Furthest thing from.... A.) I already gave an alternate option: colorblindness. B.) if something really is impractical, then advocating it as a practical solution doesn't make sense.
Multiculturalism doesn't exist for any other reason than to accomplish a purpose. I'm saying it can't accomplish that purpose because the thing it would need to do so doesn't exist: decent people. Or if you prefer a sliver of hope which I don't, the number of decent people is so vastly dwarfed by the sheer massive number of indecent people as to be negligible.
Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <---- This might actually stand a chance of working.
Summation:
Multiculturalism needs decent people to function. People aren't decent; multiculturalism won't function.
Colorblindness doesn't need decent people to function. Thus lack of them won't deter its function.
Work through the logic of my statements; its there. It's horrid and cynical and you can disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it. It just means you still have some hope for humankind, which I most certainly do not. Those statements of mine, also perfectly logical. You'll know when I'm arguing defeatism, because I'll say things like "we should just nuke everyone." <--- Now that's defeatism, and I admit it. Advocating colorblindness, isn't.
You mentioned it but I don't understand how it's more practical at all (indeed, I thought it was just something you yourself practice since it'd be so difficult to roll out). Under a multiculturalist model you can teach people about other cultures and use integration to help people see that actually those of other races aren't that different to themselves. Under colourblindness you can... what, exactly? It's really just telling people not to be racist and hoping for the best, which isn't helpful.
I don't see how either requires "more decent" people. Multiculturalism makes an active effort to get rid of racism, colour blindness ignores the problem and hopes it'll go away (hence defeatism). You'll need to explain to me why exactly colourblindness works on "non decent" people. And also why it's more effective, when your own article says it isn't.
And also [explain] why it's more effective, when your own article says it isn't.
Well, I provided the article to show an opposing viewpoint to my own. That is to show the argument against myself. Hence why the text I linked it to said, "disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it."Once again, I expressly stated I provided an article that disagreed with me to show the counterpoint to my argument. I then countered that counterpoint in the same post. Again, I'd point to the history of US civil rights cases, Brown v. Board et seq. See linked post above. Moreover, I already provided an example, the judge, in the post you just quoted. It's an easier idea to explain to stupid people.
You mentioned it but I don't understand how it's more practical at all (indeed, I thought it was just something you yourself practice since it'd be so difficult to roll out).
You are seriously mixing up what I'm saying and missing points, man. Multiculturalism = hard to roll out. Colorblindness easier to roll out; been advocating it for pages.
Me? Prove colorblindness works? The entirety of U.S. Civil Rights law is based on it. It's been a rocky as hell road getting even to where we are now, but it was far worse than before the Warren Court advocated colorblindness. History has proven it slowly but steadily works by passing laws saying you can't treat people differently from Fair Housing law, to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to basically and without the slightest exaggeration every single solitary piece of US civil rights law. All of it.... All. of. it. It works. "Multiculturalism" wasn't around with the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.You'll need to explain to me why exactly colourblindness works on "non decent" people.
Because the laws created under the colorblindness doctrine mandating everyone be treated the same and that you can't treat someone differently based on race, religion, sex, or national origin work. I don't care how much of a complete and utter slimeball, horrible racist bigoted whatever someone's boss is, if they sue the shit out of them for employment discrimination and cost him tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in total costs and legal fees, then he will stop it. He'll either notice how his wallet id lightened and change his behavior, or he won't and someone'll keep suing him until he has nothing left and can't afford to have a company to discriminate with....
You keep suing them until it sticks and they stop being racist shitheads.It hits them square in the wallet. People don't like having their money forcibly and legally taken away from them. They will stop doing shit that leads to them losing money. You can force, yes force, them to stop treating people differently based on certain things like race, national origin, etc, but you can't force them to give a shit about various cultures. The jerk boss who discriminates in employment, doesn't think he's doing anything wrong and refuses to think he's doing anything wrong and wants to continue discriminating in employment, but sooner or later the loss of money will stop him. This is why colorblindness works on indecent people. You don't have to explain the various complexities of multiculturalism to them, which they refuse to hear anyhow.
[...] cultures and groups don't and should NEVER have rights or considerations under any circumstances whatsoever. [...]
Not agreeing with you Truean. Where i live we have a law that says that if a certain number/percentage of people speaks X as a mother language certain provisions are to be made. eg: official documents have to be translated to language X and local authorities are required to offer some things in language X etc.
Do you think that's bad?
I expect not to be agreed with. That's your right, as an... individual... with your own opinions, no matter who shares them or doesn't share them.
As a practical matter, sooner or later people are going to have to be able to understand each other if they all live in the same country while conducting commerce and their lives. I have nothing against speaking multiple languages. I have nothing against people having a native tongue and don't care/don't think it should be extinguished or assimilated out. That said, due to practical concerns, it's going to be immensely hard to efficiently deal with complex government matters even if its only in one language. Thus, people should be encouraged to slowly learn a common language to transact business and government in BUT SHOULD NOT have their native tongues silenced. There's really no practical purpose to that. That'd be assimilation, not colorblindness. (See below).
I'm going to have to disagree with you Truean, there's been a long history of forcing people - individuals - to stop speaking their "born" language and dressing the way they want, under the rubric of "assimilation".
It's a false dichotomy to make the antithesis of multiculturalism to be "colorblindness". The polar opposite of multicultural is forced government assimilation to a dictated "norm".
And this is all about individual rights, the right to practice whatever traditions you like without persecution, assuming those practices are within the law. Promoting diversity tolerance between citizens is just a logical corollary of government tolerance of diversity.
As lorb hinted, a "colorblind" system which is blind to individual needs, can be highly prejudicial whilst praising itself for "fairness". e.g. if every sign is in only 1 language, that's "fair" right? It's "equal treatment" right?
You seriously and sincerely do not get the difference between assimilation and colorblindness do you? I'm asking, really and honestly, because it seems many people don't.
First off, you're making a ton of assumptions I never said. Nobody mentioned "polar opposites" and there's no need to as a dichotomy isn't required or implicated here. I certainly never said colorblindness was the polar opposite of multiculturalism. The entire construct of "polar opposites" is completely inapplicable here. No. You've got entirely the wrong paradigm. It isn't A or B. It's "problem," "possible solution 1," "possible solution 2," and "possible solution 3."
Problem: There are all these people of whatever type and they don't get along.
Possible Solution 1 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option and a bad one actually)Assimilation. Well if the people aren't getting along because they're different, then make them all the same. This is the classic "solution" that comes from a conqueror model. You basically subjugate and forcibly integrate the people you've taken over. As a rule, if you don't meet the mainstream, then you're treated worse until you do. The problem is obvious: the people forcing the assimilation, much like the borg, are stepping on people's rights and individuality, for no good reason, especially when there are other options.
Possible Solution 2 (just logically an option)Colorblindness. There's one rule, a fair standard and everyone complies. They're treated the same and no one is looked down upon based upon any differing characteristics. There are no "lesser people" there no conquered people and there are no masters. It's one law for everyone.
The individual differences aren't forced to meet the mainstream. This is the main difference between assimilation and colorblindness, which for some reason you've confused it with. You don't force someone else to be the same as you. You don't give a flying shit. As long as they do the bare minimum to meet the basic little rules required to make society run smoothly it doesn't matter. Moreover, they have equal access to society because they can't be denied things like a job or a place to live or services because they are different.
Possible Solution 3 (logically an option and a good one)Multiculturalism. Teach everyone to play nice while knowing and respecting other people's differences rather than fighting about them. People are largely incapable of this. They will make fun of each other over tons of stuff that doesn't matter, I've shown before how
they will literally trample each other to death to get a better deal at a store. If they can't understand stuff like "don't fucking kill each other to save $20 on some product you want" then how do you expect them to learn this? They don't have the mental capacity, literally. "People are smart enough to handle it?" No. No they're not. Again, a person [singular] can be smart, people [pural] are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it if you're honest with yourself.
So to review, because people don't get the difference between these three possible solutions:
A.) Assimilation: Destroy all differences and force people to be one thing.
B.) Colorblindness: Ignore all differences. People cannot be excluded from society. Same rules to operate under.
C.) Multiculturalism: Embrace all differences.
I'm going to have to disagree with you Truean, there's been a long history of forcing people - individuals - to stop speaking their "born" language and dressing the way they want, under the rubric of "assimilation".
This is assimilation, not colorblindness. Colorblindness doesn't force people to assimilate, it forces society to treat them the same as everyone else and punishes them if they don't. Individual differences aren't forced out, they aren't noticed or cared about and you do whatever.
You're basically saying you can reason with people. If you could, then we wouldn't have police and courts and prisons to force them to do things. Truean's "colorblindness" doesn't sound like that at all to me. It sounds more like Paternalism.
The logic goes, people are like naughty children who need the heavy hand of government to slap them back into line. Don't bother trying to reason with them (teach tolerance), use threats of violence "from above" (equivalent to smacking your baby) to force them into line.
Am i reading this right Truean?
....
It isn't paternalism unless all government intervention is paternalism, including when the army fights off foreign invaders or the police arrest criminals. You CAN'T handle things on your own unless you believe in anarchy. It doesn't matter that people want to believe they can. They can't absent anarchy.
In the real world, people are bastards. They will do things they know they shouldn't but they don't care. You can nicely talk to them all you want, but most of the time they will ignore you. That is until you hire an attorney who sues them and forces them to come to court and defend themselves against a lawsuit they don't want to be a part of, or have them arrested. What all those laws under colorblindness doctrine do, is give you an avenue to sue someone. As stated above, if you sue someone for employment discrimination, then sooner or later, they'll stop it. Arguably (though I don't personally agree) if you tack on years more of a sentence for a hate crime, that'll reduce the number of people burning crosses and committing violent crimes against black people by the KKK.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all those legal avenues to sue someone to punish them go off colorblindness. It doesn't assimilate anyone. It does punish people for excluding people based on race, sex, national origin, etc.
This isn't an extreme view. It still has a way to go.... Don't confuse assimilation with colorblindness. I really do want equality for all by allowing differences.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1245338 times)