Multiculturalism in the World Today

[Ithekro]

Actually the process is suppose to avoid unnecessary pain to the animal. Ritual slaughter is one of two methods of slaughter defined as humane by the federal Humane Slaughter Act in the United States. The methods used for Kosher foods is also considered healthier for human consumtion than other methods.

I don't follow kosher laws (not being Jewish), but I understand them a little having worked in a Jewish Community Center for a few years.
I like my ham and bacon anyway, thank you.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Gordy Lechance

I only brought this up because this is CLEARLY a case of ONE WAY respect of a minority rather than a two way street of mutual respect.

You go to a supermarket in Taiwan, a country of 23 million Buddhists and Taoists, and all over the shelves the foodstuff, yes including the meats, have the Circle K (Kosher) lable of approval slapped on them, in spite of the fact there are a little less than 2000 Jews in Taiwan at any given time.

Why should we have to eat brutalized and tortured meat so a minority that does NOT fraternize, make friends with or even TALK to us on our land can eat clean meat?

Noone's forcing you to eat that meat, or forcing the company to label their meat as kosher.

If you're really pissed off, eat Pork, and don't think about Factory Farming.. You won't ever be subjected to that little K if you eat Pork.

Also I don't know what you're talking about. In Ireland there's about 2000 or so Jews as well, but I never see anything labelled as "Kosher".

It's also highly likely that that meat in question was also slaughtered and processed abroad.

Anyway, regarding the more general comments on Idiocy, it is my opinion that individually people are very intelligent, but only collectively are people idiotic.

[Kuroi Hadou]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Anyway, regarding the more general comments on Idiocy, it is my opinion that individually people are very intelligent, but only collectively are people idiotic.

That's because collectively people are in groups, which are far more selfish than individuals.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In short, in Singapore, we have defined "multiculturalism" along strictly racial and religious lines. This arrangement is not new — we've inherited it from our former colonial masters who actively segregated the communities, while allowing free mingling in common commercial areas.

One major change we've implemented since independence is the deliberate dispersion of such ethnic enclaves. Within the public-housing estates that accommodate some 80% of the population, the ethnic mix is fixed to reflect the national composition of races.

Wow. Such a thing would be completely illegal in France. Possibly unconstitutional, but don't quote me on that.

Our laws are aggressively color-blind. Even making race-based statistics is illegal, let alone dictating where people should live based on their ethnicity. There has been some push for some kind of affirmative action, but it hasn't really worked out. (Due in part to the color blindness thing. Nobody wants to give it up, and it's hard to work around.)

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Our laws are aggressively color-blind. Even making race-based statistics is illegal, let alone dictating where people should live based on their ethnicity. There has been some push for some kind of affirmative action, but it hasn't really worked out. (Due in part to the color blindness thing. Nobody wants to give it up, and it's hard to work around.)

That is where our fundamental principles differ and why I think European state multiculturalism, as it exists today, is failing.

It seems to me that Europe, and also probably America, starts with the assumption that we should not distinguish between ethnicities, drawing from the noble belief that there is no such thing as "race", only humanity.

That is the problem: this is an ideal. A worthy ideal, yes, but one which we will probably never achieve in practice. As long as I look different, speak, eat and worship differently, I will never be regarded as anything other than, in this case, Chinese.

It won't matter how well I read or write English, or how much of its history I learn — among Britons in Britain, I will never be considered fully "British" because I did not grow up as one. If I ever emigrate there, my children might become British, but I will forever be an outsider looking in.

The approach we have taken in Singapore, we aspire to be "one nation", but in all practical matters we assume we are forever different in terms of race, language or religion. This is not about being "racist" — it's about being realist.

And so we actively track and group our statistics along ethnic lines, but with one crucial aim: not to use the figures to divide, but to spot areas where we overlap. And we seek actively to grow that space.

So, the differences are recognised, even institutionalised, but they are not allowed to split us up as a nation.

That kind of continuous, robust effort at integration — that is what seems to be missing in Europe today.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

That is where our fundamental principles differ and why I think European state multiculturalism, as it exists today, is failing.

It seems to me that Europe, and also probably America, starts with the assumption that we should not distinguish between ethnicities, drawing from the noble belief that there is no such thing as "race", only humanity.

That is the problem: this is an ideal. A worthy ideal, yes, but one which we will probably never achieve in practice. As long as I look different, speak, eat and worship differently, I will never be regarded as anything other than, in this case, Chinese.

It won't matter how well I read or write English, or how much of its history I learn — among Britons in Britain, I will never be considered fully "British" because I did not grow up as one. If I ever emigrate there, my children might become British, but I will forever be an outsider looking in.

The approach we have taken in Singapore, we aspire to be "one nation", but in all practical matters we assume we are forever different in terms of race, language or religion. This is not about being "racist" — it's about being realist.

And so we actively track and group our statistics along ethnic lines, but with one crucial aim: not to use the figures to divide, but to spot areas where we overlap. And we seek actively to grow that space.

So, the differences are recognised, even institutionalised, but they are not allowed to split us up as a nation.

That kind of continuous, robust effort at integration — that is what seems to be missing in Europe today.

I disagree, in formal times large amounts of discrimination existed against other cultures that were never the less quite close (say Germans vs. French vs. British), this has almost dissappeared in the last 50 years, so we can chalk that up as some success of European governments. Don't forget that because of that this is the most peaceful 65 years of European history. None of the "Great European Powers" have been at war with one another.

All that's left is racism against more obvious groups, those who are more visibly culturally different (muslims) or in terms of appearance (blacks etc.). However I think that if we take a long view these are also on an incline. Given time and growing economic ties we'll be able to make further meaningful progress.

I don't think we can ever truly wipe out inter-cultural rivalry, but hopefully we can reduce it to harmless "National Stereotypes" and not the levels of misunderstanding that exists at present.

And I think that this is inevitable provided all groups intermingle enough. You can't be prejudiced against a group that includes friends.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

And I think that this is inevitable provided all groups intermingle enough. You can't be prejudiced against a group that includes friends.

Well... it is *harder* to be prejudiced against a group that includes friends. I've seen enough examples of humans who manage to be prejudiced anyway.... or they're more selective about it. Rationality isn't usually a major part of this sort of thing to begin with.

[Ithekro]

One might be prejudiced if the group does not come up to the standards of your friend.

[DonQuigleone]

Well... it is *harder* to be prejudiced against a group that includes friends. I've seen enough examples of humans who manage to be prejudiced anyway.... or they're more selective about it. Rationality isn't usually a major part of this sort of thing to begin with.

Well you certainly won't start advocating that they're evil inferior vermin that are destroying your country and need to be exterminated.

I view that as progress.