From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@t05.ariel.yorku.ca
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:38:48 GMT



In article <Bvs1sw.DK4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>> And people who don't rally are denounced as traitors, imprisoned, shot,
>> etc.  The War Between the States had its fair share of draft and tax
>> riots, and war protests.  These "unAmerican" folks were frequently
>> shot, or imprisoned without a proper trial.  Protesters against
>> World War I in the US faced not quite as harsh treatment, but their
>> civil rights were infringed upon nonetheless.
>> 
>> In WWII, the US incarcerated thousands of innocent citizens on the
>> basis of their race, and most people didn't have a fighting chance
>> of independent thought due to the work of censors and the propoganda
>> folks.
>> 
>> Do I need to say anything about Vietnam or the Gulf War?
>> 
>> Yes, it may seem that US citizens usually rally behind the Grand Old Flag,
>> but that's because until recently, the government had no problems with
>> quieting up the dissentors.


So we have a choice: allow the country to fragment into 800 different
ethnic groups or shoot dissenting anti-Americans. 

Actually, JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country" speech said it best.  This is not a
question of shooting anyone, we must merely decide on what activities
are dangerous to unity.

Generally speaking, Americans are *interested* in their country's future
and level of well-being.  Even if they are protesting against the 
nation's politics, they are still vocalising what, in their view, is 
important to the nation.  I'd be interested to know how many WW1 or
Vietnam protesters actually *wanted* to abandon America (don't mention
all those that went to Canada -- they couldn't have really *wanted* to
as much as circumstances *forced* them to).  Probably very few.

The official encouragement of the formation of ethnic enclaves is a
frightening prospect.  People within these expatriated national groups
are not compelled to abandon their allegiances to the old country.
Instead, they become xenophobic and distrustful of "whitey".  They are
not interested in the future of their new country any further than 
what they can grab from it (JFK would be shocked).  Furthermore, 
enshrining multiculturalism in a Constitution will also enshrine the
idea that anyone who isn't white is a minority.  I'm in a computer
lab right now with approx. 100 people in it, 5 of whom are white.  Of
those 5, 1 is Greek, 3 are Russian and one is a WASP (your's truly).

I'm not complaining, I'm not inciting hatred, I'm not saying this is
wrong.  I merely wish to illustrate the relativity of what it means
to be a minority.  

Unity can only be acheived in either (or both) of the following ways:

1) Have a common enemy.
2) Have as few immediate cultural differences as possible.
   (have as much in common as possible)

Canada has no enemies and it's population groups are so radically 
opposite that it's a marriage doomed to failure.  As it stands,
it is failing as I type this.

God I hope I can get a Green Card soon.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc