Do Liberals believe in Multiculturalism or Integration? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13766063
It has recently dawned upon me that Multiculturalism and Integration are completely polarised from each other, when before i has the impression they amounted to much the same thing.

I believe Multiculturalism is the tolerance and acceptance of Multiple Cultures living on the same piece of landmass under the same State Rule or duo State rule. Immigrants may retain their individual Cultural beliefs and practices within this Society.

I believe Integration is the intolerance of Multiple Cultures living on the same piece of landmass and under the same State Rule. Immigrants may not retain their individual Cultural beliefs and practices within this Society, instead they must either adapt to the host Society or the Host Society will partially adapt and incoorporate all cultures into a big mixing pot.


When you speak the words by way of their literal definitions, they do not even remotely mean the same thing, they literally are opposites.


So, by definition, do Liberals share an immigration policy with multi-cultural tendencys, or do they share an immigration policy based on integration, or do Liberals have mixed views of this within Liberalism?
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13766079
Progressives embrace multiculturalism wholeheartedly as a matter of equal self-determination.

Classic liberals reject multiculturalism because it institutionalizes equality. Diversity is fine, but people have to assimilate in order to preserve legality. Otherwise, you make natives vulnerable to invasive cultural imperialism (which begs the question, "Why bother with self-determination at all?").

That said, you will hardly, if ever, hear the second description of liberalism because it comes off as incredibly selfish and childish. The only time is when progressives are trying to masquerade as classic liberals.
By dsswoosh
#13766124
My point was to distinguish between multiculturalism and integration.

If you imply Liberals accept Multiculturalism, then it is impossible for them to accept integreation, since the two words have opposite definitions.


- Multiculturalism implies a division of groups contained within one society. (that is governed by a one state system or duo or more state system).
- Integration implies a non division of groups within one society.


You can not have both at the same time.


Do Liberals tend towards Multiculturalism or Integration?
User avatar
By Smertios
#13766934
Daktoria wrote:Classic liberals reject multiculturalism because it institutionalizes equality. Diversity is fine, but people have to assimilate in order to preserve legality.


I disagree with this. Classic liberalism was based on the idea of equality to begin with. I'd say that Liberalism (and I am talking about classic liberalism here) simply doesn't tend towards multiculturalism because that is irrelevant to the liberal agenda.

One of the main differences between liberalism is conservatism lies in the fact that conservatives tend to view the traditional society as the more important social, economic and political unit. Liberals on the other hand (and again, I'm talking about classic liberals, not the American kind), see the individual as the most important social/political/economical unit. Tradition, uniformity, heterogeneity etc are not required to the classical liberal society to work. Liberalism can work well in either a homogeneous or a multicultural society. So I'd say that the issue of multiculturalism vs. integration/assimilation is irrelevant to classic liberalism.

Conservatives, on the other hand, will prefer integration, because in their view, the traditional and homogeneous society has to be maintained...
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13767161
dsswoosh wrote:My point was to distinguish between multiculturalism and integration.

If you imply Liberals accept Multiculturalism, then it is impossible for them to accept integreation, since the two words have opposite definitions.


- Multiculturalism implies a division of groups contained within one society. (that is governed by a one state system or duo or more state system).
- Integration implies a non division of groups within one society.


You can not have both at the same time.


Do Liberals tend towards Multiculturalism or Integration?


There is a difference between diversity and multiculturalism you're not recognizing.

Multiculturalism is when legal institutions such as codified law, education, and infrastructure are built to accommodate multiple ways of living. For example, publishing regulations in Spanish in the United States.

However, diversity is just when people of different lifestyles live among each other. For example, the melting pot at the turn of the 20th century. This can still coincide with assimilation (or integration as you put it) as long as multiple people agree to the same legal benchmarks.

Progressives embrace multiculturalism.

Open border liberals can go either way depending on how much basic infrastructure they believe should accommodate immigrants for economy's sake.

Closed border liberals tend towards assimilationism out of respect for natives who came first.

Smertios wrote:I disagree with this. Classic liberalism was based on the idea of equality to begin with. I'd say that Liberalism (and I am talking about classic liberalism here) simply doesn't tend towards multiculturalism because that is irrelevant to the liberal agenda.

One of the main differences between liberalism is conservatism lies in the fact that conservatives tend to view the traditional society as the more important social, economic and political unit. Liberals on the other hand (and again, I'm talking about classic liberals, not the American kind), see the individual as the most important social/political/economical unit. Tradition, uniformity, heterogeneity etc are not required to the classical liberal society to work. Liberalism can work well in either a homogeneous or a multicultural society. So I'd say that the issue of multiculturalism vs. integration/assimilation is irrelevant to classic liberalism.

Conservatives, on the other hand, will prefer integration, because in their view, the traditional and homogeneous society has to be maintained...


Well yes, this is the difference between an open and closed border liberal.

An open border liberal will allow for each immigrant to live his or her own way.

However, a closed border liberal will say those immigrants who came first deserve to be respected before those who come next. It's not a matter of tradition, but rather it's a matter of affording the rule of law (for example, consider the definition of property rights and contracts). After all, it would be coercive to expect citizen-taxpayers to publish and communicate their social contract in every language in existence. Choosing which languages to speak is an individual lifestyle decision in itself.
User avatar
By Smertios
#13767299
dsswoosh wrote:Do Liberals tend towards Multiculturalism or Integration?


By the way, by your definition, integration doesn't create multiculturalism, right? If so, you will have to disagree with the Norwegian terrorist on what a multicultural society is. I mean, Brazil is far more "integrated" than the US, for example. Most immigrants (european or african) and most indigenous peoples were assimilated into a portuguese-based culture. 99% of Brazilians speak the same language (Portuguese) and more than 85% are christian. In the US, English is spoken as a mother language only by about 80% of the population and christianity is professed only by 75% of it.

So, by your definition, Brazil would not be considered a multicultural society while the US would. I believe that would be the exact opposite from what most people believe, no?

Daktoria wrote:Well yes, this is the difference between an open and closed border liberal.

An open border liberal will allow for each immigrant to live his or her own way.

However, a closed border liberal will say those immigrants who came first deserve to be respected before those who come next. It's not a matter of tradition, but rather it's a matter of affording the rule of law (for example, consider the definition of property rights and contracts). After all, it would be coercive to expect citizen-taxpayers to publish and communicate their social contract in every language in existence. Choosing which languages to speak is an individual lifestyle decision in itself.


Well, I wouldn't really call someone who defends that whoever came last has less rights to the land than the ones who came first liberal, really. Capitalism and Free-Market are major points of liberalism. So a liberal would have to accept that it doesn't matter when the immigrant came, as long as he paid for the land and accepted to follow the nation's laws.

What he does at home is pretty much irrelevant to anyone else in a liberal society. The constitution gives him the right to choose which language to speak, which religion to follow, what clothes to wear, what architecture style to use in his house etc. That's why the issue of multiculturalism/integration is irrelevant to the liberal point of view. Liberalism will work well in any of those situations...
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13767314
Smertios wrote:By the way, by your definition, integration doesn't create multiculturalism, right? If so, you will have to disagree with the Norwegian terrorist on what a multicultural society is. I mean, Brazil is far more "integrated" than the US, for example. Most immigrants (european or african) and most indigenous peoples were assimilated into a portuguese-based culture. 99% of Brazilians speak the same language (Portuguese) and more than 85% are christian. In the US, English is spoken as a mother language only by about 80% of the population and christianity is professed only by 75% of it.

So, by your definition, Brazil would not be considered a multicultural society while the US would. I believe that would be the exact opposite from what most people believe, no?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot

Yes, there's a difference between diversity and multiculturalism. The first is not institutionalized. The second is.

Well, I wouldn't really call someone who defends that whoever came last has less rights to the land than the ones who came first liberal, really. Capitalism and Free-Market are major points of liberalism. So a liberal would have to accept that it doesn't matter when the immigrant came, as long as he paid for the land and accepted to follow the nation's laws.

What he does at home is pretty much irrelevant to anyone else in a liberal society. The constitution gives him the right to choose which language to speak, which religion to follow, what clothes to wear, what architecture style to use in his house etc. That's why the issue of multiculturalism/integration is irrelevant to the liberal point of view. Liberalism will work well in any of those situations...


I'm not denying the second bolded section.

However, the first bolded section comes at the cost of citizen-taxpayers accommodating new cultures. For example, English speaking Americans shouldn't be obligated to support public education taught in Spanish.

When Italians, Irish, Hungarians, Poles, etc. immigrated at the turn of the 20th century, they learned English in assimilating into society. Hispanics can do the same.

Likewise, it's important to note that the labor market requires cultural accommodations. Natives should not be obligated to endure indefinite labor influxes from other countries because natives are the ones to pay taxes to support, and behave according to, the rule of law already.

It's not my obligation to keep the door open so other people can compete with me or even change consumer patterns in markets I pay for policing over.
User avatar
By Smertios
#13767343
Daktoria wrote:Yes, there's a difference between diversity and multiculturalism. The first is not institutionalized. The second is.


You are saying that multiculturalism is being institutionalized in the US? How?

I'm not denying the second bolded section.

However, the first bolded section comes at the cost of citizen-taxpayers accommodating new cultures. For example, English speaking Americans shouldn't be obligated to support public education taught in Spanish.


Well, to be honest, in a radical liberal society, public education is not supposed to exist. Education is supposed to be a matter to the family, not the state. That's as far as classic liberalism goes, of course...

And how the government deals with education is a matter to the States, not the Union, according to the US Constitution. Spanish is an official language in New Mexico, so it makes sense for them to support public education in Spanish...

When Italians, Irish, Hungarians, Poles, etc. immigrated at the turn of the 20th century, they learned English in assimilating into society. Hispanics can do the same.


The US have never had any official language. The immigrants adopted english because it was convenient for them. There wasn't a massive flux of, let's say italians, to a specific and large region. They had to adapt to the local customs because they wanted jobs, opportunities. Nobody was gonna hire a guy who didn't speak english to work with clients, for example. But they kept their original language as well. Italians spoke italian among themselves. That only stopped once they started mating with other ethnicities. And where that didn't happen, they kept their original language. The Pennsylvanian Dutch is a great example of that.

Hispanics will do the same once they get to areas in which the standard American culture predominates. They will have to start mating with people from other ethnical background some time. But now, on areas in which Spanish has aways been strong (New Mexico, Texas, California), that won't happen, because it is the exact opposite. Keep in mind that the hispanic population has always existed in those areas, even before the US started colonizing the region...

Likewise, it's important to note that the labor market requires cultural accommodations. Natives should not be obligated to endure indefinite labor influxes from other countries because natives are the ones to pay taxes to support, and behave according to, the rule of law already.


In a perfect and radical liberal society (libertarian, that is, minarchist or anarco-capitalist), taxes would not exist or be minimal. Government support is not exactly what a liberal would want...

It's not my obligation to keep the door open so other people can compete with me or even change consumer patterns in markets I pay for policing over.


Yes, but it could be beneficial for you if the immigrants accepted a job you are giving him for less money. This really goes to personal interest, really. Not something a liberal or non-liberal would support...

EDIT: Just to illustrate what I was saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico#Languages

According the 2000 U.S. Census, 28.76% of the population aged 5 and older speak Spanish at home, while 4.07% speak Navajo. Speakers of New Mexican Spanish dialect are mainly descendants of Spanish colonists who arrived in New Mexico in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.


Source: http://www.archive.org/stream/spanishlanguagei00espirich/spanishlanguagei00espirich_djvu.txt

It was the anglophones that invaded the area which was primarily Spanish-speaking, to begin with...
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13767398
Smertios wrote:You are saying that multiculturalism is being institutionalized in the US? How?


It's been encouraged through various affirmative action programs for decades now.

Well, to be honest, in a radical liberal society, public education is not supposed to exist. Education is supposed to be a matter to the family, not the state. That's as far as classic liberalism goes, of course...

And how the government deals with education is a matter to the States, not the Union, according to the US Constitution. Spanish is an official language in New Mexico, so it makes sense for them to support public education in Spanish...


Yes, I agree. The problem is progressivism has skewed liberalism in the United States for over a century by taking and stretching what you said about equality before as a matter of empowering people of minority cultures to assimilate into society.

The US have never had any official language. The immigrants adopted english because it was convenient for them. There wasn't a massive flux of, let's say italians, to a specific and large region. They had to adapt to the local customs because they wanted jobs, opportunities. Nobody was gonna hire a guy who didn't speak english to work with clients, for example. But they kept their original language as well. Italians spoke italian among themselves. That only stopped once they started mating with other ethnicities. And where that didn't happen, they kept their original language. The Pennsylvanian Dutch is a great example of that.

Hispanics will do the same once they get to areas in which the standard American culture predominates. They will have to start mating with people from other ethnical background some time. But now, on areas in which Spanish has aways been strong (New Mexico, Texas, California), that won't happen, because it is the exact opposite. Keep in mind that the hispanic population has always existed in those areas, even before the US started colonizing the region...


While this is true, it will become increasingly frustrating if citizen-taxpayers become obligated to support universal legal documentation.

The reason is because languages have nuances which don't necessarily carry between one language in the next. Translating documents can result in misinterpretations and misrepresentations of actual values.

The result will be a power politics game where people who were misrepresented towards will be expected to be practical for the national interest.

In a perfect and radical liberal society (libertarian, that is, minarchist or anarco-capitalist), taxes would not exist or be minimal. Government support is not exactly what a liberal would want...


This is true. However, we don't live in this world today. Classic liberalism does not necessarily have to take place in a radical environment. It can also take place transitionally in a government minimization environment, and that minimization takes time to pass through.

Part of that will include depending upon government ensuring property rights and contracts before everyone gets on the same page of understanding how property rights and contracts are communicated. Furthermore, institutionalized diversity will make that communication more difficult.

Yes, but it could be beneficial for you if the immigrants accepted a job you are giving him for less money. This really goes to personal interest, really. Not something a liberal or non-liberal would support...

EDIT: Just to illustrate what I was saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico#Languages


Yes, this is possible, but not necessary.

Liberalism, though, is not an ideology which demands people to comply with possibilities. It is an ideology which allows people to choose which possibilities to pursue. For example, classic liberalism doesn't demand people to forsaken their personal interests for the sake of the community because it defeats the purpose of community.

It was the anglophones that invaded the area which was primarily Spanish-speaking, to begin with...


Yes, I agree that manifest destiny was unjustified aggression.
#14731094
@ dsswoosh
dsswoosh wrote:It has recently dawned upon me that Multiculturalism and Integration are completely polarised from each other, when before i has the impression they amounted to much the same thing.

dsswoosh wrote:Integration implies a non division of groups within one society.

Smertios and Daktoria equate integration to assimilation. It is probably best to see multiculturalism and assimilation as the two extremes, and integration as the path that bridges the two. Assimilation implies that alternative cultures are forced to converge towards the dominant culture. Multiculturalism is a policy, which aims to satisfy the demands of the minorities, at least to some extent. In this policy the state actually facilitates cultures, because the cultural identity of each individual is considered to be a common good. At the same time, the policy entails the duty of the cultural communities to engage in the social deliberations. So multiculturalism ought to be a lubricant for the social relations. Note that the aim of multiculturalism is reconciliation, so a form of integration.

AFAIK the American states tried to be neutral with respect to morals. The aim of the melting pot was assimilation, but this policy was not coercive. In fact, at the time the immigrants were willing to embrace the dominant culture. The resistance against the melting pot dates from the movement for civil rights for black people. Soon many minorities felt that their identity was oppressed by their larger environment. These groups defined their identity by ethnicity, but also by for instance the religion, gender or the sexual preferences. Consequently they sometimes demand the application of affirmative action.
dsswoosh wrote:So, by definition, do Liberals share an immigration policy with multi-cultural tendencys, or do they share an immigration policy based on integration, or do Liberals have mixed views of this within Liberalism?

Smertios states that liberalism sees the individual as the most important, and I agree. Although liberalism is evidently individualistic, its aim is to foster the personal autonomy. This goal can be reached by means of the natural human rights of individuals. They are truly universal, which implies that all communities must adhere to them. A hallmark of liberalism is culture relativism, that is to say, a liberal society will tolerate all cultures. Liberalism is in favour of communities (or circles), and it advocates pluralism within society. Within the state the various cultures compete with each other for dominance. The liberal state itself (the coordinator of all communities) must be neutral, in other words, he does not favour or actively support one particular moral ideology. The risk is evidently, that people from marginalized cultures may become alienated. This is precisely the reason why nowadays states experiment with multiculturalism. Liberals will be reluctant to do so.
User avatar
By Know It All
#14762057
dsswoosh wrote:My point was to distinguish between multiculturalism and integration.

If you imply Liberals accept Multiculturalism, then it is impossible for them to accept integreation, since the two words have opposite definitions.


- Multiculturalism implies a division of groups contained within one society. (that is governed by a one state system or duo or more state system).
- Integration implies a non division of groups within one society.


You can not have both at the same time.


Do Liberals tend towards Multiculturalism or Integration?


Liberals live in a different world to the vast majority of us. For some strange reason they believe multiculturalism is a positive concept, and the country has been made all the richer for it. Of course, what the rest of us see is an increase in ghettos and segregated communities. OK, let in limited amounts of people from other cultures and they will either integrate or become recluses. Let in uncontrolled amounts of them and they develop their own communities, and generally in already deprived areas. Human beings are by nature pack animals, and we don't like or appreciate other packs of human beings who behave differently. Liberals kid themselves that we have evolved beyond this stage and the world is nothing more than a global village.

I can't really answer the question in the thread title because it's pretty unanswerable. What I would say is that liberals love the concept of multiculturalism and genuinely kid themselves that it works.
#14774541
dsswoosh wrote:It has recently dawned upon me that Multiculturalism and Integration are completely polarised from each other, when before i has the impression they amounted to much the same thing.

I believe Multiculturalism is the tolerance and acceptance of Multiple Cultures living on the same piece of landmass under the same State Rule or duo State rule. Immigrants may retain their individual Cultural beliefs and practices within this Society.

I believe Integration is the intolerance of Multiple Cultures living on the same piece of landmass and under the same State Rule. Immigrants may not retain their individual Cultural beliefs and practices within this Society, instead they must either adapt to the host Society or the Host Society will partially adapt and incoorporate all cultures into a big mixing pot.


When you speak the words by way of their literal definitions, they do not even remotely mean the same thing, they literally are opposites.


So, by definition, do Liberals share an immigration policy with multi-cultural tendencys, or do they share an immigration policy based on integration, or do Liberals have mixed views of this within Liberalism?


Your absolutely bang on. Indeed multiculturalism and integration are from other ends of the spectrum, but if you are to believe the tree huggers they are one and the same. Multiculturalism is defined by groups of people from different cultures living separately from other cultures, whilst integration is a combination of cultures living as one. Unfortunately the latter only happens when immigration is very limited. It is my belief that multiculturalism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work. It creates disharmony and resentment amongst the indigenous population, and is the recipe for disaster
#14774569
Know It All wrote:.... It is my belief that multiculturalism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work. ...


Toronto.

Toronto is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the developed world and one of the safest.

So, multiculturalism is working in at least one place. No doubt you will now change your beliefs.
#14774571
Pants-of-dog wrote:Toronto.

Toronto is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the developed world and one of the safest.

So, multiculturalism is working in at least one place. No doubt you will now change your beliefs.


Really? Back to this again? Do I really need to repost the demographics of Toronto to show your idea of minorities are other Europeans? :lol:
#14774583
Pants-of-dog wrote:Toronto.

Toronto is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the developed world and one of the safest.

So, multiculturalism is working in at least one place. No doubt you will now change your beliefs.


Ummm. I'm sure if I asked the majority of indigenous people they wouldn't agree, but of course, this can't happen. All I can tell you is that we don't have a Toronto in the UK
#14774589
demographics of Toronto, Ontario, Canada make Toronto one of the most multicultural cities in the world. Data released by Statistics Canada as part of the 2006 censusindicated that 49.9% of Toronto's population is foreign-born.[1] According to the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) performed by Statistics Canada, that percentage had dropped - only slightly - to 48.6%.[2]
The most common reported ethnic origins[3] of Toronto residents are those from England (12.9%), China (12.0%), Canada (11.3%), Ireland (9.7%), Scotland (9.5%), India (7.6%),Italy (6.9%), the Philippines (5.5%), Germany (4.6%), France (4.5%), Poland (3.8%), Portugal (3.6%), and Jamaica (3.2%), or are of Jewish ethnic origin (3.1%). There is also a significant population of Ukrainians (2.5%), Russians (2.4%), Sri Lankans (2.3%), Spanish (2.2%), Greeks (2.2%), Koreans (1.5%), Dutch (1.5%), Iranians (1.4%), Vietnamese(1.4%), Pakistanis (1.2%), Hungarians (1.2%), Guyanese (1.1%), and Welsh (1.0%). Communities of Afghans, Albanians, Arabs, Barbadians, Bangladeshis, Bulgarians,Colombians, Croats, Ecuadorians, Ethiopians, Grenadians, Macedonians, Mexicans, Nepalis, Romanians, Salvadorans, Serbs, Somalis, Tibetans, Trinidadians, and Vincentiansare also recognized. Established ethnic neighbourhoods such as Chinatown, Corso Italia, Little Italy, Little India, Greektown, Koreatown, Little Jamaica, Little Portugal andRoncesvalles celebrate the city's multiculturalism.[4]
Christianity is the largest faith group in Toronto's census metropolitan area,[5] adhered to by 56.7% of the population, with Roman Catholics in particular being 30.4% of the population. 21.1% of the population has no religious affiliation. Islam is the second most popular religion with 8.2% of the population, followed by Hinduism at 5.9%. As regards Protestant denominations, the Anglican Church accounts for 4.1% of the population, with the United Church of Canada only slightly lagging, at 3.7%. The Eastern stream of Christianity is adhered to by that 3.7% of the population of the Toronto CMA that are Christian Orthodox. Judaism is the religion of 3.0% of Torontonians, closely followed bySikhism, which is the religion for 2.9% of the population; there are also 2.2% of residents of the Toronto CMA that are Buddhists. Protestant denominations such as Pentecostalism(1.8%), Presbyterianism (1.7%), and Baptists (1.5%) follow.
While English is the predominant language spoken by Torontonians, Statistics Canada reports that other language groups are significant, including Chinese varieties (particularlyCantonese and Mandarin), Italian, Punjabi, Spanish, Tagalog, Urdu, Tamil, Portuguese, Persian, Arabic, Russian, Polish, Gujarati, Korean, Vietnamese, and Greek. Canada's other official language, French, is spoken by 1.2% of the population.
Of the 25 City of Toronto MPs, 11 are of non-British/non-French origin, and in particular: Chinese (3), Jewish (2), East Indian (1), Iranian (1), Italian (1), Pakistani (1), Polish (1), Somali (1).

Taking into account the whole of GTA: East Indian (10), Chinese (4), Jewish (3), German (2), Iranian (2), Italian (2), Danish (1), Grenadian (1), Pakistani (1), Polish (1), Portuguese (1), Somali (1), Syrian (1).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto
This is an article proclaiming the multi cultural aspects of Toronto, but you can easily see it is more than 70% European.
#14774590
Know It All wrote:Ummm. I'm sure if I asked the majority of indigenous people they wouldn't agree, but of course, this can't happen. All I can tell you is that we don't have a Toronto in the UK


Are you talking about local whites, or actual indigenous people? Europeans tend to use "indigenous" to mean locals, while in Canada it emans actual indigenous people.

And if you think most Torontonians would disagree with my claim, feel free to provide evidence that such is the case.

Also, the fact that Toronto does not exist in the UK is not relevant.

-------------

Also, thanks to One Degree for providing support for my claim.
#14774591
Also, thanks to One Degree for providing support for my claim.


Yes, Canada is like Europe in believing they are encompassing minorities when allowing other Europeans to live within their borders. :lol:
In the US, these groups are so integrated that nobody bothers mentioning their differences.
#14774595
One Degree wrote:Yes, Canada is like Europe in believing they are encompassing minorities when allowing other Europeans to live within their borders. :lol:
In the US, these groups are so integrated that nobody bothers mentioning their differences.


Markham is a suburb of Toronto where more than 50% of the population is non-white.

More interesting is your implied claim that all European cultures are pretty much the same.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

If the business is minority owned, should not the […]

Israelis nervous about BDS

BDS is bullshit. Israel is even secretly trading w[…]

What a pussy. He won't last the year. He just turn[…]

Syrian war thread

Russian MoD released this map: https://twitter.co[…]