What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Wibbs

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I agree with that, cultures are cultures, none is better or worse.

OK Mic, let's put it another way; if you were Gay, which country and culture would be worse for you, Nigeria or Ireland? We can even keep it in Ireland if we had an atomic DeLorean or a blue Police Box Which culture would be worse; 1950's Ireland, or 2020's Ireland. While I would agree pretty much all cultures have positives, mainly because humans are generally pretty cool, but some have more negatives than others.

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ah stop will you with the multicultural camp nonsense.
I am a single poster. I am not other posters.
Don't try to insult me by throwing around general insults at the "multicultural camp".

I'm not other posters so don't quote me then pretend to insult some imagined made up group. :rolleyes:

Really disappointed in the anti immigrant group in this thread. All that's left is ad hominems and insults.

Again with the seeing insults everywhere. And if you like I can certainly go back and quote quite the number of direct and quite clear attack the posts not the poster "ad hominems" from quite the number of the multiculturalist side of the debate.

Can you not avoid this please?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Wibbs would argue against you. He has against me on this issue already when I declared my children Irish in the past.

Please quote my post(s) in full on the matter. I want to make very sure I'm not being misrepresented.

jmayo

Wibbs I think you have the patience of a saint.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

OK Mic, let's put it another way; if you were Gay, which country and culture would be worse for you, Nigeria or Ireland? We can even keep it in Ireland if we had an atomic DeLorean or a blue Police Box Which culture would be worse; 1950's Ireland, or 2020's Ireland. While I would agree pretty much all cultures have positives, mainly because humans are generally pretty cool, but some have more negatives than others.

Not everything goes back to homosexuality either. In the furore about Hungary being not progressive enough last week I noticed that they legalised homsexuality in 1962. So where you would go to, gay or not, Hungary or Ireland in the 1960s?

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

if a large number of people from a specific foreign culture move to another country and don't integrate, they are going to create ghettos and subcultures that clash with the nation's culture.

it's been done before, it doesnt work

So, to answer your question, if you move to another country you are expected to understand and apply the cultural rules of such country.

Like Irish people that went all over the world and brought their (actual) culture with them?

You didn't answer the question, I asked you if you want those people to give up their own culture and take on the culture of the.country they moved to?
Nothing to do with understanding the culture, I would expect anyone moving to a new country to understand the culture. That doesn't mean they need to give up their own surely?

SchrodingersCat

Cultural racism/neo-racism describes discrimination of racial and ethnic groups based on cultural differences. If you believe that various cultures are not compatible with each other and should not co-exist in the same society, then congrats: You are a Cultural Racist. https://www.encyclopedia.com/cultural-racism


Biological racism is where groups are discriminated and oppressed based on their biological race. This is the racism that we are most familiar with, as it caused so much harm to our societies in the last century. We saw the horrible results of racism in the second world war, 60's America, apartheid, colonialism, etc. Thankfully, we have come a long way since. In the second half of the last century, societies have progressed to where it became a repulsive view with the general public and made governments denounce it.

The reason why both biological and Cultural Racism are forms of racism is that both result in the same harmful discrimination of groups of people.
Another reason why Cultural Racism is a form of racism is because biological racists use it as a tool to push a more palatable version of their views to the public. Remember when I said how the general public were repulsed by racism? Well, instead of saying that they don't want a certain race of people accepted in their country, its an easier sell to say that they don't want a certain culture of people accepted in their country. Both have the same result, which is the discrimination of a group of people, but one is less repulsive to say than the other.
Similarly, biological racists use Cultural Racism to justify to themselves that they are not racist.

Annasopra summarised it well:

Annasopra wrote: »

Lol at the attempts to downplay the racist rant by claiming its just bigoted against culture.

Wibbs wrote: »

How in god's name is culturalism a type of racism?

See explanation above.

RobbieTheRobber

Wibbs wrote: »

Again with the seeing insults everywhere. And if you like I can certainly go back and quote quite the number of direct and quite clear attack the posts not the poster "ad hominems" from quite the number of the multiculturalist side of the debate.

Can you not avoid this please?

Please quote my post(s) in full on the matter. I want to make very sure I'm not being misrepresented.

Ok so go and quote them or are we just going to keep going in loop forever accusing the other and neither of us showing evidence then?

TomTomTim

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Cultural racism/neo-racism describes discrimination of racial and ethnic groups based on cultural differences. If you believe that various cultures are not compatible with each other and should not co-exist in the same society, then congrats: You are a Cultural Racist. https://www.encyclopedia.com/cultural-racism


Biological racism is where groups are discriminated and oppressed based on their biological race. This is the racism that we are most familiar with, as it caused so much harm to our societies in the last century. We saw the horrible results of racism in the second world war, 60's America, apartheid, colonialism, etc. Thankfully, we have come a long way since. In the second half of the last century, societies have progressed to where it became a repulsive view with the general public and made governments denounce it.

The reason why both biological and Cultural Racism are forms of racism is that both result in the same harmful discrimination of groups of people.
Another reason why Cultural Racism is a form of racism is because biological racists use it as a tool to push a more palatable version of their views to the public. Remember when I said how the general public were repulsed by racism? Well, instead of saying that they don't want a certain race of people accepted in their country, its an easier sell to say that they don't want a certain culture of people accepted in their country. Both have the same result, which is the discrimination of a group of people, but one is less repulsive to say than the other.
Similarly, biological racists use Cultural Racism to justify to themselves that they are not racist.

Annasopra summarised it well:





See explanation above.

One is a matter of ideas, the other is a matter of biology. The latter can be considered racist, the former can't, no matter how hard you try.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Like Irish people that went all over the world and brought their (actual) culture with them?

You didn't answer the question, I asked you if you want those people to give up their own culture and take on the culture of the.country they moved to?
Nothing to do with understanding the culture, I would expect anyone moving to a new country to understand the culture. That doesn't mean they need to give up their own surely?

Irish people largely integrated. Surely people are expected to give up some of their culture, if not a large part of it. Giving up FGM or honour killings etc. And becoming French or German.

RobbieTheRobber

fvp4 wrote: »

Irish people largely integrated. Surely people are expected to give up some of their culture, if not a large part of it. Giving up FGM or honour killings etc. And becoming French or German.

Don't expect them to give it. Legislate against it and force them to give it up or face criminal convictions.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

One is a matter of ideas, the other is a matter of biology. The latter can be considered racist, the former can't, no matter how hard you try.

What would you call it when one group of people try to delete the culture of another group of people?
The British did it in Ireland
The Serbs did it in the Balkans.
And how did they dress it up? Because the other culture was inferior to theirs. they could control the population better if they destroyed their culture.
That inferior culture did not deserve to survive.

SchrodingersCat

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Cultural racism/neo-racism describes discrimination of racial and ethnic groups based on cultural differences. If you believe that various cultures are not compatible with each other and should not co-exist in the same society, then congrats: You are a Cultural Racist. https://www.encyclopedia.com/cultural-racism
.

Surely though some cultures are incompatible. Militant islam and secularism, for instance.

The idea that cultures may not mix isn't in any way supremacist - if anything the idea that all cultures will become western is the supremacist ideology. The history of the world and actuality of the world we live in now shows all kinds of religious, cultural and sectarian conflicts within societies and countries that lead to civil conflict, and sometimes civil war. Northern Ireland is an example.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Irish people largely integrated. Surely people are expected to give up some of their culture, if not a large part of it. Giving up FGM or honour killings etc. And becoming French or German.

FGM and honour killings are against the law.

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

Like Irish people that went all over the world and brought their (actual) culture with them?

In the vast majority of cases to European colonies, or within what was one nation, the UK. Oh and that "actual" culture very much included Catholicism and in a big way and long before the Vatican was offered a side door to the Dail with it. In places like the US anti Irish feeling went along with anti Catholic/Papist feeling, because both those against them and the Irish themselves very much saw it as their culture. Even today I'd bet the farm that there is a much higher percentage of Irish American church goers than there are Irish ones. For some odd reason you seem alone in thinking and insisting it wasn't.

You didn't answer the question, I asked you if you want those people to give up their own culture and take on the culture of the.country they moved to?
Nothing to do with understanding the culture, I would expect anyone moving to a new country to understand the culture. That doesn't mean they need to give up their own surely?

Well the same Irish pretty much did. Outside of painting things green on Paddy's Day and the aforementioned Catholicism, they dropped pretty much everything else. The Irish language an obvious one. They were barely out the other side of Ellis island when Gaelige was dropped for Bearla. A couple of industrious types tried to start Irish language newspapers but they died a death in short order. On the other hand a load of German Americans kept their language until the First World War. There were large areas of German speaking Americans with their own printing presses and periodicals.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

What would you call it when one group of people try to delete the culture of another group of people?
The British did it in Ireland
The Serbs did it in the Balkans.
And how did they dress it up? Because the other culture was inferior to theirs. they could control the population better if they destroyed their culture.
That inferior culture did not deserve to survive.

Thats a very odd analogy. Are you saying that expecting people to integrate when they immigrate is the same as colonialism? Sure the non integration is a form of colonialism.

The British did try to get rid of Irish culture. They did that with colonisation, which is the kind of immigration which definitely does not integrate. As for cultures that consider themselves superior, obviously some islamic militants in Europe consider themselves superior.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

FGM and honour killings are against the law.

They re somebody's culture. So why are they not legal?

SchrodingersCat

Deleted User wrote: »

racism is a human condition due to our tribal attitudes that have not gone away over time. In spite of all the campaigning about racism, I've yet to see any definite plan with specific methods of removing racism entirely. Sure, it's an admirable goal, but it remains a vague objective, without any real consideration that it's very unlikely to ever be fulfilled.

This is a terrible and dangerous view to take. It assumes that we cannot improve our society by rejecting discrimination through racism. It undersells the huge progress we have made since WWII when millions died due to racism. It ignores the effort and changes that civil rights movements have made to improve the quality of life for so many in our society. Giving up on this "vague objective" is to normalise racism, a disgusting proposition.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Well the same Irish pretty much did. Outside of painting things green on Paddy's Day and the aforementioned Catholicism, they dropped pretty much everything else. The Irish language an obvious one. They were barely out the other side of Ellis island when Gaelige was dropped for Bearla. A couple of industrious types tried to start Irish language newspapers but they died a death in short order. On the other hand a load of German Americans kept their language until the First World War. There were large areas of German speaking Americans with their own printing presses and periodicals.

And yet today there are GAA clubs in every continent and little children learning to Irish dance everywhere.
The Irish did not give up their.culture, they may enjoy others but they didn't drop their own.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I asked you if you want those people to give up their own culture and take on the culture of the.country they moved to?
Nothing to do with understanding the culture, I would expect anyone moving to a new country to understand the culture. That doesn't mean they need to give up their own surely?

Well it depends, right?

In the culture I live in, on a hot day, nobody would bat an eyelid at me walking around in a pair of shorts and a tank top. Nobody would care if I went to the pub and had a few beers in a non-sex-segregated bar.

If I moved to Saudi Arabia, while I would still hold onto the cultural values that allow me to do those things here in Ireland and in any other WD, I certainly would not do them. Partly, admittedly, because I'd probably find myself in significant trouble, but also because those cultural practices would go against the culture I had moved to and would be offensive to much of the citizenry I am expecting to allow me to live in peace. In the privacy of my own (Saudi Arabian) home, I might still wear the shorts & tank and sip on black market booze in a mixed-sex friend group or whatever.

TomTomTim

bubblypop wrote: »

What would you call it when one group of people try to delete the culture of another group of people?
The British did it in Ireland
The Serbs did it in the Balkans.
And how did they dress it up? Because the other culture was inferior to theirs. That inferior culture did not deserve to survive.

You're blending concepts to suit yourself. The Brits were both ethnically racist and culturally supremacist, as were the Serbs. It's completely possible to be a cultural supremacist, without being a racial supremacist. I don't agree with much of modern secularism culture, and would frankly rather return to a more traditional culture. Does that mean that I'm culturally racist against you, a secularist? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous. Just because some sociologists have came up with new ways to call people racist, doesn't mean that they should be validated.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They re somebody's culture. So why are they not legal?

I'm pretty sure you don't actually mean this.... #rolleyes#

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

FGM and honour killings are against the law.

Ah yes, the law. And how do such laws come about? Societies decide that such practices are inferior culturally and against humanity and change them and enact laws to drive that home until the culture accepts them as superior and normalised.

bubblypop wrote: »

That inferior culture did not deserve to survive.

The Barbarians sacked Rome and yet in a couple of centuries various ex Barbarians viewed it as superior, tried to rebuild it locally and it spread throughout western Europe and its legacy remains down to today. Culture can be quite Darwinistic, depending on the environment.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish people in the US don't give two sh1tes about Ireland. Most are just American Whites.

I never suggested they did?
Where did you get that from?
I didn't even.mention America............

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

And yet today there are GAA clubs in every continent and little children learning to Irish dance everywhere.
The Irish did not give up their.culture, they may enjoy others but they didn't drop their own.

Both of those trends becoming popular is remarkably recent in nature and came back after the Irish diaspora had already assimilated.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Both of those trends becoming popular is remarkably recent in nature and came back after the Irish diaspora had already assimilated.

Not a bit, it has been going for decades.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you don't actually mean this.... #rolleyes#

I do mean it. As usual with people who proclaim that all cultures are equal you fall down at the very first hurdle. Either you don't know what other cultures are or you don't know that law and culture, custom and culture are intermixed. Or you have no idea that other cultures believe or do.

FGM is a cultural practice.
Honour Killings are a cultural practice.

And while we are at it laws against homosexuality are. cultural practice. In fact laws are downwind of culture/religion. We had laws against homosexuality because of religion.

A multi cultural society would allow all of these. In fact there are genuine multi cultural societies which have different laws for different cultures.

You sound like a bit of a supremacist.

TomTomTim

bubblypop wrote: »

Not a bit, it has been going for decades.

Can you not see the difference between the cultural elements you're citing and cultural elements that are harmful to the host nation? You're making points about trivial things, while we care about things that are harmful, and not one bit equivalent to what you are highlighting.

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

Not a bit, it has been going for decades.

...after the Irish diaspora had already assimilated. The Irish disapora overwhelmingly went to White Christian European ex colonies and even then had issues, but today they're about as assimilated as one could get in those nations.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I do mean it. As usual with people who proclaim that all cultures are equal you fall down at the very first hurdle. Either you don't know what other cultures are or you don't know that law and culture, custom and culture are intermixed. Or you have no idea that other cultures believe or do.

FGM is a cultural practice.
Honour Killings are a cultural practice.

And while we are at it laws against homosexuality are. cultural practice. In fact laws are downwind of culture.

A multi cultural society would allow all of these. In fact there are genuine multi cultural societies which have different laws for different cultures.

You sound like a bit of a supremacist.

I'm well aware of all that, thanks.
If you read my posts at all you should.be aware that I am all about law and order. Without question.
Live and let live, I have no issue with people of different cultures living in different countries.
They must live according to the law of the land though. Obviously.

Swindled

bubblypop wrote: »

What would you call it when one group of people try to delete the culture of another group of people?
The British did it in Ireland
The Serbs did it in the Balkans.
And how did they dress it up? Because the other culture was inferior to theirs. they could control the population better if they destroyed their culture.
That inferior culture did not deserve to survive.

And one of the tactics they all use is mass immigration and demonisation and worse of anyone who objects. We're constantly told that anyone who prefers indigenous culture and it's people in Ireland, or other indigenous cultures, peoples and their countries, are ignorant and inferior to so called multiculturalism.