-French colonial war although that aspect certainly had the most affect on the future development of North America.
Ok now that you have spelled that out. Multiculturalism will NOT work for THIS country. It must not be forced on us even from those within that think its a good idea. If we do, some other culture will set up shop in this country and grow until it is the dominant culture. Then once it has enough power to provide enough votes, our nation could be irrevocably changed. I cannot let that happen.
There is a culture that is already doing that. I find it curious that my wife, who speaks German and English fluently, is not considered bilingual for purposes of employment. She was told many times when looking for a job that bilingual is only when you speak Spanish.
Some of the recommendations to remedy the problem included increasing focus on American history and American landmarks. Do you think that national identity in the U.S. is degrading and what do you attribute this to?
Yes, I do. I blame multi-culturalism and the new left for the failure of the American identity to remain strong. Thiis speaks to the evils of Multicutluralism and the new western inclusiveness that wants us all to be world citizens.
Now you are comparing the Israeli's to the Nazis? How rich. How, I wonder, is the Israeli conquest of Israel in 1948 equivalent to the Nazi attempt to conquer all of Europe? I think you forget your history here. The Jewish people did not suddenly appear in the Holy Land, they have a continuous presence going back almost 3,000 years. What is a Palestinian anyway? I will tell you, A Palestinian is an ethnic construct of the so-called Palestinian people themselves. They are nothing more than the descendants of those Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula that conquered the Middle East during Islam's first great wave of expansion in the eighth century. The Palestinian's have no more than squatter's rights; if anyone has a claim to the territory of Israel, it is the Jews.
If they are such an ally, then how many IDF troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan helping us? Zero. This perplexes me because the president is calling on international help, except Israel. Why? Because they're allegedly the chosen ones of God? I think that's the only reason.
You know as well as I that if the IDF were to contribute troops to Iraq and Afghanistan their presence would only inflame the terrorists and non-terrorists alike. If any people in the world has a monopoly on anti-Semitism today, it is the Muslims. Your complaint on that point is disingenuous at best.What I detect in you is an irrational hatred of Israel, who, the Liberty incident notwithstanding, has been America's one staunch ally in the Middle East since its founding. I find some people's visceral dislike, even hatred of Israel, confusing. You use emotionally charged language and make outrageous claims about how evil they are. I guess the Arab nations surrounding Israel are absolved of any and all responsibility vis-?-vis the Palestinians? What about Jordan and Black October? Syria? Egypt? They support their Palestinian brothers so much? I guess you have not heard about Egypt closing the border between Sinai and the Gaza Strip? Or the fact that Egyptian policy this spring was to machine gun civilians who were attempting to break into Sinai?I cannot believe that you are so na?ve as to believe all the anti-Israeli rhetoric. They are easy to demonize because they seemingly hold all the cards. It is the Palestinians who indiscriminately target civilians, not the Israelis.
The wall is a response to the Palestinian refusal to seriously negotiate not a cause. The Palestinians are not even willing to meet the Israelis half-way. Can you seriously claim that the Israeli's have not tried to negotiate with the Palestinians, talking to them is like talking to a wall, with about as much effect.
Sanctions are not negotiation. Sanctions are consequences for actions deemed undesirable by the world community. Negotiation is two or more parties sitting down across the table and trying to find a solution to mutual problems that both can live with. Negotiations with Iran can begin once they agree to meet the reasonable demands from the world community. Or would you say that Iran's president calling for the destruction of Israel is negotiating as well? Sanctions are indeed an example of diplomacy but not of negotiation. Negotiation implies a two-way conversation. With Iran, the west has expressed a willingness to negotiate, all we have gotten from Iran is bombast and rhetoric.
yet the Israelis are excoriated for for their actions despite the fact that they are the ones making concessions.
They are? Give examples, please. How's that apartheid wall going?
The Israeli's are regularly blasted by Palestinian organizations and bleeding heart liberals for their policies. They have consistently made concessions in the search for peace. They ceded control of Gaza and the West Bank, they have allowed Palestinian self-rule in the so-called occupied territories. Yet your own emotionally charged language condemns them for taking measures to safeguard their own population. The problem people have with the wall is that it works, if Israel was not threatened by Palestinian suicide bombers there would be no need for the wall. Why don't the Palestinians stop sending the bombers into Israel. Or is it simply more convenient to blame the Israelis because they are a successful country despite the 60 years of Arab attempts to push them into the sea. I challenge you to name one substantive concession made by the Palestinians or their self-appointed leadership to Israeli requests for security guarantees. I can think of none. Hell, many Palestinian groups won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Their continued survival speaks to them having established that right, at a minimum. So far, the state of Israel has withstood the test of time, and they don't look like quitting or going away any time soon.As to negotiations between Sadr and Iraq and Iran and Iraq, you are entirely correct, those are decisions best made by the Iraqi authorities. My post was more about why the we in the west or more specifically, our leadership, should not negotiate with terrorists. I reiterate, what is to be gained by the west sitting down and negotiating with those (Iran, Al Quaeda, Jihadists) that are not willing to concede anything if we did talk to them. You don't negotiate with the guy threatening your family, you do what it takes to ensure he is not a threat.
Here is a further question in regards to terrorism and ways of dealing with it. What is to be gained by negotiating with terrorists? This is one question I simply cannot divine a good answer to. Negotiation implies a willingness to compromise, from everything I understand, terrorists, especially the Jihadists, are not willing to compromise. What then is the point of talking to them? The same thing goes for talking to Iran, I do not see how talking helps anything. We (the West) are willing to compromise to a point, but if our enemies are not then isn't compromise on our part tantamount to surrender since we will be giving something up but they wont?It reminds me of California and minimum wage a few years ago. Arnold opposed any increase the dems wanted a $2 increase. They settled on a $1 increase, in that scenario the dems got some of what they wanted and Arnold got nothing, hence the dems won, they got at least some of what they wanted. Where is the compromise there? The same thing applies in Palestine, the Palestinians want their demands met while refusing to countenance any of the wants or needs of the Israelis, this also brings checkmate, yet the Israelis are excoriated for for their actions despite the fact that they are the ones making concessions.
How nasty were the Spanish Inquisitors?
Pretty nasty, but only if you disagreed with them. They are the ancestors of most modern day torture methods. They invented the modern techniques of putting people to the "THE QUESTION"
What is lacking in this discussion is a definition of what multiculturalism is, absent such a definition any discussion is meaningless. I propose the following definition for multiculturalism: It is the notion that somehow, it is possible for people of different cultures to live with and amongst each other without there being a clash of different cultural values. This is patently not the same thing as assimilation, in which people of different cultures move toward accepting a single set of cultural values while at the same time remembering, even celebrating the cultural heritage of their ancestors while allowing others of different cultural heritage to do the same. Assimilation is represented by people of all cultural backgrounds celebrating St Patrick's day, Cinco de Mayo, etc. In a truly multicultural society only those of the ethnic group of the thing or event celebrated would do so, while everybody else not of that ethnicity would be excluded from the celebration.Learning and using English as a common language is not a sign of multiculturalism, that is a sign of assimilation. Speaking Spanish to Hispanics and Russian to Russians while they do not have to learn the common tongue is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism says that My culture must be accepted by the majority and goes against everything this country was founded upon. It decisively destroys the concept of majority rule because it says that minorities not only have the same rights as the majority, they actually have more. Multiculturalism is contributing to the Balkanization of America, where assimilation contributes to a strong unified country because everybody ascribes to a unified set of common core values and traditions while being open to the addition of new ones as well. Assimilation builds on a cultural foundation where multiculturalism attempts to tear that foundation down to bedrock to rebuild it in a completely new manner.
This may be the next step of the discussion, once we have labeled someone (or group) terrorists, what is the best way to deal with them? The military works, to a point. Education--on both sides. Isolating them. I'm sure there are a lot of avenues that could be pursued.
All and none. Dealing with terrorism must be done on a case by case basis. Some of the issues that the terrorists claim as their own are patently insoluble. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict for one, compromise is impossible given the stated demands of both sides. Hence, the refusal of Hezbollah and others to even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Most Jihadist ideology is the same, to give in to their demands means the surrender of everything in the west we hold dear. This, despite what some on the left say. I, for one, will never agree to abide by Sharia law or accept what I consider to be the false religion of Islam. Some issues can only be solved by the sword. To think otherwise, is to delude ourselves. Education will work, up to a point, but some will never be reconciled to a free and open society.
Some people today mistake multi-culturalism for assimilation. Phid said it well. It is possible to venerate your heritage while at the same time assimilating into a new society. The New Left thinks this is not only impossible but undesirable even if it were. For some reason they equate assimilation with cultural death. The many ethnic groups in America that are Americans first and identify with their ethnicity second give the lie to the notion that assimilation is impossible.
The Battle of Zama is where Hannibal was defeated. Afterwards Scipio went to the city proper, sacked it, killed all the men, sold the women and children into slavery, destroyed the city, and sowed the ground with salt. I would say that was pretty definitive as an example of civilians being targets. For some reason people like to think that modern times saw the first targeting of civilians, if they only knew.I thought Ivan Dracul impaled them bodily not just beheaded them.
