Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    My negative view on multiculturalism actually has nothing to do with
    racism, religion mixing, or the like.  My interest in this issue is
    strictly on a nationalistic level.
    
    I have no problem with legal immigration.  Probably my favorite time
    working at Digital was a two year stint in our Hudson Mass.
    semiconductor facility.  I worked with two white male Americans of
    European heritage and 12 Vietnamese men and women.  I found their
    desire to become American citizens most enlightening.  They appreciated
    where were and look forward to a better life.
    
    I'm sorry, but when I hear Alan Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters,
    and other leaders, it bothers me.  I see the leadership bad mouthing
    America and Multiculturalism as an attempt to splinter the US as the
    Balkins did.  
    
    -Jack

    I do not know what multiculturalism is. I've heard/read  the term but
    not in the sort of context that leads me to understand what it means
    to anyone. How do the people who promote it define it? Anyone?
    
    			Alfred

 Been wondering the same thing, Alfred.






Jim

    Write Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh.  They seem to think they know
    what multiculturalism is.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .4 You miss the whole point of my question Richard. I don't want
    to know what the people attacking it say about it. I want to understand
    the full and true goals of the people who support it. I always like to
    go to source documents when possible so as to avoid having the
    filtering done for me.
    
    		Alfred

    .5  Oh, I got the point.  I was just being snotty! 8-}
    I'll get back to you.  I've got a thing or two to say on
    this topic.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

On one warm Saturday, as many of them are in Phoenix, Arizona, a
multicultural fair was held on the campus of the Union Boulevard
location of Digital Equipment Corporation (PNO, now defunct).

There were booths with all kinds of homemade oriental foods, Mexican
foods, US southern-style ribs, German foods, etc..  Those who had
garb of the culture of their heritage were encouraged to wear it.

There was also a "wheelchair obstacle course" to be maneuvered through
by those who'd never been wheelchair-bound, which included an ordinary
door, an average-height bank teller window, store shelves, and the like.

This was an all-volunteer effort.  It was intended to generate an
appreciation for the many various cultures from which the employees of
the Digital Phoenix plant were comprised.  At the time, I, a white guy
in a motorized wheelchair, was working with a man from the Kentucky hills,
a black man, a Chicano man, a Chicano woman, a Nicaraguan man, and a young,
white woman with a slight lisp.  We were all very different, and yet, we
realized we were richer, not poorer, for our differences.  We learned from
each other.  Sure, we became frustrated, even angry, with each other
sometimes, too.

Multiculturalism is nothing more than this:  An appreciation for where
others come from.

Peace,
Richard

    
    >a black man, a Chicano man, a Chicano woman, a Nicaraguan man, and a young,
                                         ^
     nit: It's Chicana with an "a" Chicano is male Chicana is female.
    
    			Alfred

re Note 774.8 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     >a black man, a Chicano man, a Chicano woman, a Nicaraguan man, and a young,
>                                          ^
>      nit: It's Chicana with an "a" Chicano is male Chicana is female.
  
        I think Richard was just trying to prevent further
        balkanization.  :-}

        Bob

    
>Multiculturalism is nothing more than this:  An appreciation for where
>others come from.

    How is it to be implemented? Lots of great intentions have been ruined
    by bad implementation. I'm trying to understand here what the goals are
    and how they are to be achieved.

    I believe it is useful to know about and even celebrate our various
    heritages. We did celebrate Norwegian Constitution Day in our family 
    when I was growing up for example. But you know after a while in
    America we become more ethnicly complex. My son is part Irish,
    Scottish, Norwegian, Russian, and Dutch. Some of his cousins are even
    more diverse. His second cousins even more so. 

    It could get a little silly identifying ones self as an
    Irish-Scottish-Norwegian-Russian-Dutch-American. And he doesn't. He
    identifies himself as an American. Period. I have a friend whose
    family has been in the US since 100 years before it was the US. He's
    an American pure and simple.

    The point is that while it's a good thing to know that there are
    differences and to understand where they come from but one doesn't
    build a friendship or a team or a nation on differences. One needs to
    find commonalty. One needs to take the areas where people agree on
    and the things (goals, ideals) they have in common to build upon.

    I suspect that some people may fear that multiculturalism will have
    the effect of further dividing people rather than bringing them
    together.

    			Alfred

re Note 774.10 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I suspect that some people may fear that multiculturalism will have
>     the effect of further dividing people rather than bringing them
>     together.
  
        It would be ironic, then, if FEAR of multiculturalism also
        had the effect of further dividing people rather than
        bringing them together.

        Bob

    Richard,
            get yourself a copy of the book "Illiberal Education," by
    Denish Desuza sp?, and you'll see the bases for the attacks against 
    multiculturalism.

    The word "multiculturalism" is a misused word as much as the word "liberal"
    is.

    Jim

re Note 774.10 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >Multiculturalism is nothing more than this:  An appreciation for where
> >others come from.
  ...
>     I suspect that some people may fear that multiculturalism will have
>     the effect of further dividing people rather than bringing them
>     together.
  
        I suspect that "multiculturalism", when the term is used by
        some conservatives, means a very specific expression of it as
        advocated by particular (and probably liberal) proponents.

        In that way it's probably like "political correctness", which
        some conservatives assume is purely a liberal phenomenon, but
        which others (myself included) see as a generic phenomenon
        of hyper sensitivity to the ideological implications of word
        choice -- clearly a phenomenon exhibited by conservative
        ideologues as well.

        From my perspective, a "melting pot" is per se
        "multicultural", and America has been living (more or less
        successfully) "multiculturalism" for centuries.

        I suspect that the phrase "multiculturalism" could imply many
        things to many people.  Since I don't follow the
        fear-mongering media, I don't know what "multiculturalism"
        might mean to some conservatives.

        Bob

    
    
    
    Multiculturalism:: Hate the white man. Denounce the God of the bible
    as being the only true God. View past history with Hatred and contempt
    for whitey.. Let there be no absolute truth cuz like hey man your truth
    may not be my tribes truth.
    
    
    A_biased_white_male_opinion,
    
    David Dyben

re Note 774.14 by COMET::DYBEN:

>     Multiculturalism:: Hate the white man. Denounce the God of the bible
>     as being the only true God. View past history with Hatred and contempt
>     for whitey.. Let there be no absolute truth cuz like hey man your truth
>     may not be my tribes truth.
  
        David,

        I'd hate Christianity if it were defined that way, too!

        However, it appears that IN THIS CONFERENCE nobody else
        suggests that the above is the definition of
        "multiculturalism".

        So why do you suggest it?

        Bob

    
    
    > IN THIS CONFERENCE
    
    
      Your kidding me right?
    
    
    David

    Multiculturalism is the product of our  universities buckling under
    to pressure groups to teach subjects other than those which are
    perceived as Euro-male dominated. Studies of the Judeo/Christian
    religions, Socrates, Plato, and the the U.S. Constitution are no longer 
    part of a liberal education in our universities, because these
    philosophies were created by a white male, domineering culture. 

    Of course its the culture where the concepts of individual freedom were
    born, but our university students will never know that, because the
    study of such is discouraged and even considered racist and sexist.

    Jim

>    to pressure groups to teach subjects other than those which are
>    perceived as Euro-male dominated. 

    I didn't think educated people were frightened by "foreign" ideas.

>    Studies of the Judeo/Christian
>    religions, Socrates, Plato, and the the U.S. Constitution are no longer 
>    part of a liberal education in our universities, because these
>    philosophies were created by a white male, domineering culture. 
    
    That's not true.  

>    Of course its the culture where the concepts of individual freedom were
>    born, but our university students will never know that, because the
>    study of such is discouraged and even considered racist and sexist.

    I don't agree with that statement.

> "My God Is OK, Sorry About Yours"

    I guess that about sums it up.  Everything that doesn't support
    your ideas are not only wrong but evil and bent on destroying
    all we hold dear.  Such beliefs smack of xenophobia and are hostile
    to the commandment to Love God *AND* Love your neighbor.  It doesn't
    say your neighbor has to be white.  Although, I guess, you're entitled
    to interpret it that way.

    Tom

    RE: .7
    
    If that's what it is, I sure have no problem with it.
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    > If that's what it is
    
    
    ....not.. That does not mean that it is not that for some, just that by
    and large it is what I described it as, white male bashing.....
    
    David

    I attended the Understanding the Value of Diversity course offered by
    Digital.
    
    David Dyben speaks accurately.
    
    -Jack

re Note 774.20 by COMET::DYBEN:

> by and large it is what I described it as, white male bashing.....
  
        "By and large" in what population?  I've never heard of this,
        and sometimes I've been confused for a "liberal".  :-}

        I have no doubt that there are small fringe groups that have
        their own twisted meanings for all sorts of words and phrases
        -- after all, even Christendom has its cults and sects with
        very strange beliefs, definitions, and practices.

        (After all, those groups may be taking the name of a
        legitimate and widely-respected concept precisely because
        they want to legitimize their position.  But that shouldn't
        be allowed to disparage the typical usage of such a term.)

        So I believe there could be some nuts that call "white male
        bashing" by the name "multiculturalism" because the latter
        term would generally conjure up an American-style society. 
        But if they did so, what relevance would that have to the
        common meaning?

        Bob

re Note 774.21 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I attended the Understanding the Value of Diversity course offered by
>     Digital.
>     
>     David Dyben speaks accurately.

        Either that, or the "Value of Diversity" speaks inaccurately
        -- have you even considered that possibility?

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    I'm just being honest.  It turned into a two day whining session.
    I've heard that other sessions were the same.
      
    Do you recall the UMass incident where the Chancellor was pressured
    into changing the minuteman logo because it promoted violence and
    racism?  Bob, we are not going to change history in the name of
    multiculturalism.  The Revolutionary war was fought mainly by white
    males of European dissent.  I saw the UMass incident as inane nonsense.
    Had I been the chancellor, I would have simply said, "Go back to your
    dorm and open a book!!!" End of story.
    
    Value difference, strive to find commonality, and for heavens sake,
    don't try to change history so everybody can feel good!
    
    -Jack

re:18
>>    to pressure groups to teach subjects other than those which are
>>    perceived as Euro-male dominated. 

>    I didn't think educated people were frightened by "foreign" ideas.

     They're not. However, what is happening in our universities instills
     fear of studying traditional courses which use to be mandated in a
     liberal education. The study of Greek classics and Shakespere can
     now be replaced with studies of feminism and Native American culture
     instead. Study of feminism or Native American culture is not wrong,
     but allowing them to replace  traditional studies is, IMO.

>>    Studies of the Judeo/Christian
>>    religions, Socrates, Plato, and the the U.S. Constitution are no longer 
>>    part of a liberal education in our universities, because these
>>    philosophies were created by a white male, domineering culture. 
    
>    That's not true.  

    It is true. Read "Illiberal Education." The author documents the
    multicultural curriculum's in the colleges across the country.
    They are loaded with racist, anti-male propaganda.
     
>>    Of course its the culture where the concepts of individual freedom were
>>    born, but our university students will never know that, because the
>>    study of such is discouraged and even considered racist and sexist.

>    I don't agree with that statement.

     Then show me other cultures where individual freedom sprang out of.
     
>> "My God Is OK, Sorry About Yours"

>    I guess that about sums it up.  Everything that doesn't support
>    your ideas are not only wrong but evil and bent on destroying
>    all we hold dear.  Such beliefs smack of xenophobia and are hostile
>    to the commandment to Love God *AND* Love your neighbor.  It doesn't
>    say your neighbor has to be white.  Although, I guess, you're entitled
>    to interpret it that way.

     Sums up what ? Yes, my God is the only God I choose to worship. I'm
     sorry you find the idea intolerant of your beliefs. It isn't meant
     that way.

    Peace
     Jim

re Note 774.24 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I'm just being honest.  It turned into a two day whining session.
>     I've heard that other sessions were the same.
  
        So it sounds that you have low regard to the "Valuing of
        Diversity" course -- fair enough.  But if you do have little
        regard for this course, why do you accept as accurate their
        definition of "multiculturalism"?
            
>     Do you recall the UMass incident where the Chancellor was pressured
>     into changing the minuteman logo because it promoted violence and
>     racism?  Bob, we are not going to change history in the name of
>     multiculturalism.  

        I read and heard numerous account and discussions of this. 
        Never was the term "multiculturalism" used.

        Bob

re Note 774.25 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ:

>      Study of feminism or Native American culture is not wrong,
>      but allowing them to replace  traditional studies is, IMO.

        Then you'd probably be shocked by what one of our nation's
        top technical schools allowed one to "substitute" for "study
        of Greek classics and Shakespere" (and this was, I hate to
        admit it, 25 years ago).

> >>    Of course its the culture where the concepts of individual freedom were
> >>    born, but our university students will never know that, because the
> >>    study of such is discouraged and even considered racist and sexist.
> 
> >    I don't agree with that statement.
> 
>      Then show me other cultures where individual freedom sprang out of.
  
        While I certainly can't say if you're right or wrong (per my
        "illiberal" education mentioned above), if we haven't studied
        those other cultures then there is no way we can answer this
        question other than out of uninformed prejudice.
           
        Bob

"Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember when you were
foreigners in Egypt." Exodus 22.21 (TEV)

In a way, we're all foreigners in the world, especially those of us
who are of the Spirit.  God reminds us that our spiritual ancestors
were ill-treated as foreigners and commands us not to imitate the
repressive policies of the potentates of the past.

I, too, took the Digital course called Understanding the Dynamics of
Diversity, formerly called Valuing Differences.  I did not come away
with the same impression as Jack.  I don't know how to account for that.
The course I took was not an exercise in disparity.

There are things about our white male-dominant American heritage of which
I'm not terribly proud, "Manifest Destiny" and Japanese-American internment
camps among them.  But that doesn't mean I want to see all white guys
publicly flogged and humiliated.

Peace,
Richard

    True Richard, I am not proud of many things our country has done in the
    past to suppress people.  As a white male, I stated earlier I am a
    proponent of legal immigration.  What I am against is when a foreigner
    comes to the US and bad mouths the United States.  So, you bring up a
    valid point about welcoming the foreigner.  In this case it is a matter
    of the foreigner being congenial to its host.  
    
    I openly admit I see Multiculturalism and Political correctness in the
    same light, and I tend to clump them together.  The categorization of
    peoples or words for the sake of sparing feelings is a travesty.  This
    is why I brought up the UMass incident.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 774.29 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     The categorization of
>     peoples or words for the sake of sparing feelings is a travesty.  

        On the other hand, if one were to say that feelings are of no
        real import and always ought to be disregarded in favor of
        other considerations one would be advocating a travesty too,
        no?

        Bob

    
    
    > David Dyben speaks accurately
    
     I concur :-)
    
    
    David

    
    
    > By and large in what population
    
    
     The U.S.A.
    
    Blacks:: White man is to blame
    
    Indians:: White man is to blame
    
    Mexican:: White man is to blame
    
    Woman :: White man is to blame
    
    White Male:: " silenced by all the hatred and dysfunctional whining"
    
    David

    
    
     I took the VOD class you mentioned. I saw it as much the same, classic
    white male bashing. I advocate a blending of cultures but not at the
    expense of my own. The races that are currently WHINING have far to
    many problems of there own to deal with. My race conquered the world
    and that's that. I cannot redress the ever growing list of complaints
    which are simply aimed at digging deeper into the wallets in order to
    feed the leeches called lawyers!!!
    
    
    Have a nice day,
    
    David :-)

re Note 774.33 by COMET::DYBEN:

>     My race conquered the world
>     and that's that. 

    Blessed are the meek for.....

 I'm not quite sure what .33 was trying to say, but I have to admit
I'm a bit disturbed by it myself.




Jim (white independant fundamental Bible believing soul winning Baptist)

    Jim:
    
    I could be wrong but I think what Dave might be saying is:
    
    1. I shouldn't get bashed because of some of the foolish conquests made by 
    white males throughout history.  Nebudchadnezzer, Pharoah, Alexander,
    Caeser, Hitler, etc.  
    
    2. There are certain minority leaders that need to focus more on the
    problems of their people and stop crying racism, and
    
    3. The laws of the land are so bad and biased that lawyers are
    exploiting it for their own personal gain.  They could care less about
    individual rights.  You think Dr. Kevorkians lawyer is representing him
    because of integrity?  Ha ha ha.
    
    -Jack

 Hmmmm...

    
    > NO COMMENT
    > THE MEEK
    > I'M NOT QUITE SURE
    
    
       Simple, all I am saying is that I cannot change the past.. We did
    what we did,some of it in retrospect was really bad, but we did it..
    
    
    David

 Thanks David for explaining it....I understand now what you are
 saying.






Jim

    
    
    -1
    
     What were you imagining I meant? White Supremist(sp)....
    
    
    David

 Not quite that extreme, but close..




 Sorry for the misunderstanding

        I do think that we Christians must understand the degree to
        which we identify Christianity with western culture.

        While I agree that Europeans played a major role in the
        spread of the gospel (so far!), I don't think this gives much
        support to identifying the gospel with western culture.

        Western civilization and western culture was just a vehicle,
        a vessel used at God's pleasure to spread the gospel.  One
        only need look at the old testament to see that being used as
        God's instrument is in no way an endorsement of the moral
        value of the person or civilization or nation so used.

        As far as individual freedom is concerned, it was Jesus who
        said that the truth will make you free, and that he is the
        truth.  It wasn't Plato or Locke.  Jesus lived and taught in
        a world as much dominated by classic Roman and Greek thought
        as it was dominated by Pharisaic thought, but is any
        conservative Christian suggesting that Jesus derived his
        teaching from classical philosophy?

        Jesus said that we are to be in the world, not of the world.

        Bob

re .43

Very well put... thanks.

-Steve

    
    
    -2
    
     I thought about this and decided to delete my previos note agreeing
    with you. I see your point, and yes God is not an American, however
    much of our past history and the decisions we made were justified(
    sometimes incorrectly ) by biblical principal.
    
    1.) Civil War ( 600,000 dead)
    2.) WW1
    3.) WW2 and the fight against Hitler
    4.) Helping West Germany
    5.) Stopping Communism( we won that by the way)..
    6.) Fighting Sadam
    7.) And much to Bill Clinton and George Bush's credit, feeding the
    starving Somalians.
    
     What we have today is the last remenant(sp) of a once great Christian
    nation. If I could capture what has happened to the USA I would simply
    show a picture of an animal dying a slow death from the inside out, and
    yes I believe it is all caused by non-christian philosophy!
    
    David

Note 774.45

Let me address the ones that popped out at me, David.  Though I'm a little
older than you, I wasn't around during the War between the States (which
was hardly "civil").

>    5.) Stopping Communism( we won that by the way)..

Exactly, how did *we* win?

If anything, we outspent the Soviets to death.  Except for the insane
spending, which may well be our own demise when it catches up to us, it
was hardly a military victory.

>    6.) Fighting Sadam

Now here's a real accomplishment!  Devastating a country with a GNP, at
the time, the size of Kentucky.

>    7.) And much to Bill Clinton and George Bush's credit, feeding the
>    starving Somalians.

And being shot at by weapons we built and supplied 'em with.  Makes you
proud, doesn't it?

Richard

    
    
    > Though I'm a little older than you
    
     From reading your notes I would say you came of age in the sixties:-)
    
    > stopping communism
    >Exactly how did we win
    
    1.) Stopping the North Koreans from running off with the South
    2.)  Tried but failed to do the same in Vietnam.
    3.) Airlifting food to the West Germans.
    4.) NATO....
    5.) Stopping the Commies in Nicaragua
    6.) Yes, we out spent them....
    
    > Devastating a counbtry with a GNP, at the time, the size of Kentucky
    
      Richard remember, its' not the size of your country but how you use
    it :-) In this case Sadamm used it to plunder the kurds and rape his
    neighbors in Kuwait.
    
    > And being shot at by weapons we built
    
      ..life is not as simple as you liberals would like it to be.
    Sometimes people turn on you, sometimes you make mistakes,the
    important thing is that the childred are no longer suffering from
    bloating stomaches(sp).
    
    > make you proud
    
       Helping starving people makes me feel damn proud to be an
    American,although I will admit I think it is time to leave.I think
    the difference between you and I is that I see the wine glass as half
    full and you see it as not.
    
    David
    

    RE: .46  Richard,
    
    
    		Most have not yet relized that Reagen pushed our military 
    growth with the idea of forcing the USSR to try and keep up.  Their 
    economy wasn't up to it and so crumbled under its own weight.  Without
    a shot being fired we (US economy) forced the USSR into recievership.
    That is one reason why I believe that Reagen was one of the greatest 
    presidents this country ever had.  His belief in his advisors about
    our economy and the worlds economy was exactly right...though we seem
    to be paying for it now I think it was worth it.
    
    
    Dave

    .47 & .48
    
    Three cheers for the red, white and blue!  In Reagan's case, the hues
    are more indicative of poker chips than fields on a proud flag.
    
    Incidentally, since we're on the topic of multiculturalism, the
    infantry is made up disproportionately of non-Anglos.  Guess we know
    who are most expendable.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Richard, I don't know how you do it....
    
    Cindy

    
    ...and there used to be all these Native Americans...you know, those
    people who were here before the Christians came...
    
    Fortunately, though, their voice was not killed off altogether.  It 
    is coming back slowly, stronger than ever before.  
    
    As for yesterday...I asked the congregation if they would like my 
    friend to come and speak on India and Hinduism, and immediately got 
    an incredibly enthusiastic response from everyone, so that will be
    happening in the next few months.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

 RE .49


  Isn't the military 100% voluntary these days?

    .52
    
    The ones who join the military are often driven there by
    economic circumstances.  Had I a nickel for every time I heard,
    "If it wasn't for the Army, I wouldn't have a job."
    
    One can see it as voluntary or simply a more covert form of
    conscription.
    
    It is a well-known fact that the most well-integrated part of this
    region is Fort Carson.  The least?  Don't know.  But I'd guess
    Colorado College or the Broadmoor area.  Why?  That's where the
    $$'s are.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

I was talking with my mother-in-law about education the other
day and it fits in (to some extent) with this topic.

She strongly believed that public schools (and what they taught)
have been what holds America together as a society.  With a
common purpose and common traditions taught, we form a bonding
with one another in this country.  I agree with her that this
is important (although I disagree with her that public schools
are the essential element holding this together today - I think
private schools rising in prominence would be healthy in today's
society).

Insofar as multiculturism sidesteps this commonality, I think
that we will lose some binding together as a culture which I
perceive to be bad.  I don't want the U.S. to ever break up
as the Soviet Union did into a number of seperate republics.
What's to stop that?  Our "common" heritage and training.  So,
I think that there is a danger here.  However, none of this
suggests that we should not celebrate some of our differences
as well.

Collis

    It feels so strange to agree with Collis.

    Unity in most things, tolerance, respect and celebration in the rest.

    I can live with that :-)

    
    Re.54
    
    Collis,
    
    There's a problem with that though...the textbooks that I (and 
    probably you) learned out of were at best misleading, many 
    times incorrect, and in other places just plain lacking in presenting
    the bigger picture.
    
    The 'Christopher Columbus discovering America in 1492' is a prime
    example.    
    
    Cindy

 As opposed to the textbooks today which are 100% truthful and unbiased,
 right?





 Jim

> As opposed to the textbooks today which are 100% truthful and unbiased,
> right?

    And so the pendulum swings...

re Note 774.57 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  As opposed to the textbooks today which are 100% truthful and unbiased,
>  right?
  
        Of course today's textbooks are biased -- it's the human
        condition!

        It's very natural when a problem first surfaces in society
        that the people who feel most strongly about the problem --
        perhaps because they are personally involved -- react first,
        and some of them inevitably overreact.

        So you can place a sure bet that statements such as "Columbus
        discovered America in 1492" (well, it was a personal
        discovery, for sure :-) will, at some point, be "countered"
        by a polar opposite position rather than "balance."  (The
        very notion of "countering" an erroneous or incomplete
        position seems to imply an equally incomplete statement.)

        This of course doesn't justify bias.

        People who can present opposing positions fairly are usually
        distrusted -- or worse -- by both sides. :-}

        Bob

It is true that I prefer the prejudices that I grew up
with rather than the prejudices that are spread today.

The major reason for this is that I see the newer prejudices
of today as much more destructive of us as a society.

Collis

>The major reason for this is that I see the newer prejudices
>of today as much more destructive of us as a society.

    If what you mean by "us" is "us white, Christian males" I agree.

    But the old prejudices were pretty destructive to the Jews 55 years
    ago.  Those of African decent fared worse 30 years ago in many ways.
    (Although, in some ways, they were better off)  Women without 
    a provider tend to be better off now that they are allowed to work
    in places they weren't before.  The American Indians were subjected
    to genocide because they were thought of as less than human.
    
    I think we agree that prejudice is unhealthy for society, the
    victims and the soul.  When you stop thinking of a person as a child
    of God simply because of his or her culture you can't possibly learn
    to love him/her the way that God commands.
    
    The pendulum simply swings.

    Tom

    
    Re.60
    
    Collis,
    
    Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of?
    What did you grow up with?
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    Framingham school system taught that Christopher Columbus sailed from
    Spain to the Bahamian Islands and that Amerigo Vesspucci discovered 
    what we term the U.S.
    
    -Jack 

    
    How many years was it lost before Amerigo discovered it?
    
    Cindy

>    .. ah yes India, a wonderfully rich country country where everyone gets
>    along so marvelously, provided your not a Budhist.

    Is this supposed to mean something or is it a just a cut being made
    at someone you tend to disagree with?

    I think it's pretty **** obvious that it doesn't matter how wonderful
    a religion is, people who "practice" it can abuse it and use it as
    excuse to do just about anything.

    Would you like some Christian examples?

BTW: It is the Hindus and the Muslims that tend to fight in India.
     The Hindu/Budhist conflict is in Sri Lanka and really flared 
     up when the ruling "Budhist" society sacked and burned most of
     Hindu owned businesses in Colombo.

    Don't you just hate it when someone deletes a note out
    from under you?

    Tom

                                      
    Oh, thanks for saying that the note disappeared, Tom.  I was wondering
    where that comment came from.
    
    > .. ah yes India, a wonderfully rich country country where everyone gets
    > along so marvelously, provided your not a Budhist.
    
    Pity the note is gone - I'd like to address this one in greater detail.  
    First of all, the spelling is 'Buddhist'.  Secondly, when the Chinese 
    invaded Tibet, it was India who gave the Dalai Lama and many Tibetan 
    people a place to live.  This last August, at the decidedly Hindu
    conference that I worked on, H.H. The Dalai Lama had accepted our
    invitation to appear at the conference.  Given all things, if it was
    the Hindus who are supposed to be against Buddhists, then it wouldn't
    make sence for Him to do such a thing.  As it turns out, the current
    gov't of India put pressure on Him not to attend, however He did send
    his direct representative, Ven. Doboom Tulku, director of the Tibet
    House in Delhi.  I spent a fair amount of the day with Ven.Tulku, in
    fact.  Nice fellow.     
    
    Well, the note is gone now...but perhaps it was 'Tibet' you meant to
    type, and not 'India'.  One never knows for certain...  If you can be 
    more specific, I can address your comment in greater detail.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    Didn't Vespucci discover America way before Columbus supposedly did?  
    I thought Amerigo was a viking before 1492.
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    With a name like Vespucci, I sincerely doubt he was a Viking. (;^)
    
    Leif Erikson was that Viking fellow you may be thinking of.  It's been
    a long time...can someone enlighten us as to the people and timelines?
    
    The other part of my comment was also pointing to the Native people
    who were already here long before anybody 'discovered' this land. 
    Especially the Christians...
    
    Cindy

    .68  Well, Vespucci's name alone suggests the Mediterranean.  Try
    Eric the Red, or something like that.
    
    I think Cindy's main point it that if people were already living here
    then in no way could *any* of the explorers from the "Old World" have
    been the first to "discover" it.  It is a Eurocentric paradigm.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .69 Cuz'n Cindy,
    
    	Whoops! Sorry about .70 being so redundant (but not sorry enough
    to delete it!). :-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

                         
    About the Buddhism in India comment, refer to note 710 in the INDIA
    conference over on VAXWRK::.  Only 6 notes to read in the string.  
    There was a new note with some historical information entered a few 
    days ago.
    
    Additional comment - the real schism in India along religious lines is
    the Hindus vs. Muslims.  However, the more I learn and experience
    directly, the more I come to realize that this is just a smokescreen,
    and that ultimately it all comes down to politics in the end.  The real
    division is between the Congress(I) party and the BJP, primarily.  
    [Explanations can be provided if anyone is interested.]
    
    Cindy

 Amerigo Vespuci was an Italian who was the first to map the new World, as
 I recall, and from who's name "America" is derived.





Jim

    \
    
    TBAKER
    
    
       I withdrew the note in order to rephase my off the cuff remark. It
    would have been redirected to Cindy Painter. She had popped in earlier
    with a remark about how the American Indians were treated...
    
    
    David

  >If what you mean by "us" is "us white, Christian males" I agree.

What I mean by "us" is everybody.  The new prejudices are
much more destructive to society, in my opinion.  The new
prejudices tend to tear down a belief in God (which has
always been a major commonality among Americans until
quite recently) and celebrate differences which, one way
or another, are destructive to our cohesiveness as a society
as well as our well-being as humans.

Collis

If my history is correct, Amerigo Vespucci never came
to "America", just drew his maps to make himself famous.  :-)

 Right..

         
    Collis,
    
    Can you give some examples of what you mean by old and new prejudices?
    
    Cindy

Not sure I want to - primarily because I won't be around
to give this much time and partially because we'll just
disagree about most of what I say anyway

    
    Even one or two would be good.  I'm just looking for your perspective,
    and not for a debate.  At the moment, you keep referring to old and new
    prejudices, and I have no idea what you are referring to.
    
    Cindy

    What would you call the opposite of multiculturalism?
    
    Monoculturalism? (single culture)
    
    Homoculturalism? (same culture)
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .81
    Would the opposite be "normal?"
    
    The term, multiculturalism is an emotionally charged phrase. To some,
    it means a simple respect for other people and their lifestyle/heritage
    for others, it refers to a effort to divide and pigeon hole people into
    cultural boxes, as you embrace the current pop liberal concern.
    
    One time in "beautiful downtown Maynard Ma.", I was having my hair cut.
    The barbor asked me......"are you german?" I answered, well I'm a US
    citizen....No, No he asked...are you german? Irish? Finally, I said
    that my parents had some German, Irish, French, and American Indian
    in them. The barbor said " Oh, your a mongrel then!"
    
    I couldn't really answer, since he had a pair of scissors in his hand,
    along with my hair.....but.....why couldn't I just be accepted for who
    I am....a US citizen.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 774.82 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     cultural boxes, as you embrace the current pop liberal concern.
>     
>     One time in "beautiful downtown Maynard Ma.", I was having my hair cut.
>     The barbor asked me......"are you german?" I answered, well I'm a US
>     citizen....No, No he asked...are you german? Irish? Finally, I said
>     that my parents had some German, Irish, French, and American Indian
>     in them. The barbor said " Oh, your a mongrel then!"
  
        Of course, experiences such as yours with the barber isn't a
        new phenomenon, and in fact it appeared to be much more
        pronounced in my parents' generation than mine.

        Bob

               
    Re.81
    
    "Xenophobia" perhaps?
    
    Cindy

    .84  Xenophobia!  Fear of the alien, the foreign.  Good.
    
    Richard
    

    	Monoculturism -> Multiculturism
    
    	Homoculturism -> Heteroculturism
    
    	Omniculturism -> ???? (Americulturism?)  :-)
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    RE: .82 Reminds me a a story. A man was visiting Ireland and was asked
    if he was a Catholic or a Protestant. He replied that he was an
    atheist. The follow up was "But are you a Catholic Atheist or a
    Protestant Atheist?" Some people will try and fit everyone into their
    own set of groups.

    		Alfred

    
    Culture-bound?
    
    Cindy

    
    	"Multiculturalism breeds immorality."
    
    					- Focus on the Family monthly
    					  newsletter, James Dobson

re Note 774.89 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     	"Multiculturalism breeds immorality."
  
        I still don't know what the Right means by
        "multiculturalism".  I always thought that the U.S., unlike
        almost every other nation, was multicultural, and that that
        was one of our sources of strength.

        Is it just me or do statements like the above seem to be only
        a little bit removed from the kinds of attitudes held by
        "good Germans" regarding Jews earlier this century?

        Bob

.89 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Okeley-dokeley, Neighbor!"

    	"Multiculturalism breeds immorality."

Morals breed immorality :^)

Steve

	Re: .90 Bob.

	>> "Multiculturalism breeds immorality."
  
        > I always thought that the U.S., unlike almost every other nation,
	> was multicultural,...

	Multiculturism is the rule rather than the exception. I just leafed
	through the office copy of Fischer 1994 (a German-lang annual world
	almanach) and confirmed this.

	> ...and that that was one of our sources of strength.

	Unfortunately, this reads like wishful thinking. Most disputes seem
	to be polarised along cultural lines. Often it is because the primary
	cultural group has ignored, or even denied, the cultural background
	of the secondary group(s). Fischer points up literally dozens of
	current crisis points where this is true.

	Mostly, lines are drawn along religious, ethnic or caste divides
	but, even withing these groups, sub-cultural differences are
	tending to undermine the collective strength. (I think, for example,
	of the conflicts both within and around the Church; of the Pro-
	Choice/Pro-Life polarities; of emancipation struggles; of an hundred
	other flames).

	It is not multiculturism in and of itself which weakens society, it
	is the way we deal with it. My beloved aunt Maria used to say:
	"We're different, darling. The men dance forwards and the women
	dance backwards. But we do it together, and that's beautiful!"

	
        > Is it just me or do statements like the above seem to be only
        > a little bit removed from the kinds of attitudes held by "good
	> Germans" regarding Jews earlier this century?

	More than just a little bit, Bob, but sadly moving in the same
	direction. But the Germans were an extreme case: they articulated
	acted upon what many others were thinking then, before then and, I
	fear, e'en yet.

	Greetings, Derek.

    Multiculturalism is indeed a strength in its purest form.
    
    However, the multiculturalism we face today in my mind is not good for
    the United States.  Multiculturalism today is based on the revisionist
    point of view that history must be rewritten or omitted in the name of
    political correctness and get-even-with-em-isms!  Goals 2000 is a great 
    example of the fruits of the multiculturalist crowd.  Within our new
    history books, our children will not learn that...
    
    1. George Washington was our first president.
    2. Men like Madison and Jefferson were the chief architects of the
       Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
    3. They will not learn about MacArthur and Patton and the battles 
       to which their grandfathers died.
    4. Columbus discovered the New World.
    5. Etc.
    
    But they will get a major dose of McCarthy and his types.  Over all,
    they will get the clear messages of victimization in this country and 
    that whitey was bad.  No, they won't touch on the fact that many of the
    Native American tribes were extremely vicious or that many Africans 
    of the 17/1800's were in cohoots with whitey during the slave trades.
    
    Yes, this form of multiculturalism is immoral!
    
    -Jack

re Note 774.93 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Goals 2000 is a great 
>     example of the fruits of the multiculturalist crowd.  

        Can you give me a reference to the documents describing
        "Goals 2000"?

        Bob

    Jack,
    
    You are having a difficult time with the realization that the history that
    has been taught forever is biased.  Biased in favor of white, upper
    class, men.
    
    Feminist Studies and Black Studies have done remarkable work in
    recapturing much that has been left out of history.  We will have a
    much more accurate picture of history when that which has been left out
    is added back in.
    
    Your notes indicates that you are one, that preferred the biased view of
    history more than a fuller history of all people.
    
    It is insane to believe that History will ever be taught without
    teaching about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Madison. 
    It has always been insane that History was taught without teaching
    about Abigail Adams, and all the ordinary women who were also a part of
    the past.
    
                               Patricia

    Oh?  You may have a point...what exactly is Abigail Adams famous for
    in the area of Constitutional writings and historical visionism?  Since
    you used the example, it stands to reason she did something
    significant.  Also, can you tell me why McCarthy will be mentioned in
    history books 10 times more than James Madison? 
    Yes...get-even-withem-isms.
    
    -Jack

 Who was John Madison?







 Jim

    Obviously a typo...I do these from time to time.  Interesting
    point...James Madison was the fifth president and was a chief architect
    of the Bill of Rights.  He was 5'2" and weighed about 98 lbs.  
    
    It kind of gives me a chuckle when I see candidates from both parties,
    not one hair out of place, pearly whites stright and capped, yet
    completely without substance at times.  Madison would never have been
    president in todays world.  He was simply too scrawney.
    
    By the way Patricia, I am not for omitting history, I am completely
    against revisionism though.  When I see a current textbook mention
    Madisons name once and McCarthy's name twenty times, this tells me
    there is some sort of historical manipulation going on here!!
    
    -Jack

    ...or the way the original theme of Thanksgiving has been watered down
    and the fact that Squanto became a Christian and was a missionary to
    his own people.
    
    Mike