Dick Lamm's "Plan to Destroy America."

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Britons...Welsh...Irish...Picts.. Celts ( related to Basques)Romans.....Saxons.. Vikings...Normans
all white and without a chip on their shoulder

Really???

So the Britons & Celts never had a chip on their shoulder when the Saxons showed up??

And the Saxons never had a chip on their shoulder after the Normans showed up??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jumpingjimmy 0]

Quote

Quote

Britons...Welsh...Irish...Picts.. Celts ( related to Basques)Romans.....Saxons.. Vikings...Normans
all white and without a chip on their shoulder

Really???

So the Britons & Celts never had a chip on their shoulder when the Saxons showed up??

And the Saxons never had a chip on their shoulder after the Normans showed up??

who cares? you're talking about centuaries ago... i'm talking about what really matters, present day

or shall we argue the toss about irrelevant points all night ?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

So, goofyjumper, SpeedRacer, Amazon, shropshire, and SkyDekker...

Do you disagree with the article? Do you disagree with the history that suggests it might actually be right?

To answer your first question> Yes I disagree with the article.

To answer your second: I could even more easily agree with the history that shows that the article might actually be wrong.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[wmw999 2,129]

Are you making a general statement about countries in general? Because the reason why the "whites" are in such power is because they came in, they kicked ass, and they took over.

Look at South Africa (and much of the rest of it), India, USA, plenty of places. They're quite content with maintaining the status quo. Duh.

A lot of what Dick Lamm said made sense. As soon as it's used as a club to beat into submission people that we aren't just like, it's no good.

If we, as a society, have to change to accomodate people, well, ya know -- that's what happens. A society is made up of the people participating in it. If the nature of those people changes, then the society changes.

And the people who used to be on top probably won't like it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you disagree with the article? Do you disagree with the history that suggests it might actually be right?

umm, what history are you talking about?

American history suggests that a multicultural nation can do just fine, and suggests that the real problem is elsewhere. While English has always been the primary language, it certainly wouldn't have been in Chinatown or Little Italy.

I had to laugh when the author cites examples of Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon, and Nigeria as proof of anything. None have ever been superpowers. Canada seems to be handling it fine - not sure its that different from the odd attitude San Francisco shows towards LA. And France fell from superpower status (to world power) long before race issues were a factor.

A much greater threat is posed in the growing Latino population while wealth remains concentrated in the white population. Give it a hundred years and we might look like South Africa. That will cause tension.

[jumpingjimmy 0]

me and a few friends just getting ready for a night on the town.....

http://schulen.eduhi.at/orgvbruck/images/Ku-Klux-Klan.jpg

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The bastardisation of races must end at some point. Stop watering down races...

David Duke, meet Jumpingjimmy. Jumpingjimmy, meet David Duke.
You two go off and play now.

Edit: I started typing this before you posted your KKK post. I see I correctly read your mind.

[lawrocket 3]

I thought I'd now put my take on the article. It raises some interesting points. It certainly provokes thoughts and discussion.

I agree with soe of it, and I disagree with some of it. I'll go point by point:
1) Multiculturalism and multiple languages. "History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures." I think a country can prosper with tension and conflict. I think a country cannot prosper with antagonism. A country should have a common language that all can understand, for this is what fosters effective communication between the two. Differences in language mean differences in understanding, and these are the differences that lead to antagonism.

2) "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture." maintenance of culture ain't bad. It's why the Pilgrims came here - so that they could maintain their belief systems. However, one can maintain a culture and integrate into another. For example, "southern hospitality" need not go the way of slavery. Integration of the cultural aspects that enrich - not antagonize - the other culture should be maintained and developed. Some say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans." I disagree. I'd say, "When in Rome, don't antagonize the Romans." We see this in many subcultures - many inner city youths cannot get the good jobs because their appearance, language, mannerisms, etc., are repugnant to the business world.

3) "celebrate diversity rather than unity." That is a valid point. But we can do both. We should do both. But make sure that we don't get it backwards, a la Al Gore, who said, "E pluribus unum - 'out of one, many.'" That is destructive. Out of many - One - again, integration.

4) "Would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated." With this one, he has a point. This is happening. This is causing some serious issues. And this is causing disenfranchisement. And this does cause antagonism toward the system.

5) "invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority." On this point, I agree. And it works both ways. In times of recession and other rough times, the majority also tends to blame the minorities (leading to things like the election of David Duke). Presently, there is affixing blame and pointing the finger by the minorities. This can be found when ethnic identity usurps the individual and the national identity. For this, both sides are guilty.

6) "dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities." I used to think that this is what we faced. Then 9/11 came along, and I learned more about unity and humanity than at any other time. This is a problem until something causes us to recognize that we are more united than we think.

7) " would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."" I agree here. Open discourse free from insult directed at the speaker is wide open. The issue is tha is is most seen in minorities attacking other minorities for espousing different views. "Sell out," "Oreo" and "Uncle Tom" are seen quite often. Still, we see those on the other side mentioning "disgrace to the race" and such. We have personal attacks instead of reasoned discourse. As a 9th Circuit Justice wrote just last week, "There is the question of whether we should tolerate intolerance, a question as imponderable as a Mobius strip..." Tolerance is, in its present form, a one-way street. This causes backlash, which intensifies the antagonism. We are seeing it now.

8) "I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws." I disagree - I think that the lack of enforcement of ANY law causes problems. The government is viewed as ineffective or playing favorites, which leads to backlash.

---

I posted this to get a discussion going. Obviously, there are several viewpoints - extreme on both ends. There are some actual good points made with this. I didn't find it particularly incendiary - on its face it was general.

I just think that the guy overly simplified it. There is no black and white line (no pun intended) but rather shades of gray in it.

But you guys are providing an interesting discussion here that is opening my eyes to different thoughts. Ironically, there is _some_ antagonism of viewpoint in this thread - brushing off comments and points and not making much effort to see both sides.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Many english people in quebec have moved away because of the hostility that is present.

And probably likewise, french people move away or just don't move to Alberta or BC because of hostility or (more likely) because nobody speaks French here.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[jumpingjimmy 0]

there's only two things wrong with canada...

1. half the people speak french
2. the other half let them

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

American history suggests that a multicultural nation can do just fine

Not necessarily. We had that Revolutionary War over dueling cultures.

Let's not forget the cutural war we had for about 5 years while Lincoln was president.

Oh, yeah - once we killed the Indians or sent them off to reservations, there was no problem with their culture impacting the US mainstream.

And let us not forget our treatment of the Micks, Wops and Chinks out west in the Antebellum period.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,406]

>We had that Revolutionary War over dueling cultures.

I think we had the Revolutionary War over dueling governments. The US was a lot more diverse (at least in terms of religion) than England was when the war started.

>And let us not forget our treatment of the Micks, Wops and Chinks
>out west in the Antebellum period.

I think any culture resists change. Heck, most people resist change. But any 'cultural invasion' can lead in two directions -

1. Rejection, leading to isolationism, balkanization and (in some cases) genocide. This, I think, weakens any country.

2. Acceptance, which leads to a stronger society overall. I don't think anyone (except perhaps the author of that piece) would argue that accepting the Irish, Italians, Israelis, Germans etc elements into our culture has weakened it. Indeed, I think the only negative to the addition of those cultures to the 'melting pot' of US culture is the transient hatred some people have of new cultures/traditions/accents etc.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many english people in quebec have moved away because of the hostility that is present.

And probably likewise, french people move away or just don't move to Alberta or BC because of hostility or (more likely) because nobody speaks French here.

No they simply take over and act like they own the place. I actually knew a french canadian girl ( who spoke perfect english) who went to Alberta (where french is about as common as leprechauns), and signed up for a tour of the provincial legislature. When the tour was about to start she proclaimed
"I would like my tour conducted in french" and would not budge untill they found someone who could do the tour in french for her (bitch). While they were looking for someone to help her she proceeded to berate them on all the "bilingual country" bullshit that is shoved down the throats of english canadians. Was it really neccessary for her to be difficult with them and get in their faces? My extended family is about one third french and I can speak from experience that quebec culture encourages contempt for english canada. We have accomodated them again and again yet they still pout and scream, and get in our faces.

I realize that there are two sides to all stories but I think at this stage it is quebec that needs to start extending a bit of an olive branch.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Elisha 1]

Yeah, I think he's an idiot too.

While he may have some valid points, there are so many out of context statements and already a few counter examples mentioned by other posters that his article has no credibility.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

American history suggests that a multicultural nation can do just fine

Not necessarily. We had that Revolutionary War over dueling cultures.

I think the Revolution was about capitalism, not culture. No colony remains a colony when it has a choice in the matter.

Quote

Let's not forget the cutural war we had for about 5 years while Lincoln was president.

Oh, yeah - once we killed the Indians or sent them off to reservations, there was no problem with their culture impacting the US mainstream.

And let us not forget our treatment of the Micks, Wops and Chinks out west in the Antebellum period.

Those were trying times, but few nations have a 250 year history of calm order. It still blunts the argument that conditions now will mean a collapse of the USA.

The elimination of the native populations removes the greatest threat to a power - a nation state formed by force rather than organically grown. The USSR was really a forced combination of many natural countries and when the wall fell, so did any reason to remain one. Same for the Ottoman Empire, and the largest of all time, the Roman Empire. But here, virtually everyone within the borders came to it as America.

I leave this article thinking the guy had a goal (find ways to mock/attack others) and this was an attempt to find a legitimate defense for the thinking.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

I posted this to get a discussion going.

Troll.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I can speak from experience that quebec culture encourages contempt for english canada.

I see a lot of BC and Alberta culture encouraging contempt for french canada.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Richards 0]

Quote

I see a lot of BC and Alberta culture encouraging contempt for french canada.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yeah, I think he's an idiot too.

I don't think he's an idiot. He's a bright guy, and made some good points.

I also believe that it took some cajones to say what he said. It was not exactly the "mainstream" thing to say.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Did BC or Alberta ...

Lousy argument technique #37: "But he started it!"

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

If a store owner had a sign french and english he would get reported to the authorities and the "Language SS" would come around and order him to remove the english, and would take legal action against him if he did not comply . English was outlawed!

That's because you are EEngleesh type! Animal food trough wiper! Eengleesh Pig Dogs!

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did BC or Alberta ...

Lousy argument technique #37: "But he started it!"

I am providing an argument. Something you have yet to do.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I also believe that it took some cajones to say what he said. It was not exactly the "mainstream" thing to say.

huh? It's practically a cliche to rail about the evils of PC.

[Trent 0]

You guys are so funny. It looks like those who don't like the article are pushing to make it sound like a racist work. Really, if you read it closely... it's more about division, lack of common language and culture... you know some of the things that actually DO seem like they're encouraged around here.

But hey... you guys are probably right... America would last forever and be the good guys always if you only ran the place.

Oh, hello again!

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did BC or Alberta ...

Lousy argument technique #37: "But he started it!"

I am providing an argument. Something you have yet to do.

Richards

Careful there, he is, after all, the worlds greatest authority.