Sikh Temple massacre

[Peter Parts]

Is there any comment that could add much to previous related threads except to point out there sadly have been related threads?

 

Ben

[Mister Tee]

Nothing comes to mind. Glad they were able to get him before he could do more carnage, that's all.

[upflying]

How are the threads related?

One is a nut job who fired at random into a theater crowd with assault weapons and rigged a booby trapped apartment. Mental illness red flags permeated people who knew him but did nothing.

The other is an apparent white supremacist armed only with a 9mm pistol who apparently hated members of the Sikh religion.

[Mister Tee]

Or was too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, if they happened to be his intended targets.

[philbytx]

Education is a wonderful thing.......

[Mike]

Or was too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, if they happened to be his intended targets.

 

This sort of hatred seems to be a constant in societies everywhere, often with tragic consequences. We have to be vigilant to ensure that we never let it take over the reins of power, as has happened too often.

[Shiny Side Up]

Mike is right on - I'd say it's been a constant through out the history of the world.

Nero and Romans hating Christians - Hitler - Lord knows the Jews have had, and continue to endure their share of hatred. Stalin, Pol Pot in Cambodia.

The proverbial nut case comes in all sizes and flavors and doesn't need a cause to hate - just a twisted mind to formulate any reason at all.

Kathy R told me about a book called The Sociopath Next Door - we all probably need to read it!!

[Mike]

It has been speculated that this numbskull didn't understand the distinction between Muslims and Sikhs. Not that it makes much difference--any attack motivated by hate, regardless of whether it's misdirected, is deplorable. However, it does at least demonstrate the shallow emotional and intellectual skills attendant to this sort of aberrant behavior.

 

But, as I briefly alluded to above, as tragic as this was, the greater concern that I have is how easily intolerance can morph into hatred, then into widely accepted, even government sponsored, programs of discrimination and genocide. It's happened in third world nations, but it's also happened in nations that were, at the time, among the most advanced and accomplished. Germany, Russia and China come to mind as places where genocide took the lives of tens of millions in the 20th century. How does a society inoculate itself from these possibilities. In fact, can a society inoculate itself from these possibilities?

 

I personally believe that we're better equipped than most countries to avoid these catastrophes, as a result of our diversity and, most importantly, our Constitution, but I'm probably a bit naive in that belief.

[Roadwolf]

I personally believe that we're better equipped than most countries to avoid these catastrophes, as a result of our diversity and, most importantly, our Constitution, but I'm probably a bit naive in that belief.

 

Just a bit Mike...

 

While not on the scale of the former Soviet Union and Germany in WWII, we have had our share of this... namely slavery, the mass murder of many of American Indians in fulfilling manifest destiny, or on the smaller scale, but equally distressing: the force internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. It exists everywhere. I would hope that the U.S. would be rise above it, but we have had our issues.

 

I remember the story of a singer who was traveling not long after 9/11. He was waiting in the concourse at the gate and everyone was real nervous after the previous week's events. And he notes a Middle Eastern descent man sitting all by himself with everyone watching him. What does he do? He gets up and walks over and sits down by the man and strikes up a conversation with this: "It must be hard to sit here by yourself and feel everyone staring at you?" and proceeds to have a long talk with the guy to put him at some ease.

 

After hearing that almost 10 years ago, I have never forgotten that lesson and how others from another background than me (Caucasian Male) move about in everyday life without majority privilege.

 

 

[elkroeger]

How are the threads related?

One is a nut job who fired at random into a theater crowd with assault weapons and rigged a booby trapped apartment. Mental illness red flags permeated people who knew him but did nothing.

The other is an apparent white supremacist nut job armed only with a 9mm pistol who apparently hated members of the Sikh religion.

 

There, I fixed it. The relationship is pretty clear to me.

[Mike]

I personally believe that we're better equipped than most countries to avoid these catastrophes, as a result of our diversity and, most importantly, our Constitution, but I'm probably a bit naive in that belief.

 

Just a bit Mike...

 

While not on the scale of the former Soviet Union and Germany in WWII, we have had our share of this... namely slavery, the mass murder of many of American Indians in fulfilling manifest destiny, or on the smaller scale, but equally distressing: the force internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. It exists everywhere. I would hope that the U.S. would be rise above it, but we have had our issues.

 

Yes, I was keenly aware of our history in writing what I did above. Fortunately--and I don't think this is some mistake of history, but rather a result of our core institutions--we have steadily progressed toward a more perfect embrace of human rights. Not without deviation, but steadily....

 

However, the lessons of history tell us that there are basic human impulses that make us, as a species, vulnerable to victimizing one another on the bases of race, religion, ethnicity and any difference that permits us to identify "them versus us."

 

The nut job in Wisconsin is so far from where we've come as a people, which is why I think Americans find this sort of crime gut-wrenching. That visceral reaction is, I think, a reflection of good things about our society and our nation.

[Peter Parts]

Sounds to me like Mike is going to join the Canadians some day in calling for active steps to reverse gun-mania.

 

I am not as optimistic about others with their heads firmly stuck in the sand. They say every country loves violence, no way to stop crazies, and the Constitution* tells me so.

 

Ben

* OK, maybe not the Constitution, maybe just a later amendment (Amendment 2) meant to placate some of the states. You know, the world didn't come to an end when Congress decided (Amendment 21) to reverse the screwball amendment about alcohol prohibition (Amendment 18). Maybe Amendment 2 should be amended so as to be made truer to the original meaning that states can keep armed militias, not that every jerk with a few dollars can own a gun and walk around with it in their pocket.

[Mike]

Sounds to me like Mike is going to join the Canadians some day in calling for active steps to reverse gun-mania.

 

No, I actually feel that the entire Bill of Rights is the fundamental reason why we're less likely to go down the road of horror experienced by many other "advanced" societies. My understanding of the history and intent of the Second Amendment is completely different than yours--I am quite confident that it was largely intended to provide a disincentive to government-sponsored tyranny.

[moshe_levy]

I personally believe that we're better equipped than most countries to avoid these catastrophes, as a result of our diversity and, most importantly, our Constitution, but I'm probably a bit naive in that belief.

 

Hmmm... Our diversity makes us BETTER equipped? If human nature is "us vs. them" to an extent, doesn't it make us (Americans) MORE susceptible to this sort of thing, since we are less homogeneous?

 

In just a few short years.... Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Binghampton (Jiverly Wong), Gabby Giffords.... We JUST had Aurora - we haven't even digested that yet, and now we've got this Sikh Temple. We've actually got TWO senseless mass murders at the same time in the headlines. You see anybody else with that outside the killing zones of the third world?

 

BETTER equipped? Mike, find me another first-world country that has such a procession of these types of mass murders with such frequency. There is none. Then ask yourself what changes (if any) are being made to try to mitigate it from happening again. There aren't ANY, that I see. It's now a third rail in politics that nobody dare touch.

 

I would say there is no first-world nation more POORLY equipped than America in this regard, for a variety of factors (from diversity to gun mentality to our acceptance of these acts as "part of life - get over it!"). Objectively (as judged by the numbers of these type of mass murders, and subsequent non-response by the public to actually do anything about it, as proven by the continued death toll) I cannot see how it's possible to say otherwise.

 

-MKL

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Hmmm... Our diversity makes us BETTER equipped? If human nature is "us vs. them" to an extent, doesn't it make us (Americans) MORE susceptible to this sort of thing, since we are less homogeneous?

 

I think social homogeneity makes outgroup hostility more likely because a person's definition of "ingroup" remains narrow through lack of exposure to other ways of being. OTOH, when a person has direct contact on a daily or hourly basis with people from other races and ethnicities (as is common in an inhomogenous culture such as the US), they don't seem so foreign; a person's definition of "ingroup" is stretched to encompass a wider variety of signifiers (skin color, dress, accent, etc.), and they're less likely to react with suspicion/hostility when presented with someone who is "different" from them.

 

Last weekend's attack might be viewed as tribe-on-tribe violence (granted, the violence was unilateral and only involved one combatant, but it seems likely he felt he was acting on behalf of "the white race" tribe and was attacking a group of people he viewed as being from a different tribe). Viewed in this way, it seems analogous to the Hutus-versus-Tutsis slaughter in Rwanda, Serbs-versus-Croats in the Balkans, Saddam Hussein's brutal attacks on the Kurds, or any other of dozens of horrifying events collectively referred to these days as "ethnic cleansing." The difference I see is that when tribe-on-tribe violence happens in the US, it's almost always a single aggressor, the violence is limited (because he is acting alone), and the bloodshed is universally condemned by the rest of society. Contrast this with events overseas, which commonly involve widespread violence, groups attacking groups, with the body count numbering in the hundreds, thousands, or millions.

 

In just a few short years.... Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Binghampton (Jiverly Wong), Gabby Giffords.... We JUST had Aurora - we haven't even digested that yet, and now we've got this Sikh Temple. We've actually got TWO senseless mass murders at the same time in the headlines. You see anybody else with that outside the killing zones of the third world?

 

Most of these shootings involve perps who were mentally ill and/or had personal grudges against at least one of their targets; I don't believe they involved the kind of outgroup hostility I described above, and so no, the inhomogeneity of US society doesn't do anything to reduce their likelihood.

[moshe_levy]

Last weekend's attack might be viewed as tribe-on-tribe violence (granted, the violence was unilateral and only involved one combatant, but it seems likely he felt he was acting on behalf of "the white race" tribe and was attacking a group of people he viewed as being from a different tribe). Viewed in this way, it seems analogous to the Hutus-versus-Tutsis slaughter in Rwanda, Serbs-versus-Croats in the Balkans, Saddam Hussein's brutal attacks on the Kurds, or any other of dozens of horrifying events collectively referred to these days as "ethnic cleansing." The difference I see is that when tribe-on-tribe violence happens in the US, it's almost always a single aggressor, the violence is limited (because he is acting alone), and the bloodshed is universally condemned by the rest of society. Contrast this with events overseas, which commonly involve widespread violence, groups attacking groups, with the body count numbering in the hundreds, thousands, or millions.

 

Mitch, your point is well taken, but in effect you have made my point for me as well. You are contrasting the United States of America favorably with the worst ethnic cleansing of the third world killing zones. Granted. I asked what other comparable first world nation has this level of mass-murder on a regular basis (with no serious response in kind from the public, i.e., "acceptance").

 

Do we want to live in an America where, when it comes to mass murder, we can say proudly, "Well, we're better than Rwanda, Sudhan, and Saddam's Iraq!!" It's like when I came home in third grade with a D in math, and proceeded to justify to my dad that some kids got Fs! Is that something to be proud of, or ashamed of?

 

Years ago I thought we (Americans) were better than that. Today I don't think we are.

 

-MKL

[Mike]

There's a very interesting list of mass (rampage) killings on Wikipedia that seems to indicate that mass murder is truly a worldwide phenomenon. Perhaps we perceive it to be something exclusive to the U.S., but it seems to me to be a ubiquitous phenomenon across human society. More thoughts to follow, but I have to run . . . .

 

 

[philbytx]

To assist you, HERE is a well researched and thoughtful article on personal right to bear arms, the Constitution AND the 2nd Amendment Ben.

 

Again, and ad nauseum, the genie is out of the bottle regarding COMPLETE global gun control so, ipso facto, it cannot be CONTROLLED!

 

 

[Ken H.]

I think social homogeneity makes outgroup hostility more likely because a person's definition of "ingroup" remains narrow through lack of exposure to other ways of being. OTOH, when a person has direct contact on a daily or hourly basis with people from other races and ethnicities (as is common in an inhomogenous culture such as the US), they don't seem so foreign; a person's definition of "ingroup" is stretched to encompass a wider variety of signifiers (skin color, dress, accent, etc.), and they're less likely to react with suspicion/hostility when presented with someone who is "different" from them.

I have to go with Mitch on this one. Greater exposure to more variety of cultures overall leads to better understanding of them and more tolerance and respect of them. I’d take it a step further even that it leads to an enrichment of our lives as we become broader based in our knowledge of others. And more success as a greater variety of ways to look at problems comes into the mix.

 

A lot of these perps in these mass murders, when their background comes out, it shows them to be loner types, having had a very narrow social exposure, isolated, etc. You just have to wonder if (to use this example) if Page had known any Sikhs personally would he have reacted the same.

 

OTOH there does seem to be a clear increase in intolerance of differences in the USA. Whether it is because of the increasing average age and the lack of tolerance that seems to always go with that, increasing social tension due to economic pressures (i.e. got to blame someone), a poisoned political climate that is spilling over, a decline in actual diversity, or what I don’t know. Certainly not anywhere the level of other areas of the world where all out war over ethic differences is going on, but definitely a disturbing trend in the wrong direction IMHO.

 

[Ken H.]

Or was too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, if they happened to be his intended targets.

It’s amazing. We live in a time when it has never been easier to learn something about something. And yet an astonishing at times level of ignorance still exists. Two totally separate religions, not even from the same origins, yet someone’s mind can be so narrow as to not even consider that there is a difference.

[Mike]

OTOH there does seem to be a clear increase in intolerance of differences in the USA. Whether it is because of the increasing average age and the lack of tolerance that seems to always go with that, increasing social tension due to economic pressures (i.e. got to blame someone), a poisoned political climate that is spilling over, a decline in actual diversity, or what I don’t know.

 

Ken--

 

You've hit on exactly what concerns me most about the U.S. these days. Maybe it's due to a increased awareness on my part, but I perceive that we are experiencing a widening gulf--particularly with regard to politics and government--that sees us dividing into two camps with distinctly different ways of approaching the issues we face. Compromise is not characterized as a positive attribute, but as capitulation.

 

Getting back to Ben's original post, it may be that I responded to a question that he was not asking. As I read his subsequent posts, I think Ben was focused on micro-level violence, which in his view translates to a problem on the macro level. My focus was more on what I presume to be the genesis of the particular incident that is the focus of this thread . . . racial/ethnic intolerance. Moshe made some excellent observations, but I find myself more aligned with your viewpoint with regard to the positive benefits of diversity. There are certainly segments of society that do not no, nor will they ever, want anything to do with anyone of a different color, ethnicity, or religious persuasion.

 

But, I do think that the general effect of the Constitutional protection of equality under the law has far-reaching implications. For example, I wonder if, in another time and place, I might have become a Nazi, a Stalinist, or some other -ist who would have viewed the world from a perspective of racial or ethic superiority. Instead, I've lived my life in a society where the mandate for equality--admittedly not always realized--has brought me into close relationships with others who are very unlike me; my best friends--people whom I love--span pretty much the entire spectrum, racially, ethnically, spiritually, and politically. So, perhaps largely as a result of our environment (largely the consequence of our Constitutional mandates), we have built a culture where there is widespread, if not unanimous, acceptance of those who differ from us.

 

As you note, there's a great deal of discord presently, but I think that at the core we remain united.

 

So, that's really the point I was hoping to make. Looking at the potential for racism or ethnicism to expand to something more horrific and widespread than these gut-wrenching episodes, I believe that, as a nation, we are fairly well inoculated from the worst possibilities--meaning genocide or ethnic cleansing--by virtue of a Bill of Rights that serves as solid protection from the worst impulses of humanity.

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Mitch, your point is well taken, but in effect you have made my point for me as well. You are contrasting the United States of America favorably with the worst ethnic cleansing of the third world killing zones. Granted. I asked what other comparable first world nation has this level of mass-murder on a regular basis (with no serious response in kind from the public, i.e., "acceptance").

 

Do we want to live in an America where, when it comes to mass murder, we can say proudly, "Well, we're better than Rwanda, Sudhan, and Saddam's Iraq!!" It's like when I came home in third grade with a D in math, and proceeded to justify to my dad that some kids got Fs! Is that something to be proud of, or ashamed of?

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that zero incidents of tribe-on-tribe violence is an achievable goal, and we should therefore feel ashamed when we fall short?

 

Should I not be proud to live in a country where the vast majority is far more accepting of diversity than most other countries in the world?

 

Then ask yourself what changes (if any) are being made to try to mitigate it from happening again.

 

There are any number of organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, that work to keep hate groups in check. But unless you are willing to overtly trample on individual's constitutional rights, there's only so much you can do, in this country, to pre-emptively stave off incidents of tribe-on-tribe violence. The perp in Sunday's incident chose to listen to, and perform, white power music. In order to forcibly dispel his racist attitudes before he was moved to violence, you would have to have dictated to him what music to listen to, what literature to read, and what people to hang out with - and even that might not have worked.

[philbytx]

And, interestingly, there is no love lost between Sikhs and Muslims....!

 

Can anyone point me to a "multicultural" society that truly works ?

 

[David13]

Mike, find me another first-world country that has such a procession of these types of mass murders with such frequency. There is none.

 

 

-MKL

 

Yes there are. These things happen world wide on a regular basis. In many cases they don't get much publicity, or definitely no publicity here. You would have to look at international sources of news, not American sources.

 

"Objectively (as judged by the numbers of these type of mass murders, and subsequent non-response by the public to actually do anything about it, ... MKL"

 

What was the solution that the public was supposed to do? I didn't know there was a solution. A magic button. Pass a law?

dc

[beemerman2k]

Oh I definitely argue that the USA is one such multi-cultural society that truly works. One lone idiot with a heart filled with hate isn't going to change the otherwise woonderful and welcoming nature of our society.

 

I am currently at work as I type this, and within ear shot of my cubicle there are peoplle from all over the planet who now call the USA their home. They enjoy very peaceable lives as they work by day and enjoy their families by night. While I did hear some fretfull tones among a few after this latest act of violence, nobody is compllaining about how difficult a life they have in this country.

 

We've made mistakes in the past, and no doubt we'll make more in the future, and we have to work out just how wide the social fabric of the nation is and whether it extends to inlcude our gay brothers and sisters, but I am confident that we'll get there. And when we do, life will be as if the struggle never happened as we confront the latest challenges of tollerance and acceptance.

 

This multi-cultural society absolutely works in my view

[Peter Parts]

And, interestingly, there is no love lost between Sikhs and Muslims....!

 

Can anyone point me to a "multicultural" society that truly works ?

 

Toronto, the most multi-cultural place there is.

 

About US multi-culturalism, I always think "Rome." Rome extended citizenship and was a magnet for the best and brightest from elsewhere (esp. Greeks). Sometimes I think the US would fall apart if not for the brainpower (in science as well as entrepreneurial... and maybe even under-class labor) it imports from the whole world each year, given the sad state of domestic education.*

 

I believe Americans are low on the world scale of passports and travel abroad. Says something.

 

The US may be a "melting pot" where immigrants strive to be "American" as quick as possible. In contrast to places which are actively multi-cultural. Not sure.

 

Ben

*actually, I think Rome a lot... in the Edward Gibbon sense. The similarities are unremitting.

[lawnchairboy]

" My understanding of the history and intent of the Second Amendment is completely different than yours--I am quite confident that it was largely intended to provide a disincentive to government-sponsored tyranny."

 

that covers it for me.

[Mike]

Sometimes I think the US would fall apart if not for the brainpower (in science as well as entrepreneurial... and maybe even under-class labor) it imports from the whole world each year, given the sad state of domestic education.

 

I read two articles related to this this very point over the weekend, when I was flying out to CA. The first article--pretty credible in my view--talked about the fact that our educational efforts are largely misdirected in our insistence that a four-year degree is a necessary step on the road to personal and social success. The authors noted that briefer, more relevant and focused education may be a better answer for many. On the other side of the spectrum, the second article argued that we need to maintain our robust efforts to attract scientists from around the world--first, because we are failing to produce enough scientists internally and second, because the cross-pollination of approaches and disciplines from outside the U.S. enhances our overall level of innovation and productivity.

 

The conclusions were that we need to reevaluate our notion that a four-year degree is a basic prerequisite for success, but that we are handling our immigration policies with respect to professionals in a way that is beneficial to our worldwide competitiveness.

[Ken H.]

Oh I definitely argue that the USA is one such multi-cultural society that truly works. One lone idiot with a heart filled with hate isn't going to change the otherwise woonderful and welcoming nature of our society.

 

This multi-cultural society absolutely works in my view

It works. Or worked. Or works to some extent. Or works better than others.

 

But what direction is it heading? Is it getting better or is it getting worse? Tolerance of, acceptance of, recognition of diversity wise.

 

Nice flag waving, and a bit of standing on the podium of the past James.

 

But I’m far less than sure I am "confident that we'll [you'll] get there.” Indeed the broad brush and growing backlash against Muslims in particular in the USA doesn’t add much creditability to your argument. The whole “Ground-Zero Mosque” uproar, mosque being burned everywhere.

 

And then theres the “English Only” movements, in particular in the south and west. Anti-immigration laws, voter dis-enfranchise-ation (sp?) efforts, in particular against Hispanics. Sanctioned racial profiling, e.g. Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee. The whole anti-gay marriage thing last Wednesday. And more.

 

In just this morning's news is the Murfreesboro (Nashville) mosque set to open under much controversy, court actions in opposition and threats of violence against it. Not because of zoning, traffic concerns or some such other concern, but because of “Opponents objected to the mosque, saying Islam was not a legitimate religion and it would have unspecified "terrorist" ties.”

 

 

Type me a list of specific initiatives going on in the USA with the goal of increasing tolerance. Not something from 10, 30, 60 years ago, what the US is doing right now to promote diversity and acceptance in its populous? It doesn’t just magically happen you know.

 

[Ken H.]

The US may be a "melting pot" where immigrants strive to be "American" as quick as possible. In contrast to places which are actively multi-cultural. Not sure.

Peter makes an important point. The USA likes to call itself a “melting pot” but all that really means is changing everyone until it all looks the same. Like blending melted crayons.

 

But that’s not multi-culture-ism, tolerating (at a minimum), embracing, recognizing the power and value of various cultures in your society, that’s assimilation. In true multi-culture-ism that’s where I think Canada is light-years ahead of the USA.

 

Just this past weekend here in Edmonton again was the largest multi-cultural festival (called the Heritage Festival) held anywhere on the planet. It’s been going on for 37 years and is designed specifically to recognize and embrace the many cultures and countries of the world. Each year it’s bigger and more diverse than the last. Over 60 countries represented this year. Including some sworn enemies of the West BTW. (Iran in particular.)

 

We never miss it, it's amazing to go to. You can't go away without a new found or renewed awe and understanding of the wonderful variations of people around the world. That’s making an effort to promote understanding, tolerance and enjoyment of other cultures!

 

(BTW in what is an unbelievable statement of irony – each year the USA is invited to attend and each year it declines to do so.)

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

(BTW in what is an unbelievable statement of irony - each year the USA is invited to attend and each year it declines to do so.)

 

Well, if they'd let us bring our guns...

[philbytx]

I posit you this Batman

 

What other "multi-cultural" country denotes the colour/religion/heritage of their citizens?

 

Have you ever heard described, e.g, a Sikh-Canadian, African-American Canadian, Sikh Englishman, Black Englishman, Sikh Australian, Black Australian?

 

I seriously question whether a country that evolves into a "multi-cultural" society truly becomes cohesive. In the sense that everyone enjoys, tolerates and lives with, the differences.

 

History hasn't shown us that yet.....just sayin'!

 

 

[Ken H.]

Sometimes I think the US would fall apart if not for the brainpower (in science as well as entrepreneurial... and maybe even under-class labor) it imports from the whole world each year, given the sad state of domestic education.

 

I read two articles related to this this very point over the weekend, when I was flying out to CA. The first article--pretty credible in my view--talked about the fact that our educational efforts are largely misdirected in our insistence that a four-year degree is a necessary step on the road to personal and social success. The authors noted that briefer, more relevant and focused education may be a better answer for many. On the other side of the spectrum, the second article argued that we need to maintain our robust efforts to attract scientists from around the world--first, because we are failing to produce enough scientists internally and second, because the cross-pollination of approaches and disciplines from outside the U.S. enhances our overall level of innovation and productivity.

 

The conclusions were that we need to reevaluate our notion that a four-year degree is a basic prerequisite for success, but that we are handling our immigration policies with respect to professionals in a way that is beneficial to our worldwide competitiveness.

Yes, and that’s another place where the USA could learn something from your neighbor to the north. For starters Canada has never had this infatuation with a 4-year business degree that the USA has had. Trade degrees are as well respected as MBAs.

 

But beyond that, many foreign students come to Canada for an education. The government both encourages it (nice inflow of $$) and recognizes the value a more diverse student population bring to higher education.

 

But even more important, there is a growing awareness of, and efforts toward, making it attractive for those [now] well educated young people to want to stay in Canada. Not only get educated here, but stay and contribute to, participate in, Canada’s long-term success. Student loan forgiveness programs, research grants, employment (both for potential employees and employers) assistance, relocations, first time housing low interest loans, family immigration assistance, and more.

 

On a similar vein, Canada is now working (FINALLY!) on a system to more expediently evaluate and recognize professional credentials earned elsewhere in the world for those wanting to come and practice their profession in Canada. It’s a tough line to find between maintaining high quality of professionals (e.g. doctors), and yet recognizing that such can be obtained elsewhere in the world. But at least the government recognizes the importance of finding that line, attracting these people and the long-term contribution to success they can make.

[Ken H.]

(BTW in what is an unbelievable statement of irony - each year the USA is invited to attend and each year it declines to do so.)

Well, if they'd let us bring our guns...

LOL, good one! Touché!

[CoarsegoldKid]

Or was too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, if they happened to be his intended targets.

I would imagine this to be the case. More stupid people with hatred in their veins. I wish we could retroactively abort them.

[Ken H.]

I seriously question whether a country that evolves into a "multi-cultural" society truly becomes cohesive. In the sense that everyone enjoys, tolerates and lives with, the differences.

 

History hasn't shown us that yet.....just sayin'!

Nope. But you CAN takes steps to try to get there. To try to improve the situation. There is no nirvana. The question is - Are things you do making it better or making it worse?

[Ken H.]

Or was too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, if they happened to be his intended targets.

I would imagine this to be the case. More stupid people with hatred in their veins. I wish we could retroactively abort them.

‘course there is a certain hypocriticalness in being intolerant of those that are intolerant.

 

If stupid people want to sit in their backwoods cabin, drink $4.99 a six-pack beer and swear racial slurs at the TV all day (how’s that for a stereotype?), that’s their purgative. Let the world pass them by. It’s when they step outside and start interfering with the rest of the world that the problems arise.

[Albert]

(BTW in what is an unbelievable statement of irony - each year the USA is invited to attend and each year it declines to do so.)

 

Well, if they'd let us bring our guns...

 

No I blame the metric system. As soon as we cross the border it's Kph, kilometers and litres of petrol. In no time flat we lazy, apathetic Americans are bored, confused and lost. We just turn around and go home.

[beemerman2k]

The program I would point to is called: reality

 

First of all, speaking for myself, I have never in my life felt more "American" andd more welcome in my own country as I do nowadays. Now, that could simply be because I am finally waking up to the fact that this is a diverse and welcoming nattion rather than anything significant about this day and age. But I even look at my children, their life experiences couldn't be more different than mine was when I was there ages. Today is a vastly different country than the one I grew up in, and from a social and diverse perspective, it's a change for the bettter.

 

But I would also point to the changing work force in the USA. As Mike has already pointed out, the American workforce is continuing to grow in its diversity. This is creating a new reality for our daily lives as we become aware and familiar with more and more cultures, philosophies and religions.

 

Will there be backlash every here and there? No doubt, but that's always been the case. In fact, when I first heard about this Sihk massacre, I wondered if it was a violent reaction to the changing ethnicity of the American workforce.

 

So I don't know about formal programs for or against this trend, but reality suggests that its happening, quietly, and on a daily basis. Welcome to the future

[upflying]

Mike, find me another first-world country that has such a procession of these types of mass murders with such frequency. There is none.

 

 

-MKL

 

Yes there are. These things happen world wide on a regular basis. In many cases they don't get much publicity, or definitely no publicity here. You would have to look at international sources of news, not American sources.

 

"Objectively (as judged by the numbers of these type of mass murders, and subsequent non-response by the public to actually do anything about it, ... MKL"

 

What was the solution that the public was supposed to do? I didn't know there was a solution. A magic button. Pass a law?

dc

Thanks DC, let's not denigrate the USA as the mass murder capital of the world without considering this list first. Mass murders are political cheeseburgers for the media due to the world perception that the USA is a tolerant and understanding society.

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

 

 

[Meromorph]

Getting back to the massacre at the Sikh Temple, there is a parallel with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

All practising Sikh men are required by their religion to carry a 'Kirpan' at all times. A Kirpan is a 'sacred knife' used solely for defensive purposes. A Sikh is allowed to use it, if absolutely neccesary, to defend his own life from attack. He is required to use it to defend the innocent from attack.

Which is exactly what the president of the Temple did, and died himself in the process.

A true American Hero, I think.

[Ken H.]

The program I would point to is called: reality

 

 

So I don't know about formal programs for or against this trend, but reality suggests that its happening, quietly, and on a daily basis. Welcome to the future

Sorry James, not willing to let you off the hook quite so easily. I want to hear about the specific things going on the USA to promote tolerance, acceptance and harmony. I can read about the initiatives in Arizona (as the poster child) and elsewhere to do exactly the opposite all day long.

 

If the States is taking steps to go in the right direction, give me a list of what they are. Not warm-fuzzies, actual programs, initiatives, heck I’ll take speeches even. Just give me something.

 

[Mike]

Thanks DC, let's not denigrate the USA as the mass murder capital of the world without considering this list first. Mass murders are political cheeseburgers for the media due to the world perception that the USA is a tolerant and understanding society.

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

 

 

Bob, now you've crossed over the line . . . I linked to the same article earlier. But, I think it's a point worth noting. If you look strictly at the incidents cited in this Wikipedia article, the U.S. does have a lot of these incidents. However, this is a universal phenomenon. There are probably many beyond those reported there, but the instruments of death range from guns to hand grenades to aircraft, and encompass nations everywhere. The only constant seems to be some sort of rage.

[Ken H.]

Getting back to the massacre at the Sikh Temple, there is a parallel with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

All practising Sikh men are required by their religion to carry a 'Kirpan' at all times. A Kirpan is a 'sacred knife' used solely for defensive purposes. A Sikh is allowed to use it, if absolutely neccesary, to defend his own life from attack. He is required to use it to defend the innocent from attack.

Which is exactly what the president of the Temple did, and died himself in the process.

A true American Hero, I think.

One of the core tenets of Sikhism is tolerance of all others. There’s a particular sad irony that some would become the victims of the very intolerance they deplore.

[Ken H.]

Slight hi-jack - anyone ever see the movie "Breakaway"?

 

It's about a young under funded hockey team of Sikhs who run afoul of a league ruling regarding helmets. It’s really a quite interesting movie, that’s both very funny and teaches a bit in the process. Well worth the watch IMHO.

[tallman]

I'm glad nothing like this ever happens in Toronto.

 

oops

 

25 victims in a violent event, sad.

If this can happen in Toronto, with low crime rates

and gun control...

 

Reality, religious texts, and history tell us murder has been around forever.

Actopns the same, only weapons, time, place, and victims change.

 

Tragic any time or place but certainly not unique to the USA.

 

As far as crticizing Americans for perceived lack of international travel, two things come to mind.

First, this is a vast country with millions of places of interest, varied topography and climate, multicultural experiences galore.

Second, why do so many people come visit here and why do

so many people from other nations want to move here?

 

Similarities between the two shootings?

Yes.

Wishing the event had not happened and there were no victims leads to fantasies about ending violent acts by determined

individuals.

I don't think that will ever happen to a 100% certainty

in a free society and facts show it can't even be done in a

totalitarian/repressive society.

Seems wasted energy to rail otherwise.

Better to try to make a positive difference through education and to help the victims.

[David13]

Absolutely not, Tex.

They are called French-Canadians. And 'them'.

dc

[David13]

That reminds me of one called 'The Band's Visit'.

dc

[Mike]

The program I would point to is called: reality

 

 

So I don't know about formal programs for or against this trend, but reality suggests that its happening, quietly, and on a daily basis. Welcome to the future

Sorry James, not willing to let you off the hook quite so easily. I want to hear about the specific things going on the USA to promote tolerance, acceptance and harmony. I can read about the initiatives in Arizona (as the poster child) and elsewhere to do exactly the opposite all day long.

 

If the States is taking steps to go in the right direction, give me a list of what they are. Not warm-fuzzies, actual programs, initiatives, heck I’ll take speeches even. Just give me something.

 

Well, here are a few thoughts: First, I think you have to start with the fact that there's a fairly rigorous set of laws at the federal and state levels to discourage discrimination. The federal government vigorously enforces laws against discrimination and hate crimes through the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. The FBI devotes a considerable number of resources to the investigation of hate crimes. At the federal level and in every state, there is an EEOC or the equivalent. In every state that I know of, hatred that rises to a level of infringing on another's rights or safety results in prosecution and imprisonment if the case can be proven.

 

We have a vast array of laws permitting individuals or groups who are discriminated against to seek injunctive relief and monetary damages from those who violate their rights.

 

Every year I go through a couple of hours of diversity training. This happens in most government agencies and in most private corporations. We have--and this is pretty much the norm--various means to complain about acts of discrimination.

 

Beyond a vast legal regime aimed at punishing discrimination, countless institutions in the U.S. foster the notions of equality and diversity through advocacy and positive messages. Throughout the year, I often see news reports--and this is just in our area--of gatherings of clergymen (and women) of diverse backgrounds, seeking to foster mutual understanding.

 

We teach it in our schools . . . I'm 57 years old and even in my rural grade school, back in the 1960s, civil rights was part of the curriculum.

 

PSAs to this effect are fairly ubiquitous (I see and hear them all the time; many are church-sponsored). Private organizations promoting diversity and equality are a substantial factor that reach into our lives in many ways: NOW, the NAACP, GLAAD and literally hundreds of private not-for-profits pursue these endeavors. Universities and colleges offer myriad courses of study in multiculturalism, women's studies, African-American heritage, and other related fields.

 

In my area, we have dozens of festivals and parades each year celebrating everything from gay rights to hispanic culture. Museums that address discrimination and past injustices are a fixture of every major urban center, ranging from the National Holocaust Museum in D.C. to the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Martin Luther King Day is one of only ten Federal Holidays. The day is devoted to King's memory and the celebration of diversity and equality. Local, state and national leaders advocate the cause of equality in a variety of forums. Throughout the year there are other periods of time during which we celebrate various ethnic groups' contributions to society.

 

Heck, we even host the United Nations.

 

Really, if you make any effort to look for it, you'll find that the efforts to foster equality and tolerance are a hugely important part of American society. While many other countries pat themselves on the back and cast a disapproving glance toward the United States when some nimrod goes off his rocker, I'll go out on a limb (pretty safely, in my opinion) to proclaim that we spend far more money, expend far more effort and scream far louder than any place on the planet the message that diversity, tolerance and equality constitute the very core of our nation.

 

Our history is not perfect. And, these efforts will never win every heart or mind. But, the occasional numbskull notwithstanding, we lead the world in this regard. I've seen a lot of it, and compared to the efforts in the U.S., most other "advanced" nations trail far behind.

[pbharvey]

The USA likes to call itself a “melting pot” but all that really means is changing everyone until it all looks the same. Like blending melted crayons.

 

But that’s not multi-culture-ism, tolerating (at a minimum), embracing, recognizing the power and value of various cultures in your society, that’s assimilation. In true multi-culture-ism that’s where I think Canada is light-years ahead of the USA.

 

Just this past weekend here in Edmonton again was the largest multi-cultural festival (called the Heritage Festival) held anywhere on the planet. It’s been going on for 37 years and is designed specifically to recognize and embrace the many cultures and countries of the world. Each year it’s bigger and more diverse than the last. Over 60 countries represented this year. Including some sworn enemies of the West BTW. (Iran in particular.)

 

We never miss it, it's amazing to go to. You can't go away without a new found or renewed awe and understanding of the wonderful variations of people around the world. That’s making an effort to promote understanding, tolerance and enjoyment of other cultures!

 

(BTW in what is an unbelievable statement of irony – each year the USA is invited to attend and each year it declines to do so.)

 

Ken, could you share an example of new found or renewed awe and understanding you've gained of the wonderful variations of people around the world at this festival? By visiting a festival and observing Iranians, for example, do you think all Iranians act in a similar manner as those at this Canadian festival? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Have you stereotyped all Iranians based on what you observed at a festival? Is there really a way to accurately represent the culture of an entire nation at a festival? How would you represent Canadian culture? How about the culture of the US? Who represents that the most accurately? The People of Walmart, the people of Manhattan, the people of Texas or Alabama or Boston or Chicago or Salt Lake City?

 

I'm not a big fan of the term "multiculturalism". To me, its like the term "green" and just used to put a whole bunch of things under one big meaningless lame umbrella so we all feel better about ourselves and pretend we like everyone. At the church I attend our minister happens to be a different race than me and our congregation is composed of families from 30 different countries. To some people, that's a big deal. To me, its a big yawn. I could care less where someone was born, what they wear (inappropriate clothing excepted), or what they eat. I care a great deal about their actions and their interactions with other people.

 

When the massacre happened, my son, who is in college, and I were talking about it and he said, "Sikhs are really nice." I was getting ready to agree with him because every Sikh I've ever met has been a really nice person...and then I remembered one guy who was was a real jerk in spite of that fact that he was a Sikh. So back to my point: is it racist or discriminatory to say all _____'s are _______ if we are making our observation based on a group at a festival rather than a group we observe in public?