Danmark 
Norge 
Sverige
England 
USA 
Israel 
Tidsskr. på eng.
tirsdag 16. december 2008
Skøn kommentar af William Katz på Hudson Institute. Fra One-Way Multiculturalism? (18/11-08).
“Maybe it’s time to ask some serious questions about this term, multiculturalism.
The multiculturalists claim that theirs is a modern, common-sense point of view. “We must understand other cultures,” they say. All right, it’s hard to recall a time when educators didn’t want us to understand other cultures, other nations, other peoples. The difference between traditional teaching of distant traditions and today’s approach is that multiculturalism comes with baggage. Consider, for example, the key phrase, “We must understand other cultures.” Wouldn’t a true multiculturalist say, “We must understand other cultures, and they must understand us”? That’s common sense, yet one searches in vain for any card-carrying multiculturalist who has ever put it that way. In fact, understanding American culture seems entirely absent from the multiculturalist songbook. We apparently have not been included in the honored list of cultures to be multi about.
Another question: What do multiculturalists mean by “understand”? Is that what they really mean? Or is “approve” what they’re talking about? Multiculturalism has been notable in its lack of criticism of any culture other than our own… The murder of gays in Iran goes without note. But a small scandal at an American prison in Iraq brings out the multicultural masses, ever sensitive about American infractions…
One of the building blocks of multiculturalism is non-judgmentalism. All cultures, we are told, have their own validity. And, after all, who are we to question what someone else does? Why, that would be cultural imperialism. The anti-intellectualism and amorality of this position is simply breathtaking, yet it’s a widely held notion…
Non-judgmentalism violates one of the most fundamental concepts of civilization – that to be civilized means making choices, including cultural choices. The citizen is called upon to judge and evaluate all the time – in elections, in trials, in determining social policy. The basic American history text in Robert Hutchins’s college at the University of Chicago was called “The People Shall Judge,” not “The People Shall Be Non-judgmental.” We not only have a right to judge, we have an obligation, and that obligation extends across cultures…
But in the world of modern multiculturalism, those obligations have been translated into “acts of oppression.” It’s a kind of dumbing down, often perpetrated by people who hold a Ph.D. Multiculturalism has become an excuse machine…”
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.uriasposten.net/wp-trackback.php?p=6398
9 kommentarer »
RSS af kommentarer til dette indlæg.
Skriv en kommentar
Linjer og afsnit brydes automatisk, e-mail-adresse vises aldrig. Tilladt HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Det er skarpt og lige på. Men dette og varianter af dette er blevet sagt masser af gange, og ofte lige så velformuleret.
Så hvorfor siver det ikke ind hos multikulturalisterne?
Deres reaktioner kan bedst karakteriseres som tavshed. Gad vide hvilke mentale forsvarsmekanismer der træder i kraft… En selektiv blindhed? Eller registreres afsenderen som en fæl højreekstremist (PC dem-og-os-tænkning), så man ikke behøver at forholde sig til hans kommentar? Der er vel osse den mulighed at man udemærket forstår kommentaren, og rækkevidden af den, men at man er fanget i multikulturalismen, da ens vennekreds og arbejdsplads forventer jævnlig tilkendegivelse af tilhørsforhold. Alternativt kan det være at man er kynisk prækonvertit, som forsøger at positionere sig i forhold til den forventede indførelse af sharia.
Spekulationer… spekulationer…
Kommentar af Mallebrok — tirsdag 16. december 2008 @ 20:44
Den multikultur de ønsker sig virker kun en vej…vi skal forstå dem og underkaste os, de kan til gengæld skide på os..Måske har multikulturisterne et latent ønske om at være trælbundne? – defekte gener? hvad er deres problemer??
Kommentar af Onion — tirsdag 16. december 2008 @ 22:18
“hvad er deres problemer??” Det er netop det gode spørgsmål, og svarene er forskellige, som multikulturalisterne er det.
Én mulighed, som jeg ikke nævnte ovenover, kan eksemplificeres med den svenske socialdemokrat Jens Orback, som sikkert har har haft “Androkles og løven” som yndlingshistorie da han var barn, og som i 2004 sagde “Vi måste vara öppna och generösa mot muslimer och islam, för när vi blir i minoritet kommer de att göra likadant tillbaka mot oss.“
Kommentar af Mallebrok — tirsdag 16. december 2008 @ 22:39
“Vi måste vara öppna och generösa mot muslimer och islam, för när vi blir i minoritet kommer de att göra likadant tillbaka mot oss.“
Dream on !
Dette er ikke sket en eneste gang i samtlig lande der er faldet under islam’s morderiske åg.
Når Svenskerne bliver minoritet i deres eget land er Sverige færdig som nation. kultur og som enhed…
Kommentar af Vantroende — onsdag 17. december 2008 @ 09:38
Multiculturalisme er en racistisk Stalinistisk ideologi hvor det ikke er individet der er det afgørende men den kollektiviske gruppe individet tilhører bestemt udfra individets hudfarve.
Stalin brugte samme metode som transnational socialisterne/multikulturalisterne/EU gør det idag, nemlig omrokering a hele befolknings grupper hvilket var en metode til at nedbryde national følelse, sociale sammenhæng, kulturer og identiteter, de Baltiske lande Estland, Letland og Litauen er bare et eksempel, andre befolknings grupper blev tvangs fjernet til andre dele af tidligere USSR – Vi ser det sker indenfor EU hvor befolkningsgrupper blive ‘importeret’ udefra.
Den eneste måde sådan en politik kan fungere er gennem tyranni og undertrykkelse af befolkningerne hvilket vi ser bliver indført skridt for skridt gennem direktiver, love, censur, løgne og myter osv.
Sammen med de aspekter som William Katz fremlægger der fornedre vores egen kultur og identitet – For at mennesker skal akcepterer sådan en gennemliggende ondskabsfuld ideologi er det nødvendigt at ødelægge rational tænkning og sund fornuft hvilket bliver gjort med altruism og fordummende kultur relativisme der forhindre enhver moral, etik og værdi valuering hvilket er nødvendigt igen for ødelæggelsen af vores identitet, sociale sammenhæng og kultur.
De ondskabsfulde Marxistiske ideologier er bestemt ikke forsvundet men har skiftet ham og navn med nye eufomismer hvor multikulturalismen er den mest ondskabsfulde – De har ikke glemt den Kommunistiske Internationale men kalder det globalisering, det globale samfund osv – Så idag er det ‘Transnational Socialismen’ – ‘TransNazismen’ eller ‘InterNazismen’ som har erstattet Nazismen.
Tilføj så hele offerideologien hvor undertrykkerer og ofre er udpeget.
Israel, USA, det frie marked, Jøderne og folk af Europæisk herkomst er undertrykkerne – Folk af anden herkomst er ofrene og klassekampen er blevet erstattet af en fremprovokeret racekamp hvor multikulturalismen er den racistiske ideologi som venstrefløjen bruger til at retfærdiggøre racismen og ondskabsfuldheden.
Hvor det fører os hen er ikke svært at gætte…
EU er det værste apparat siden USSR og disse slogans burde ligge på alles læber:
No to EUSSR – No to EUtopia – No to social engineering!
Dette fortjener at blive læst af alle og brugt i skolerne:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/newsletter_multiculturalism.pdf?docID=162
Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism
Is ethnic diversity an “absolute essential” of a college education?
UCLA’s Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a long-overdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. “Ethnic diversity” is merely racism in a politically correct disguise.
Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that one’s race determines one’s identity. It is the belief that one’s convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one’s mind but by one’s anatomy or “blood.”
This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one’s own achievements, not from inherited characteristics.
The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual’s confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels “himself” only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends—and enemies—based on ethnicity.
This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.
The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences.
This is a complete sham.
One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind.
One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings.
One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason.
One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem.
Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing:
colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible.
No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.
Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common.
If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.
Advocates of “diversity” claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population “reflect” the general population (particularly the ethnic population)?
No answer.
In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.
Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today’s intellectuals.
The educationally significant diversity that exists in “the real world” is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity—far from being sought after—is virtually forbidden on campus.
The existence of “political correctness” blasts the academics’ pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.
The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual’s mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals— and that deriving one’s identity from one’s race is a corruption—a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany, not to a nation based on freedom and independence.
Kommentar af Rolf Krake — onsdag 17. december 2008 @ 10:54
De politisk korrekte (pk) multikultur-tilhængere var før ikke afvisende, men ønskede dialog/samarbejde med, var måske endda fanatiske tilhængere af kommunist-diktaturerne. Denne blinde fanatisme for det ene k-diktatur har de nu flyttet til det andet k-diktatur: koran-diktaturet.
Kommentar af barfbag — onsdag 17. december 2008 @ 11:57
OT:
Politisk ukorrekt forskningsresultat. Putterman og Weil, to økonomer fra Brown University, har påvist at et lands GDP er stærkt korreleret med befolkningsandelen hvis forfædre boede i Europa i år 1500.
“[...] the results were “almost breathtaking.” The power of regional origins is illustrated by the fact that in a 125-country regression, 44 percent of the variance in current per capita GDP is accounted for by entering only the share of the population’s ancestors that lived in Europe in 1500.”
Hvordan forklare dette?… Når nu økonomer ikke bruger begrebet kultur…
“[...] the influence of population origins suggests that there is something that human families and communities transmit from generation to generation — perhaps a form of economic culture, a set of attitudes or beliefs, or informally transmitted capabilities — that is of at least similar importance to economic success as are more widely recognized factors [...]”
kilde: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2008/12/matrix
Kommentar af Mallebrok — onsdag 17. december 2008 @ 19:44
3.Mallebrok.
Dermed fik Jens Orback samtidig fortalt at han ikke ved hvad Islam står for.
Der kan ikke opvises eet eneste tilfælde, hverken historisk eller tidsmæssigt tættere på nutiden, hvor det erobrede lands/områdes befolkning af Islam er blevet behandlet med respekt for deres særpræg.
Det har været lige på og hårdt ud fra de regler som Allah, gennem Muhammed, har krævet af muslimer at udøve i forbindelse med vantro, regler som kan læses i Koranen, hadith, sunnah og shariaen.
At multikulturalisterne agerer som de gør, gør de vel bl.a. fordi de har fået sig malet opi et hjørne de ikke kan komme ud af.
Præcist sådan som mange af de klima-folk der stadigt fastholder påstanden om den stigende opvarmning af kloden.
Klimafolkene koster befolkningerne enorme pengesummer.
Men Multikultierne påfører de forskellige lande og befolkninger irreversible ødelæggelser.
Ødelæggelser som omfatter ethvert tænkeligt område et samfund består af og eksisterer på.
Og hvad allerværst er af dette er, at den sociale kapital gradvist forsvinder.
Denne kapital består som bekendt af tillid og sammenhørighed borgerne imellem – og mellem borgerne og staten.
Når tilliden til politikerne forsvinder, de oprindelige indbyggere af landet indbyrdes splittes op i pro et contra multikulturen, for ikke at tale om, at herboende muslimer samtidig udøver den islamiske apartheid, så skal det gå rigtig galt.
For det nødvendige klister, der skal binde et samfund sammen og få det til at fungere på bedste måde for alle dets borgere, forsvinder.
I stedet får vi uroen, volden og til slut borgerkrigen.
Kommentar af Vivi Andersen — onsdag 17. december 2008 @ 20:53
Multikulturalisme, er i kun et monoteistisk mantra som venstrefløjen har opfundet. De aner ikke selv hvad det er, men det lyder godt, når man sidder og piller sig i navlen og skræpper op, fordi man er bange for vold. ( alle konflikters dilemma )
Vores andres fejl, er at vi ikke har buret dem inde i tide.
Kommentar af Solipsisyfos — fredag 19. december 2008 @ 01:22