jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Fortunately, an Ontario court has taken an honor killing seriously (link to ongoing thread on topic) and convicted the group of feral beasts that murdered their own flesh and blood. But all too frequently we hear that it's not the Muslim culture that's the problem, that the U.S. South was just as bad (link). This kind of dangerous nonsense has made the U.S., Canada and Western Europe potentially ungovernable. And issues with immigrant cultures that don't fit well into Western liberal cultures aren't the only situations in which political correctness trumps common sense. Some of the examples I will discuss below relate to Islamic cultures, and some do not. The problem is that the majority Judeo-Christian cultures that have made the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe advanced, enlightened cultures is afraid to insist that their values are superior to other benighted cultures and countries that shed people. Has anyone bothered to wonder why very few people immigrate to Asia, Africa or South America? I suppose there is little curiosity on that subject. Here are some things that may be politically incorrect, but make common sense. Below this list, and later in the thread, I will discuss a few of them: English is the dominant language of the U.S., Canada, Britain, and Australia. Why, beyond possibly accommodating the use of a minority language in the few areas or even neighborhoods where it makes sense, do we not insist that schoolchildren learn English? While there are exceptions, it is clear that Islam has decided that it cannot accommodate the West. A Jewish Israel has no place in the Middle East. Western troops have no place in protecting Western property or personnel. Why don't we recognize the reality and fight radical Islam without both hands tied behind our backs? In Western countries, Muslims are repeatedly caught trying to perpetrate more than random crimes, but mass atrocities. Why is everyone else, including 85 year old Jewish grandmothers from Queens, forced to snake through interminable security delays and submit to strip searches rather than allowing the obvious likely perpetrators to be targeted, if only through aimless or furtive behavior in public areas? Why are we shoveling huge amounts of money to the U.N., which then only either consumes it on internal bureaucracy or redistributes the money to kleptocratic "leaders"? Why is it not proper to heavily audit books of First Nations, when massive amounts of government money seem to do nothing to ease the squalor in which most of the FN's live, but the band leaders live in comparative comfort or even splendor? And to show that I'm not aiming only at minorities, why are the 27 year olds at Goldman Sachs not going to jail or at least having large bonuses clawed back, when their ingenious inventions, such as credit default swaps, have contributed nothing to the economy and diverted huge resources to bail out the banks, for the purpose of ensuring that the entire financial system didn't implode? Why are corporate farmers, at least in the U.S., paid huge subsidies for producing grain for purposes of converting into fuel? Note, more energy is spent in the conversion process than saved in crude oil imports. Why are cash and job-strapped places such as New York resisting the opportunity to produce natural gas through fracking? Such a process would bring rivers of moneys into State and local treasuries, frequently in distressed areas. As a side benefit it would reduce regional and national dependence on imported oil. Why are we so conscious-stricken about Abu Ghraib, or some errant drone strike in Pakistan, when more Pakistanis are killed in internal suicide bombings, conflicts, and even stampedes than the U.S. kills? Why are we tolerating such nations as Pakistan, North Korea and Iran becoming nuclear powers? Trust me, Israel has no interest in annihilating its neighbors. The same cannot be said for the countries I listed. Why are Western countries frittering away large amounts tackling "global warming" at the expense of helping the needy? Why is Quebec permitting to hold referendums on secession while receiving subsidies from the rest of Canada? Why cannot we at least insist that Canadian or American culture be honored, even as we celebrate the diverse seasonings other peoples bring to us? After all, both our countries kept the Jews out during World War II. In short, Canadians and Americans are not fleeing or migrating to South Asia, the Middle East or Africa. Other growing countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore, do not welcome immigrants at all. Some things truly make you wonder. Edited February 3, 2012 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Again, you blame these killings on your notion of them coming from a defective culture. Meanwhile, there are thousands of people that come from the same geographical regions and have the same religion, in other words they ostensibly come from the same culture, yet these honour killings don't seem to be a rampant issue. You seem to move your goalposts from individuals to groups then back to individuals. For instance, a particularly sick family commits a horrifying set of murders (individuals), you blame their entire culture (groups), thus we need to deny immigrants access to Canada or the US or Western Europe (individuals). Do you know what they call it when you attribute particular inferior characteristics to a group, then claim that individuals from that group have those characteristics without actually knowing anything about those individuals? I'll let you figure it out. In the meantime, allow me to leave you with a quote from senior bureaucrat that was close to Frederick Charles Blair, Canada's man responsible for immigration during WWII. When asked how many Jewish refugees Canada should allow in after the war, he replied, "None is too many." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why, beyond possibly accommodating the use of a minority language in the few areas or even neighborhoods where it makes sense, do we not insist that schoolchildren learn English? We do insist on this, surely? English classes were still mandatory when I was in school and I understand they still are. Do you just mean that the quality of English teaching leaves something to be desired? If so, I tend to agree. I'd be in favour of bringing back more rigorous instruction in petty matters like grammar. (I have to say that I'm comparatively impressed by the writing skills of students in SK though.) [*]Why are we so conscious-stricken about Abu Ghraib, or some errant drone strike in Pakistan, when more Pakistanis are killed in internal suicide bombings, conflicts, and even stampedes than the U.S. kills? Does this mean it's OK to kill people as long as other people from the same culture are also being killed by their compatriots? [*]Why is Quebec permitting to hold referendums on secession while receiving subsidies from the rest of Canada? Why should they not be? What would be the purpose of forcibly removing the option? It's not like they would receive subsidies if they ever actually decided to separate (which I don't see happening in the foreseeable future). Why cannot we at least insist that Canadian or American culture be honored, even as we celebrate the diverse seasonings other peoples bring to us? Are you really concerned that Americans are failing to honour their own culture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Again, you blame these killings on your notion of them coming from a defective culture. Meanwhile, there are thousands of people that come from the same geographical regions and have the same religion, in other words they ostensibly come from the same culture, yet these honour killings don't seem to be a rampant issue. You seem to move your goalposts from individuals to groups then back to individuals. For instance, a particularly sick family commits a horrifying set of murders (individuals), you blame their entire culture (groups), thus we need to deny immigrants access to Canada or the US or Western Europe (individuals). Do you know what they call it when you attribute particular inferior characteristics to a group, then claim that individuals from that group have those characteristics without actually knowing anything about those individuals? I'll let you figure it out.Why, oh why, do you insist on suspending the operation of common sense? In the meantime, allow me to leave you with a quote from senior bureaucrat that was close to Frederick Charles Blair, Canada's man responsible for immigration during WWII. When asked how many Jewish refugees Canada should allow in after the war, he replied, "None is too many." Why was one Jew too many, when in general Jews are productive members of the community, yet we insist on absorbing huge numbers of Jamaicans (generally not Muslims), Somalis, Pakistanis and others who, as a group, don't assimilate? We can accept the ones who are committed to joining us and not either sponging off us or fighting us. We don't have the space or the resources to take the entire Fourth World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were actually having a serious discussion. Now that you say we're taking on "the entire Fourth World," I can see that you're either trolling or have no idea what you're talking about. Either way, it's not really worth pursuing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 We do insist on this, surely? English classes were still mandatory when I was in school and I understand they still are. Do you just mean that the quality of English teaching leaves something to be desired? If so, I tend to agree. I'd be in favour of bringing back more rigorous instruction in petty matters like grammar. (I have to say that I'm comparatively impressed by the writing skills of students in SK though.)I'm aiming at the fact that a primarily English education is available in Quebec only if one of the parents is an English speaker. I'm furious, personally, at paying taxes in my neck of the woods to teach curricular subject in Spanish rather than English. People really need to be under pressure to use the majority language.Does this mean it's OK to kill people as long as other people from the same culture are also being killed by their compatriots?No one was killed at Abu Ghraib. And drone strikes would not be necessary if Pakistan and Afghanistan assumed the responsibility of sovereign nations, to not allow renegade activity within their borders to endanger other peoples or countries. The fact that bin Laden was living rather openly in a mansion close to Islamabad speaks volumes.Why should they not be? What would be the purpose of forcibly removing the option? It's not like they would receive subsidies if they ever actually decided to separate (which I don't see happening in the foreseeable future).Why should we be feeding the mouth that bites us?Are you really concerned that Americans are failing to honour their own culture?In many cases yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were actually having a serious discussion. Now that you say we're taking on "the entire Fourth World," I can see that you're either trolling or have no idea what you're talking about. Either way, it's not really worth pursuing. No. You're not serious if you believe that either of our countries can absorb every Pakistani or Somali that wants to come and sup our cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm aiming at the fact that a primarily English education is available in Quebec only if one of the parents is an English speaker. I'm furious, personally, at paying taxes in my neck of the woods to teach curricular subject in Spanish rather than English. People really need to be under pressure to use the majority language.Education is a provincial responsibility. Canada has two official languages. I'll let you guess which one is hte majority language in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 No. You're not serious if you believe that either of our countries can absorb every Pakistani or Somali that wants to come and sup our cup. First you say it's "the entire Fourth World." Now you say it's "every Pakistani and Somali that wants to come." Either way, that doesn't even remotely reflect our immigration policies or even the demographics of our immigrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) No one was killed at Abu Ghraib. Fair point, but substitute "abuse" for "kill" in my question. Why should we be feeding the mouth that bites us? Quebec is not biting us (least of all you as an American)! They are a valuable and significant part of the country (and have been since its founding) with much to offer. Just because there is a (largely moribund) separatist movement within the province does not mean that the entire province is somehow an antagonist to the rest of the country, nor that they should be denied the constitutional entitlements that any other province is also entitled to. Edited February 3, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 First you say it's "the entire Fourth World." Now you say it's "every Pakistani and Somali that wants to come." Either way, that doesn't even remotely reflect our immigration policies or even the demographics of our immigrants. I give up. What does? Education is a provincial responsibility. Canada has two official languages. I'll let you guess which one is hte majority language in Quebec. But what about the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers, derived from their Canadian citizenship? The hanging of a sign with an apostrophe can be criminalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Quebec is not biting us (least of all you as an American)!Then why did Quebec's Jewish population fall by about 50% and Toronto's about double shortly after the 1976 election of the PQ? And how would the U.S. not be hurt by having a hostile country on its northern border, at least part of New York's and Maine's borders, and all of Vermont's, New Hampshire's? They are a valuable and significant part of the country with much to offer. Just because there is a (largely moribund) separatist movement within the province does not mean that the entire province is somehow an antagonist to the rest of the country, nor that they should be denied the constitutional entitlements that any other province is also entitled to. Valuable for what? Edited February 3, 2012 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 More like, time for a little factually incorrectness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Valuable for what? Culture, identity, history, diversity, and yes, at times, even money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Culture, identity, history, diversity, and yes, at times, even money. What other provinces are "have not"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) What other provinces are "have not"? 6 out of 10...almost 7, actually....BC is just that close. Being have not doesn't mean that a province doesn't contribute economically. If the fact that most provinces are have not doesn't make that obvious, I'm not sure what does. Edited February 3, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 But what about the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers, derived from their Canadian citizenship? The hanging of a sign with an apostrophe can be criminalized. What does that have to do with your point about education? You're talking about something entirely different now. As for the rights of anglophones in Quebec, they can be taught in English, which youv'e already noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 What does that have to do with your point about education? You're talking about something entirely different now. As for the rights of anglophones in Quebec, they can be taught in English, which youv'e already noted. Only if one of the parents is English-speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Only if one of the parents is English-speaking. So what's your point? What about the rights of anglophones that don't speak English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 So what's your point? What about the rights of anglophones that don't speak English? How would an Anglophone not speak English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 That's what I was wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 That's what I was wondering. My point was that the rights of English-speakers in Quebec are routinely trammeled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 You asked "what about the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers". I replied "they can be taught in English, which you've already pointed out". You said, "only if one parents speaks English". So are you asking about the rights of non-English-speaking anglophones? What point are you trying to make here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) My point was that the rights of English-speakers in Quebec are routinely trammeled. Then they can move to one of the other 9 provinces that cater to them or learn our other official language. Not that this actually reflects reality or anything. Edited February 3, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 My obvious point is that English-speakers in Quebec are subject to discrimination. As are English-speakers in Federal civil service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.