What causes racial hatred: racists or racial friction?

Skepio: Right of return to where? A land that they lost in a war that THEY initiated.

What you are saying is if a country is defeated in a war you have the right to ethnically cleanse the entire population?

That said, I think Israel will complete the ethnic cleansing. The Israelis want to preserve their race and culture and cannot put up with any degree of multi-culturalism because of the postage stamp size of the country.

There is an exception to every rule, and I think Israel is the exception. Israel cannot endure any degree of racial hatred caused by multi-culturalism. There is no proper balance there.

Ultimately, anyone who disagrees with this is anti-Semitic.

My, my my; all this arguing over Israel; it's been done! Der Furher did it to inadvertently create the State, I say it's time is over. Let's round up, not just the Israeli Jews, but all the Jews left in the world, return them to ghettos, work them until they die, first seizing any of their assets (of course), as each becomes too sick to work - or if they arrive in their ghetto too sick or too old or too young to work, seize any of their assets right away (of course) and then throw them in the ovens. Don't forget their hair and the gold in their teeth and the gold in their wedding rings, too! Too World War II? Nah, those who forget the truth are condemned to relive it; but, shoot, this time we should get it right, shouldn't we?

Joe, I understand where you are coming from -- but I truly think you are doing the equivalent of advising a person coughing from advanced lung cancer to try changing his brand of cough drops.

We need the diversity -- and we need to learn how to deal with it. We do not need hiding from the problem.

Ashkenazys hate Sephardics,
and Sephardics hate Ashkenazys,
and the Mongoose hates the cobra,
and everyone hates the Jews.



I am just glad to back online....this particular Jew currently hates Rogers Cable....

What ? ! ? ! ?

Rogers/A.T. & T. ? The god of Canajun communications ?

I am scandalized.

Grrrrr...don't get me started....the modem went down about 8:30 this morning, and only decided to reconnect now, just about 11:30. Somehow, it seemed to start working just after I sic'd Mrs. cav on their ass...lol!

Despite my A2K activity, I still do depend on the internet for business, so I was seriously irked

I think Martha Stewart is the epitome of "scandle." The question is, who's lying? Martha or the assistant broker? c.i.

This is my entire point. And unless we understand that racial hatred is not caused by racists but by multi-racial environments, we will be more prone to make mistakes in maintaining a multi-cultural society.

I've seen solid brick walls which weren't as dense as our dear Joseph . . .

c.i., isn't the real question regarding Martha "who is lying on her?"

cav, That could be, but we must presume she's innocent until she's found guilty of 1) insider trading, or 2) obstruction of justice. It won't be the first time nor last our government has screwed up somebody's life. c.i.

I agree with Setanta, Joe, at times you are denser than a brick wall.

OF COURSE a multi-racial environment is necessary for racial tensions to exist -- just, as Craven pointed out, marriages are necessary for divorce to exist.

But to suppose that eliminating multi-racial environments is a way of dealing with the fact that racial tensions exist -- makes no more sense than advocating eliminating marriage as a way of dealing with our propensity for divorce.

And to suggest that the problem is the cause of the problem is like blaming the poor for poverty.

But you seem sincere -- although you apparently just don't get it -- so allow me to amend my initial comment (which was the first response in this thread):

This notion not only is not baked -- it ain't even batter. You simply cannot cook this thing enough to make it into something -- and your best way out of this is to acknowledge some sort of grasp of that reality -- coupled with a promise to re-think it and initiate a new (hopefully different) thread on it in the future.

Convincing them to stop their illegal activities has nothing to do with "the amount of multi-culturalism".

Let's act this one out.

"Abu, can you get your brothers to stop bombing the Israelis? I mean, you know what we think about multiculturalism. We need to stop killing Israelis if we are to reject the evil that multiculturalism is.

Now Sharon, dear buddy, could you get your zealots to stop stealing Palestinian land? Settling on other people's land is often considered an act of war. That is an amount of multiculturalism that we just can't countenance."


Joe,

I said they should stop bombing each other and I said that they should stop attempting to take the other side's land.

Nowhere did I say they seek an "amount of multiculturalism" that is unacceptable.




Because it is impractical. It has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

Asking Isreal to accept that many people would force them to maintain an apartheid or to give up democracy.

It is simply not reasonable to ask Isreal to accept that, they will not agree and we need Isreal to cooperate.

Again, not a knock on multiculturalism. A knock on asking impossible things of a party we need to be involved with.




Huh? You make even less esnse now. I do not support the "right to return". Neither do most Arab nations. They have given up that phrase over a year ago and changed it to "fair and equitable settlement" which could mean something negotiated that would not include the refugees returning to Isreal.

Returning that many Arabs to Isreal is not an act of Multiculturalism.

It would DECREASE the diversity by tipping the balance.

Think a bit, it has nothing to do with more "multicultural" it is about tipping the balance to one culture in a way taht would force the other to lose their nation. All while they are in negotiations to create another nation for the Palestinians.

It's not adding your dreaded multiculturalism. It's denying the opportunity to eliminate Isreal as a nation through the "right to return".

But I'm starting to catch a theme.

Anything bad involving two people of different demographics is the dreaded "multiculturalism".

I had some Colombian coffee with American milk today. I forgot the sugar and it tasted bad.

Must be multiculturalism.

Frank, I see a brick wall too! LOL c.i.

IMO, this is wrong: substantial portion of Israelis support creation of the Palestinian state (such a wide popular support enabled Mr. Sharon to neglect opinion of his own political party). Many of Israelis, however, would like Arab citizens to emigrate there: this would make Israel a safer place. I would not say that direct participance of Israeli Arabs in terror is high (they tend rather to support efforts of Palestinians than to put at risk their own life and well-being), but the demographic threat is very sufficient. Just imagine 50+ million Arabs in the USA (20 percent of population) to realize the scale of the problem. Establishment of the Palestinian state completely isolated from Israel and transfer of all the Israeli Arabs (that define themselves as Palestinians, by the way) could solve this problem. They could move to houses that the settlers will leave; if this is not enough, I am ready to pay an additional temporary tax to finance building for them housing on the territory of Palestine.

Breaking news c.i. Martha was convicted of insider trading, securities fraud and obstruction of justice...

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030604/D7RF2MPO0.html

cav, Convicted or just charged? c.i.

Hmm...indicted, it seems, with a civil suit pending...sorry, didn't read that one all the way through

Actually, this makes my point.

Mono-racial societies eliminate racism, period, at least the manifestation of racial hatred. Theoritically you don't need multi-racial societies to create and maintain human communities. After all, the rule in history has been mono-racial societies.

Maybe the answer is so simple that people don't see it. Yes, if you had no marriages, you would have no divorce. If you have only one race living in a territory, you would have no racial hatred.

Mono-racial societies might be the most harmonious, as a rule, but they are not preferable because of the benefits that come with diversity. The question is that of balance.