Trouble of amalgamation of (traditional/hereditary) patriotism and (post-imperialistic/modern) multiculturalism

[Qasper]

How can patriotism and multiculturalism be combinded?

Many countries in eg. Europe define themselves regarding to their past. As eg. Scotland and England have an 'interactive' past with ups and downs, and a nowadays good relationship.

But all their historic 'benchmarks' don't involve eg. Asian or African people(s). And their national songs don't referre to Asian or African people at all. Also the British Empire didn't care for human rights of Africans or Asians, and eg. Winston Churchill was a racist.





Also the German history hasn't got any relation to eg. Turkish history and is based on German(ic) historic figures.

And the US is a state proud of being founded by people who kept Africans as slaves, killed/displaced the native Americans and literally 'used' Chinese workers to build their railways.


My opinion:

- Multiculturalism is a good thing, if it means that - in general - the various cultures really intermingle and; for eg. Europe - >live up to non-anti-feminist, modern standards...
- Anyone with non-European background should kick ass anyone that tries to tell them don't belong here / to Europe.
- Radical Christians, Muslims, Jews and whatnot should be sidelined and if possible also extradited if they argue against modern human/women rights imo; even if they face torture and death penalty - I really have no compassion for radical idiots, if they get tortured and killed after being extradited... well it's their own damn fault.

[Col. Tartleton]

And the US is a state proud of being founded by people who kept Africans as slaves, killed/displaced the native Americans and literally 'used' Chinese workers to build their railways.

We're also a state proud of the fact we were led in the early days by people who generally wanted to free the slaves (before Britain cough) even if they didn't think it was expedient immediately as a consensus and took steps to end the slave trade with the goal of phasing out slavery long term without depriving anyone of property rights short term. Slavery clung on longer than it should have and as a result we also fought a blood soaked civil war which at least indirectly if not directly led to their liberation. Given how many Yankees died for Emancipation I don't think the whites of this country owe anyone anything.

The vast majority, 90-95% of the Indigenous people were killed by diseases we had no control of. Of the remaining people, they were in large part ignorant, backwards, and cruel with no more right to the country than our European ancestors (also not unknown to be ignorant, backwards, and cruel). Almost every official conflict sanctioned by the state was initiated by the Indians, not the United States. With the exception of the Indian Removal Act I don't think anyone could do much better. The IRA was bad if primarily because it served no good purpose. The Indians being resettled to Oklahoma were already long "civilized" ie. English speaking Americanized Christians. The Quakers of Pennsylvania had exceptionally good treatment of the Indians though, and those folks are also our founders. They were from before the charter treated as equals.

The railroads had to be built. The Chinese needed money. The Chinese built the railroads. The Chinese died building the railroads. So did blacks and whites and everyone else.

I don't think anyone thinks America is perfect.

Look, every country thinks they're exceptional. America just happens to be right.

---

The Flower of Scotland is for Scottish people. Don't be a racist. You're making out that blacks in Scotland aren't Scots. They're part of the tribe now, it doesn't matter where they're from. They can put on their ostrich feathered bonnets, grow obnoxious sideburns, and wear skirts like anyone else.

There are plenty of honorary members of ethnic groups throughout history.

[Bruriya]

We're also a state proud of the fact we were led in the early days by people who generally wanted to free the slaves (before Britain cough) even if they didn't think it was expedient immediately as a consensus

But after the invention of the mechanism of Whitney for purification of cotton - the slavery became very favorable, and "cotton" states preferred benefit to humanity (up to criminal punishment of local abolitionists.)

Given how many Yankees died for Emancipation I don't think the whites of this country owe anyone anything.

More important reasons of war from the Yankee were: self-interest and love of power. The Lincoln cancelled slavery only in 1863, not from humanity but to weaken enemies. He spoke: "if it was possible to keep the Union, without having released any slave, I would keep slavery".
In 1863 in New York there were anti-black riots, about more than 100 men killed. Thugs thought that "us force to be at war for release of Blacks"; here is how simple Yankee guys "wanted" to be at war for it!

The vast majority, 90-95% of the Indigenous people were killed by diseases we had no control of. Of the remaining people, they were in large part ignorant, backwards, and cruel with no more right to the country than our European ancestors (also not unknown to be ignorant, backwards, and cruel). Almost every official conflict sanctioned by the state was initiated by the Indians, not the United States.

From where you have such data? General Amkherst and other Americans specially distributed to Indians of a blanket and the clothes infected with smallpox and other diseases deadly to Indians. In the 1870th and 80th years the army of the USA specially destroyed bisons that Indians starved to death. The government and army paid for scalps not only American Indian men, but also women and children. And so on.

[SLN445]

Wanting to and actualy doing it are two different things

[Col. Tartleton]

Wanting to and actualy doing it are two different things

Well everyone else was doing it...

[Claudius Gothicus]

Liberalism. Also patriotism is not directly and irrevocably connected to Monoculturalism... jsut look at the USA, or Brazil, or Argentina or whatever country has more than one culture within.

As long as people submit their actions to the margins of what's constitutionally sanctioned as legal there should be no problems about ''cultural misunderstanding''.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The entire OP assumes patriotism is linked to ethnicity, which makes it worthless.

[King Gambrinus]

The entire OP assumes patriotism is linked to ethnicity, which makes it worthless.

Don't be so fussy Ferrets, I'm sure he meant (ultra-) nationalism. Besides, most patriots I know tend to think multiculturalism is a threat to their sovereignty. Don't ask me why, only they know...

[Col. Tartleton]

It should be noted that most of this western fear of foreigners is about urban decay and economic changes like increases in competition and social burden.

[Treize]

Simple: Assimilate foreigners into your culture.

[Col. Tartleton]

Simple: Assimilate foreigners into your culture.

The Turks tried that...

Let's just say there are a lot more ex-Turks than Turks.

[King Gambrinus]

Simple: Assimilate foreigners into your culture.

Hard to do without forcing them, which is not the best course of action anyway. As long as they abide by laws that they can indirectly influence through democracy, I do not see the problem with immigrants not adopting some sad twisted nationalist propaganda that the right likes to call "culture".

A culture is far more complexe than a language, Treize.

[Ak1980]

Hard to do without forcing them, which is not the best course of action anyway. As long as they abide by laws that they can indirectly influence through democracy, I do not see the problem with immigrants not adopting some sad twisted nationalist propaganda that the right likes to call "culture".

A culture is far more complexe than a language, Treize.

It's not that hard. It takes times, more than 2-3 generation but very do able. The easiest example is Chinese overseas, it's rare for me to see Chinese overseas who can maintain their chinese culture for more than 4-5 generation, language usually is the first to go, cuisine will be mix with local and creating new fusion cuisine.

Forcing them usually will go backfire, some will assimilate but the rest will try to maintain their culture underground and become proud of it.

[mishkin]

Simple: Assimilate foreigners into your culture.

Assimilate foreigners into the country laws. Foreigners cultures can be as good or bad as yours. (A subsaharian participating in a bullfight in Spain?, a Pakistani drinking alone till he is totally drunk in a english pub?)

@Phalanx: celtic, carthaginian, roman, goths, muslims, jews, french influence builded my country. Do you suggest stoping the world right now because now you believe your country is "pure"?

[Denny Crane!]

Someone is heading straight for a postmodernism class.

[Phalanx300]

It is bad and shouldn't be a goal for countries to achieve. It ruins regional identity and only causes conflict.

[Gromovnik]

I believe that all cultures and ethnic groups have a right to exist. I believe in true diversity.