Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

An extreme and very different example of the negatives of acculturation exists in your very area, Soon: the Americas. When Europeans arrived, Old World epidemics and warfare decimated the indigenous population, including the destruction of sophisticated empires in the south, the Mayan, Aztec and Inca. But there was a ''multicultural'' smorgasbord on offer as compensation for the few remaining? The Jesuits; access to European weaponry; and of course European exports, livestock and crops.

I wouldn't care to make a value judgement on the benefits and disadvantages! Teleology besides. Anachronistic. Rot for serious historians. But something to ponder...

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not saying it is ''good'' - that is an oversimplification. 

In a rant against Londoners you argued for why ethnically pure societies are better and pointed to less ethnic conflicts. But nooooo that doesn't mean you are against multiculturalism, you clever you deviously avoided stating explicitly that you are against it, so now we possibly can't know. 

You are funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

An extreme and very different example of the negatives of acculturation exists in your very area, Soon: the Americas. When Europeans arrived, Old World epidemics and warfare decimated the indigenous population, including the destruction of sophisticated empires in the south, the Mayan, Aztec and Inca. But there was a ''multicultural'' smorgasbord on offer as compensation for the few remaining?

Wow. Now you are arguing against multiculturalism by pointing to the once in a lifetime, no, scratch that, once in a species time event of separate civilizations meeting across millenia of separation with ensuing catastrophic outbreak of diseases. How on earth is that at all relevant to the issues of multiculturalism and immigration in 2019? You fear the diseases of foreigners? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In a rant against Londoners you argued for why ethnically pure societies are better and pointed to less ethnic conflicts. But nooooo that doesn't mean you are against multiculturalism, you clever you deviously avoided stating explicitly that you are against it, so now we possibly can't know. 

You are funny. 

Off on a tangent again I see? In an airport no less?

I said, and have reiterated multiple time that - in fact - rather than reiterate again, I'll merely quote them all so there should be no misunderstanding,

On 9/17/2019 at 10:13 PM, DieselDaisy said:

There is (and you can accuse me of all the names you want) nothing intrinsically wrong with living in homogeneous communities and there is much that is fine about such areas such as a shared vernacular making communication easier, and shared cultural values resulting in a lack of multi-ethnic tension. 

 

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

one ethnicity will avoid ethnic tension. Japan, a relatively homogeneous society, for instance has avoided the type of ethnic conflict seen in Sri Lanka. 

 

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Homogeneous societies such as Japan and Korea have avoided religio-ethnic tension, although not ideological tension in the latter example. 

 

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well you can't blame colonisation on Japan as the Tokugawa Shogunate kicked all of the Europeans out - well, all except the Dutch at Dejima - purged the Japanese Christians who had been proselytised by the Jesuits, and imposed national isolation for over 220 years!

I'm not denying the non-existence of economic and ideological tension in those societies, or tensions based on power and personalities, but a homogeneous society is going to be inherently free from ethnic tension. How would one ''ethnically cleanse'' one's own society afterall when you only possess one ethnicity? You cannot exactly blame the ''Poles taking wos jobs'' when there is no Poles in your country to begin with!

The assumption that homogeneous communities are somehow ''ill'', ''incorrect'', ''in need of reform'' in accordance with multi-cultural values, I find deeply sanctimonious, bigoted and an imposition - a form of cultural cleansing and imperialist values in itself. 

 

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am merely pointing out the objective fact that homogeneous societies have the benefit of avoiding religious and ethnic tension. 

 

 

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not saying homogeneous states are less prone to having wars with other states - the Empire of Japan (1937-45) would refute that theory immediately, nor that homogeneity removes civil conflict in toto, being that there is enough to fight over besides race, e.g., feudal power, kingship, constitutional power, ideology and class. I'm not even saying that homogeneity lessens conflict. Homogeneity does however inherently remove internal religio-ethnic conflict, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, state punitiveness against ''others'' within the same polity etc.

Are you saying the violence in Ireland would have occurred if there had not been two religio-sectarian groupings? Remove the Anglo-Scottish Unionist Plantation communities, and consequentially ''Auntie's'' obligation in defending those said communities, then there is no reason to believe that the Six Counties would have not joined the Irish Free State in 1922 (if ''Home Rule'' had not been granted sooner?). No sectarian divide. No ''Troubles''. 

Let's look at Yugoslavia which ''Balkanised'' itself in bloody conflict, turning into a plethora of smaller states?

Would the Third Reich have risen if not for the presence of 522,000 Jews in the Weimer Republik, against whom the Nazis drummed up incessant antisemitism, in the pages of Der Stürmer for instance, propelling themselves to die Machtergreifung. The Jews were a convenient example of ''otherness'' in the German Reich, a scapegoat for Germany's ''misfortunes''. 

 

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not saying it is ''good'' - that is an oversimplification. I am saying that there are benefits that homogeneous societies possess which heterogeneous societies do not possess such as avoiding religio-ethnic discord, as well as greater communications and participation in a shared vernacular culture and values. Palestine exists de jure, not de facto. The tension - Palestine indeed proves my exact point - is between two different religio-ethnicities, Islamic Arabs and the Israelite Jews. It is arguably (I don't want to get into the whole Palestine-Israel debate) a colonial relationship.

Antisemitism is the core of National Socialism. It is impossible to envision National Socialism arising without antisemitism driving it forth - an Italio-Austrian form of clerico-fascism perhaps, but never Nazism? 

Nope, no mention of ''ethnically pure societies'' or those said societies being ''better''.

Stop lying Soul!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Wow. Now you are arguing against multiculturalism by pointing to the once in a lifetime, no, scratch that, once in a species time event of separate civilizations meeting across millenia of separation with ensuing catastrophic outbreak of diseases. How on earth is that at all relevant to the issues of multiculturalism and immigration in 2019? You fear the diseases of foreigners? 

The meeting of the Old and New World, 1492-, is the great multicultural event in human history hahaha.

- Why does South America speak Spanish/Portuguese?

- Why does North America speak English/French?

- Why are there melons, squashes, potatoes, chocolate and coffee eaten/drank in the Old World

- Why is wheat, barley and lentils grown in the New World?

- Why is there cows, chickens, sheep and pigs in the New World, and turkeys and guinea pigs in the Old World.

It is the big seismic event in multiculturalism haha.

What an utter idiot you are!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2019 at 11:20 PM, DieselDaisy said:

In the Fenian sense or in the abolition of monarchy sense? He is both of those so I don't suppose it matters. 

Fenian sense, he is an IRA sympathiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It furthermore completely altered our understanding on the plurality of our world. Suddenly new empires, societies, languages, religions, animals and foodstuffs which had flourished for centuries were opened up - vis-à-vis. European man was as affected by acculturation as Mesoamericans. It altered our comfortable conception of ourselves and our place in the world. Furthermore, eastern trade routes opened up renewed access to the - known during antiquity - east. Again, this opened up empires, societies, languages, religions, flora and fauna. Europeans came up against the sophisticated Chinese Empire and were found wanting, which triggered the Philosophes, people like Voltaire, spurning on secular-empiricist ways of thinking in the west.

The Age of Exploration crucially opened up new human exchanges, leading to ambassadorial contact, settlement plantations and/or colonization. 1492 was truly the pivotal year in modern multiculturalism.

(Not that multiculturalism didn't precede the Age of Discovery, cf., the Roman Empire which of course had contacts with the Han Empire via The Silk Road). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The meeting of the Old and New World, 1492-, is the great multicultural event in human history hahaha.

But it can never happen again and hence it has no value as an argument in the contemporary multiculturalism debate. Never again will civilizations separated over thousands of year with very different immunity to infections, meet. Bringing this up in a debate over the benefits of ethnically homogenous societies in 2019, is completely bizarre. I haven't even heard this argument from the most extreme right-wing anti-immigrants. They know how stupid it is. You have managed to outdone yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Off on a tangent again I see? In an airport no less?

I said, and have reiterated multiple time that - in fact - rather than reiterate again, I'll merely quote them all so there should be no misunderstanding,

Nope, no mention of ''ethnically pure societies'' or those said societies being ''better''.

Stop lying Soul!

You still seem to labor under the misunderstanding that only things that are explicitly stated forms the corpus of your opinions. You don't need to say, "I prefer less multicultural societies!". It is enough that you start listing all the great things about less multicultural societies, like less ethnic tension and lowered risk of dying from infectious diseases (!), for us to read you loud and clear. So although you think you have carefully avoided letting your dirty-brown opinions shine through in your 31,000 posts, remember they constitute a lot of lines to read between.

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It furthermore completely altered our understanding on the plurality of our world. Suddenly new empires, societies, languages, religions, animals and foodstuffs which had flourished for centuries were opened up - vis-à-vis. European man was as affected by acculturation as Mesoamericans. It altered our comfortable conception of ourselves and our place in the world. Furthermore, eastern trade routes opened up renewed access to the - known during antiquity - east. Again, this opened up empires, societies, languages, religions, flora and fauna. Europeans came up against the sophisticated Chinese Empire and were found wanting, which triggered the Philosophes, people like Voltaire, spurning on secular-empiricist ways of thinking in the west.

The Age of Exploration crucially opened up new human exchanges, leading to ambassadorial contact, settlement plantations and/or colonization. 1492 was truly the pivotal year in modern multiculturalism.

(Not that multiculturalism didn't precede the Age of Discovery, cf., the Roman Empire which of course had contacts with the Han Empire via The Silk Road). 

It's like you have no sensor for knowing what is relevant to the ongoing discussion or not. Like a historian without a sense of direction, you get triggered on certain words and off you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You never should have reacted to my post in the first place, when it still could have been about anyone.

Also the post insinuates that he is a swan molester yet all he took issue was the teasing about the lisp 😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speechless at your idiocy, Soul, although you are not a history graduate so I cannot expect you to appreciate to any degree how the past shapes the present. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

'I don't have an erotic relationship to the backstop

- Jean-Claude Junker today

Been on the sauce again, or the lady doth protest too much methinks, and the thought of the Irish backstop get him incredibly horny?

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Paints face brown, has an erotic relationship with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, becomes PM*

But sure, its the proposed alternatives to being governed by these fools that are silly. No one bother me until Im back from that new museum. :slash::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Off on a tangent again I see? In an airport no less?

I said, and have reiterated multiple time that - in fact - rather than reiterate again, I'll merely quote them all so there should be no misunderstanding,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, no mention of ''ethnically pure societies'' or those said societies being ''better''.

Stop lying Soul!

 

OOOR DUUUUR!

Edited by spunko12345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

''I don't forgive Cameron for EU referendum''

 

 

- Jo Swinson, 2019

Quote

"The Liberal Democrats would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of Europe."

Jo Swinson, 2008. Plus,

EE2oCoJXUAIMK1L?format=jpg&name=small

Thus the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19.9.2019 at 12:29 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Speechless at your idiocy, Soul, although you are not a history graduate so I cannot expect you to appreciate to any degree how the past shapes the present. 

We are not talking about how the past shapes the present, but your historic argument that "multiculturalism is bad because it causes diseases just look at what happened to Native Americans". But I get why you are trying to change the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

multiculturalism is bad because it causes diseases just look at what happened to Native Americans

This is not a quote by me. Now you are even constructing quotes and attributing them to me in order to lie! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

This is not a quote by me. Now you are even constructing quotes and attributing them to me in order to lie! 

It wasn't meant as a direct quote but a summary of your position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It wasn't meant as a direct quote but a summary of your position. 

It is an erroneous quote that you're attributing to me. Please stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is an erroneous quote that you're attributing to me. Please stop it.

It wasn't meant as a direct quote but a summary of your position. Quotation marks are not only meant for quotes, you know. But again, I get why you are trying to change the subject away from your argument that multiculturalism is bad as evidenced by how Native Americans were wiped out by new diseases after the arrival of the Europeans. I get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It wasn't meant as a direct quote but a summary of your position. Quotation marks are not only meant for quotes, you know. But again, I get why you are trying to change the subject away from your argument that multiculturalism is bad as evidenced by how Native Americans were wiped out by new diseases after the arrival of the Europeans. I get it. 

A summary of that particular discussion can be found in the actual post (dated Wednesday 11:15 PM). I will not reply to dissimulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

A summary of that particular discussion can be found in the actual post (dated Wednesday 11:15 PM). I will not reply to dissimulation. 

It really was daft, though. I suppose you really didn't think it through before writing it? And now I suppose you regret bringing up the epidemics following first contact between Europeans and Native Americans as evidence for why multiculturalism is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It really was daft, though. I suppose you really didn't think it through before writing it? And now I suppose you regret bringing up the epidemics following first contact between Europeans and Native Americans as evidence for why multiculturalism is bad. 

 

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

A summary of that particular discussion can be found in the actual post (dated Wednesday 11:15 PM). I will not reply to dissimulation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×