*DAMN R6 Forum

November 2002, of Impact, Newsletter of the Ayn Rand Institute:
         Multiculturalism holds that an individual?s identity and personal worth are determined by ethnic/racial membership?not by his own choices and actions. One cannot urge people to believe that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. Observe, for instance, how college students have become racial separatists, choosing their friends based on ethnicity?and banding together to form self-segregated dormitories. Or consider how the clamor for ?slave reparations? in fact engenders racism. Whites today, who never owned slaves and bear no personal responsibility for slavery, are asked to accept collective responsibility?simply because they belong to the same race as the slave-owners of the Old South. People are seen not as individuals, but as fragments of a tribal collective. The premise lurking in the shadows of multiculturalism?s ostensible goals is that the individual?s life has no value or importance apart from the tribal group. He is unworthy of living?because, according to multiculturalism, he is incapable: at root multiculturalism is an assault on the human mind.

Debate: Is multiculturalism (and the ideas it encompasses) simply another form of racism, or a legitimate way of celebrating one's heritage?

my opinion: i think celebration of one's cultural background is appropriate if the person desires to do so, however the ARI institute hits on some important issues. I think that if we all want to be seen in an equal light, we should stop emphasizing the differences between one another, ie society today tends to exaggerate. i find the celebration of one's humanity and individual traits more important than the color of one's skin, or the ethnic background from which they are descended.
(I do, however, think the ARI takes the idea of multiculturalism as racism a bit far, but the general idea of catagorization is what i'm aiming at.)

Sub-Debate: Are slave reparations legitimate?

anyway, this should make for an interesting topic. did anyone else hear about the conservative "cookie rebellion" against affirmative action? quite funny  ;D link found here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105827,00.html

Not really.. .Maybe if your a professor somewhere

     The emphasis placed on race in our culture has long struck me as divisive at best, terminally stupid at worst. For a culture which prides itself upon a lack of racism and discrimination so vocally and with so much self-satisfaction to be so intensely conscious of matters of race and sex may be expected, albeit short-sighted. To make decisions and set policy based on matters of race and sex is damaging, and more to the point, maintains the legitimacy of the little mental boxes labeled "black," "white," "gay," "straight," and on and on. Affirmative Action is an unbelievable idea: first, that reparation to anyone but the damaged parties can be made legitimately, second, that drawing dividing lines based on race will inspire unity.

     I've long chuckled at the idea of taking legal action against a college or other Affirmative Action entity seeking AA protection for white males, on the grounds that we are unprotected by AA and therefore institutionally discriminated against. I have a feeling that it would be a riot.

     Joka, keep your spam to yourself.

Definitely not an easy question to answer.  In my opinion yes and no.  Some sort of compensation should have been made to the original slaves for what the US did to them.  But the thing is, the damage done from slavery was so severe that no amount of money could cure it.  The damage done was not just financial.  I have a good friend (who is black) who studied slavery, the current state of african american males in urban America, and how the 2 are related.  He really opened my eyes on this.  Basically today in inner-city african american communities, there are generation after generation of black men who have never had fathers.  You take the first generation.  A slave gets his wife pregnant, and she has the baby.  Who raises the baby?  Only the mother, because the father is stuck in the fields for 16 hours a day.  No one there to be the 'fatherly influence' and to teach the boy what it is be a responsible man.  How to treat people with respect, how to live your life with integrity and honor.  Now this first generation grows up and begins having families of their own.  No one taught them how to be a father and a good man, so how can they teach their sons?  This goes on and on for generations until we have the situation we have today.  A whole lot of single mothers, and guys who don't stick around to raise their families.  The thing is, even though they have no father figure, they are still looking for it. But with no actual father around, they turn to the only 'family' type setting they can find, gangs.  You get some sense of family in the gangs, but of course you're not being taught how to become a responsible adult.  This is also why in most african american families, the mother has become to strong dominant figure basically taking on both roles.

There are plenty of success stories of african american men that have broken this cycle, and in most cases you hear them talk about having a coach or a pastor that really got to them, basically becoming their father.  If the government was to try to offer some sort of reparations, the money should go to funding for schools or aggressive community outreach programs, but on a much larger scale.  Programs that will really get into the homes at a young age, and offer the support that is lacking.

I think a good question to ask is, does multiculturalism breed racism?  The US is in a unique state that no other country on that planet is currently facing.  We are a nation of immigrants, and are 'supposed' to be the melting pot (but more appropriately, the mixed salad) of the world.  We have all these different cultures from the world all smacked together in one place.  The US on it's own has no culture.  We're too young of a country.  Other than baseball and hamburgers (which I'm sure actually came from somewhere else), there is very little that is uniquely our own.  I think that's why people look to their hertiage, to find a sense of history amongst their family, and in a way try to find who they are.  Humans are social beings, and it's in our nature to want to belong.  And in all honesty, it's easiest to belong to the group of people that look like you, and grew up in the same environments as you.  To say that we are all the same underneath our skin, in my opinion, is naive.  We didn't all grow up in the same families, and didn't have the same experiences, so it makes little sense to believe that we would all turn out the same.  

Multiculturalism isn't a bad thing.  You can celebrate your own heritage, but not shut out others who didn't come from the same place as you.   I think a person's identity and personal worth are determined by BOTH your enthic background and your own personal choices. It's people's own choices that create racism.

And in 1000 years, multiculturalism won't be an issue in the US. We're a young of country, that's why it still exists.  You look at most other countries, and at some point in their history they went through this.  Take Paris 1800 years ago.  You had romans mixed in with the native parisians.  There you had a form of multiculturalism, probably with similar problems as we have today (although, I doubt as intensely analyzed).  Now today, Paris is strictly French.

On of the interesting little things that Europeans have done over the last few hundred years is ruthlessly purge their countries of foreigners and actively combat forgeign cultural interests.

Then came Hitler and Stalin and the two worked hard at homoginizing the world.

As it stands today, one of the benifits of being French (for example) is that you don't have to deal with a lot of, say, black people. Or Jews. Or born again christians. They have muslims, but are working on dealing with them. Basicaly, what's 'great' about living in any particular European country is that you don't have to deal with mulitculturalism in your own country. If you care to, you can experience it the next country over. But it's not your daliy life.

In America, multiculturalism is Americanism. It is the founding core of American culture (as Spli says)since  that we have no American culture.

It's like living in a constant cultural revolution. It's fucking awesome. I like that I don't have to fly to Mexico to hear spanish. Or visit Japan to have crappy sushi delivered to my door.

It can rub me the wrong way at times (with all that shity sushi) but mostly it's good.

Multiculturalism doesn't lead to racism, it just outs bigots. Bigots can't stomache the fact that "other people" go to American schools, or work American jobs, or travel American roads, and get to vote in American elections, and get to have their own say in the American Commons equal to the bigot's. But that's bigotry for you.

Just in America bigotry is both tolerated (as Americans suffer fools graciously) and looked down on.

We're fucked up that way.

I wouldn't go as far as saying Multiculturalism itself is racist. I would say the claim of it is on the basis it's still seperating groups of people into different groups. I  would go as far as to say the anti-racism activists are racist in doing what they do. It's hard to explain, but it just seems overall stupid and useless to even bring up the topic of racial divison.

Recently I saw a good documentary on Northren Ireland. They brought kids from their respective fighting religions to Canada (Canadian documentary) and let them do activities together. The kids got along and became friends between the two religions. Ofcorse when they go home they wouldn't be able to contact each other withotu getting beat or killed.

I just think that that shows that when you step outside of a pressured setting and just talk and have fun, we can all get along and become friends without all this anti-racist, and multiculture claims. Just my viewpoint.

No offense but I think all these multiculturalism issues are extremely over... well, not rated, but blown up in magnitude, atleast that's what it seems like over there in the US, probably has something to do with the history of the nation. Over here it's hardly an issue at all.

Oh and Six, you don't need to live in the US to get shitty sushi delivered to your door. Well actually, the sushi place closest to where I live is pretty good...

Heh. Yah, everything that gets diliveres in Los Angeles is shitty. Unlike NYC, the guys have to drive far. Fucking food is rancid by the time it gets here.

I think that you can enjoy and celebrate differences without using them to discriminate.

And on a personal note, I think that the Ayn Rand institute is one of the most twisted organizations in existence. They're doing a more than sufficient job of living up to that bitch's legacy.

<rant>What i think is funny.. There can be small black colleges but if you have a small "white" college you r being racest. Its like a duble standard. I think the term im thinking of is Reverce Racism (as the coart system puts it). But y call it reverce racism. It is only racism when it pertains to the African americans and not when it pertains to the "White" population?... No Its all Racism!!!! IMO... the most racest group out right now is the NAACP (well.. other then the white extreamest) b/c they are a group saying.. we need to make things better for the Afro-Americans and anything that the white comunity does is bad. They say that the white police forces is targeting blacks and ignoring the white guys commiting crimes.(well thats what they are saying around here) When the city i live in has a very large afro american population. So ofcoaces there will be more afro amricans commiting crimes b/c that is the majority of the city population.
Instead we need a group saying.. we need to make things better for everyone!! </rant>

As a note tothis.. I have nothing against the Arfo amerrican comunity.. so dont take this post wrong.. I jut hate being called a racest (in real life)by peeps that dont know realy know me just b/c im white.. proving to me that they are the ones that r racest!!

     Harvey, in all seriousness and with no insult intended, you need to learn to write English. Your points aren't bad, but the way you write makes it sound as though the points are coming from a retarded person.

I'm currently a junior in high school, and I'm starting to look for colleges.  I don't believe that multiculturalism is a bad thing in general, but it outrages me that I might not be accepted into a certain college or university because I am white and the college wants more minorities.  Why do they want African Americans and Hispanic people?  Is it because they truely believe it is the right thing to do to give these people a chance at a good education?  I doubt it.  It is most likely because they want to improve their image amongst the public.  Meanwhile,  I have to go to Chico State or some community college so i can learn to be a cashier or a chimney sweep. :P

When I become King of the World?, I'm going to institute the "Scholarship for middle-to-upper class white males" to get back at all those fucks who wouldn't let me apply for their scholarships.

Sry it was 5am after a long night at work. And when im tired my Lerning Disability shows more. So FU!! I cant help it.

So am I correct in reading sincere pissyness at affermative action policies?

I think the concept that minorities take slots away from qualified whites is wrong. It dead wrong. And it's certainly not the point of AA.

When you're dealing with a people who have been so fucked by this country for so long, it's really hard to argue what's fair and not fair. I understand that it's hard to argue fairness when you feel that you're getting the shit end of the stick, but consider who *really* needs the help? I think we can all agree that whites have a leg up in the system.

Besides, schools don't want african americans and hispanic people, Gabe. That's the point. It's got little to do with public image - it's all about the law on the books. Schools are required to, or else they don't get money, so that's their motivation.

Frankly, on a structural level, I'd rather see poor black people getting my tax dollars than middle class whites. But that's just me.

Sixhits, I am no racist. I never owned a slave. I've never denied someone a job based on their ethnicity. Yet I am the one who suffers due to affirmative action. I am told that less qualified minority candidates will have priority over me solely based on their ethnicity. There is a word for this: racism.

Also, I call big bullshit on schools not wanting blacks and hispanics. The only two schools I got denied from, Stanford and UCLA, are known for giving priority to minority candidates. How else can you explain that someone with a 4.4 GPA, 1490 SAT, captain of the water polo team, years of community service got denied from those two schools? I don't think it's a coincidence that one week after I received my denial my father, a Stanford alum, received an email from their alumni newsletter touting that the class they accepted was over 50% minorities for the first time. It's nice to know that supposedly liberal places care more about the color of your skin that your brains and personality.

So I say fuck affirmative action. It's institutionalized racism by those who would rather believe in a world where everybody is equal and we can all sing happy songs while jacking each other off than realizing that the world is a harsh place and the only way to guarantee true equality to make sure that the color of somebody's skin has absolutely jack shit to do with decisions regarding their true skills and capabilities.

The way it SHOULD be: if there are 10% arabs, 20% of 'african descent', 30% asians and 40% 'whites', there should be 10% arabs, 20% 'africans', 30% asians and 40% 'whites' in every school.

The way to come to this is in a way through affirmative action... If they allow more minorities to educate themselves (even though they don't have grades that compete well with others), they'll be able to get jobs that pay well and then further down the pipe, get kids who will then afford to have better lives and realize their dreams just as well as any other. Of course it's not this easy but being against affirmative action is in a way to be against an equal society... I know this is incredibly controversial but if it were the way it SHOULD be, they wouldn't need this.

As for getting nixed by UCLA and Stanford, I'm betting a grip of Asian lads with 4.8s and 1600's got the call. That's just Cali for you.

Oddly enough, you should also be pissed at me, who with my 3.12 and 1360 (my con service consisted of writting a nasty essay on why con service sucked) got into a top twenty liberal arts school. Sometimes people are lucky.

You're right, institutionalized benefit for minorities is racism, in the strictest sense. AA is not the best solution. But cutting it without some sort of alternative is piss.

AA is not sitting around jerking each other off in peaceful coexistance. It's an attempt to reconcile a statistically demonstraightable problem - that minorities repeatively got shit canned when they were equally qualified. That, society had an inate bigorty and that was Bad For America. I suppose us white poeple are eating shit now for this. It sucks. Life is harsh. I think us middle class white people will pull through.

Here's my read: you got into a great school anyway if UCLA and Stanford were the only two to nix you. Your anger at not being selected when you had such stellar scores paired with getting that newsletter led you to believe that someone less qualified than you got the spot. But we don't know that. Both those schools are really competitive. And what's wrong when one of the top public schools in the nation, based in arguably the most multi-ethnic city, is known for selecting a lot fo minorites? It fucking better select a lot fo minorities. And what's wrong with Stanford proundly flaunting it's 50% minority acceptance rate? We don't know that out of all those people accepted that they were less qualified.


If I buy any argument for getting rid of AA it's that it gives a bad impression when schools accept minorities. It creates a feedback loop where non-racist, hard working kids like you get pissed cause someone "stole" (basically) your spot. You earned it, and someone less than you got it. This sort of feeling breeds racism in the worst of us and makes the rest skeptical of qualified minorities.

Do I have a solution off the top of my head? No. I do periodically think ditching AA outright might just force a solution, but, then I don't want to do that 'cause it opens up a whole new can of worms (ie, it lets a generation of white people feel like minorites have been disenfranchising THEM, which in turn will let the bigots have a field day). We're in a pickle. We shouldn't just toss the whole mess out,  cause in doing so we're passing on trying to solve the problem (racism, in general).

Btw, I really hope you didn't take from my remarks that I thought you were racist.