Multiculturalism

[Harry]

I tried to pick another thread to join this to, but in an almost humorously ironic failure, I found all the other "multiculturalism" threads to be too overly devoted to other cultures and/or countries:

http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/search.php?searchid=913258

So... Here's another...

State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron

David Cameron has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.

He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.

As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.

David Cameron strode firmly into a debate where many politicians tread timidly.

In his view, such caution is part of the problem. In frank language he made abundantly clear he believes multiculturalism has failed. Any organisation that does not stand up to extremism will be cut off from public funds, and he wants the country to develop a stronger sense of shared identity.

It is the first time he has spoken so directly as prime minister, but there are echoes of what has gone before. Tony Blair edged away from multiculturalism in the years after the 7/7 bombings in London, and his ministers moved to stop funding any community organisation that did not challenge extremism. And what of Gordon Brown's continual quest to strengthen "Britishness"?

Behind the scenes, ministers are reviewing the "prevent" strategy, the policies designed to try to deal with extremism. But the review, which had been planned for publication this month, is likely to be delayed. It is not clear yet how Mr Cameron will translate his strong words into action.

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations," he added.

The Labour MP for Luton South, Gavin Shuker, asked if it was wise for Mr Cameron to make the speech on the same day the English Defence League staged a major protest in his constituency.

There was further criticism from Labour's Sadiq Khan whose comments made in a Daily Mirror article sparked a row.

The shadow justice secretary was reported as saying Mr Cameron was "writing propaganda material for the EDL".

Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi hit back, saying that "to smear the prime minister as a right wing extremist is outrageous and irresponsible". She called on Labour leader Ed Miliband to disown the remarks.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain's assistant secretary general, Dr Faisal Hanjra, described Mr Cameron's speech as "disappointing".

He told Radio 4's Today programme: "We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition that there'd be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand.

"In terms of the approach to tackling terrorism though it doesn't seem to be particularly new.

"Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution."

In the speech, Mr Cameron drew a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he described as "Islamist extremism" - a political ideology he said attracted people who feel "rootless" within their own countries.

"We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing," he said.

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

Inayat Bunglawala from Muslims4Uk says Mr Cameron is "firing at the wrong target"

A genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them", Mr Cameron said.

"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

"It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things."

He said under the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too", he said.

Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said when Mr Cameron expressed his opposition to extremism, he meant all forms, not just Islamist extremism.

"There's a widespread feeling in the country that we're less united behind values than we need to be," she told Today.

"There are things the government can do to give a lead and encourage participation in society, including all minorities."

But the Islamic Society of Britain's Ajmal Masroor said the prime minister did not appreciate the nature of the problem.

"I think he's confusing a couple of issues: national identity and multiculturalism along with extremism are not connected. Extremism comes about as a result of several other factors," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

Former home secretary David Blunkett said while it was right the government promoted national identity, it had undermined its own policy by threatening to withdraw citizenship lessons from schools.

He accused Education Secretary Michael Gove of threatening to remove the subject from the national curriculum of secondary schools in England at a time "we've never needed it more".

"It's time the right hand knew what the far-right hand is doing," he said.

"In fact, it's time that the government were able to articulate one policy without immediately undermining it with another."

[Brynja]

I fail to see how what he said - in some views- was disappointing.

I think to a degree he is correct- in an effort to honor everyones snowflakery - we forgot we are all in the same snow pile.

[Name Lips]

I always view multiculturalism as the opposite of the "melting pot" concept.

In the Melting Pot, new people and cultures assimilate into the fabric of the society they join, while also introducing new elements to the larger society.

In Multiculturalsm, all cultures are considered equal and worthy of preserving. Accomdations are usually made to prevent people from losing their unique cultures, even if they aren't fully compatible with the larger culture they've joined.


Traditionally, the US has been all over the board. The First Ammendment gives people the right to practice their own religion, so we don't as a culture encourage everybody to lose their religious culture. But we have made official and public "Americanization" policies to help immigrants blend into our culture.

Nowadays we're trending a lot more towards Multiculturalism. Public schools indoctrinate less, and it's assumed that people should be able to practice their traditional cultures without any sort of harassment, prejudice, name-calling, or personal judgement. These things are considered bigotry now, whereas in the past they were considered a sign of a persons individual pride in their own culture. "We don't do it that way in America" is seen as an intolerant and hateful phrase by multiculturalists.

[Brynja]

You should have pride in the culture you hail from but do not have it at the expense of the one you now live in and enjoy the benefits of.

[shiningbrow]

Ah. I agree with Brynja. But then again, I've always really enjoyed Sophocles' Antigone. It's a play about loyalty to family over state. These issues of determining where to put one's loyalties remain a thorny question. I ran into David Cameron once in Chadlington in the local shop. He has a house in the same village in Oxfordshire as my friends. They don't belong to the same political party, though.

[Aloysius]

It's a play about loyalty to family over state. These issues of determining where to put one's loyalties remain a thorny question.

You put your loyalty where you want, but the State can't put its loyalty in your specific family. It puts it in the nation.
Glad to see that the country of Londonistan, the very place where some judge though that incorporating sharia into the law would be nice, is starting to think otherwise. Too bad it's the right who is doing it and that the left is unable to understand that both "universalism" and "nation" are words it created (in their contemporary political meaning) and must be reclaimed.

[Darkfire]

My main gripe is that I dislike it when the State (personified by a group of people who have shown precious little regard for anyone but their own social elite) start dictating what I have to be like (as a Muslim, because no matter what he says that is the context this is taking place in) to live in the UK.

1) Yes I know I can just go live elsewhere
2) Yes everything he has mentioned so far is perfectly acceptable

[Aloysius]

What precisely do you call "dictating what I have to be like" ?
Because the fact that the State has a definite amount of normative power is roughly inescapable, if it want to be functional. Or do you find unbearable various campaigns against alcohol, road violence, tobacco or whatever may happening in the UK today ?

[Pigs in Space]

Hmmm. We have a problem.

People... are different to each other. Sometimes they don't get along.

I know! If everyone was more like me, there wouldn't be problems.

I'm awesome!

[Darkfire]

What precisely do you call "dictating what I have to be like" ?
Because the fact that the State has a definite amount of normative power is roughly inescapable, if it want to be functional. Or do you find unbearable various campaigns against alcohol, road violence, tobacco or whatever may happening in the UK today ?

No, there is need for a society to ensure that it's members are healthy. The problem is more about the resurgence of groups/individuals in the UK saying immigrants and communities based around immigrant groups need to be more 'British', which mostly just means 'stop being different from me', as it's kinda hard these days to define what it means to be British. This statement will just give these groups more motivation to impose their own views on what it means to be British on immigrant communities.

Then again this could just be a kneejerk reaction based on my experiences growing up under the Apartheid government in South Africa.

[TiQuinn]

No, there is need for a society to ensure that it's members are healthy. The problem is more about the resurgence of groups/individuals in the UK saying immigrants and communities based around immigrant groups need to be more 'British', which mostly just means 'stop being different from me', as it's kinda hard these days to define what it means to be British. This statement will just give these groups more motivation to impose their own views on what it means to be British on immigrant communities.

Then again this could just be a kneejerk reaction based on my experiences growing up under the Apartheid government in South Africa.

On the flip side, you've got this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285492/Council-workers-banned-flying-England-flags-OWN-cars.html

[shiningbrow]

Darkfire, I think Cameron's intention was to insist on appealing to people's commonalities in place of groups that are so extreme as to spit on the society of laws that makes their day to day livelihood possible. When people run around chanting things like "Death to Infidels" or "Kill the Jews," their strongly held ideological views, so infused with radical separatism, tend to rent the social fabric in damaging and unacceptable ways.

And from where I sit, Cameron's "right wing" politics would, in the U.S., put him in a camp that might be described as Centrist Democrat. Tea Partier he is not.

[Brynja]

Agree with Ti and Shining here, the pendulum swings from utter intolerance of the different- which we had for so very long. The multiculutralism is in my opinion just as fragmenting, because it honors one group and marginalizes another- just its a diffrent and in some peoples eyes more acceptable group to attempt to marginalize.

Society is a society because there is cohesion, shared norms etc.

[Cat of Ulthar]

I'm as liberal as they come, but I don't see much wrong with what Cameron is saying - it all depends on how he is going to implement these ideas. Withdrawing funding from groups who advertise sharia law is all fine, but it's important to not make such groups, and muslim groups in general, feel targeted, because that might make the separation bigger rather than smaller, and extremist groups more extremist rather than less ("See? They are always out to get us!").
So I would advocate a tactful approach, making people proud to be British muslims instead of "British, despite being muslim". I think if the youth are seeing they are growing up in a pleasant society that respects them and doesn't regard them as second-rate citizens, that is more likely to keep them away from extremism than forcing them to accept a society they feel alien from.

[shiningbrow]

There is nothing wrong with celebrating difference or with feeling pride in one's heritage. The problem arises with intolerance for difference. The idea that I should be killed for the mere sin of being an American is something I've never understood, but it's a view that's shared by many people in the world. This kind of reductive thinking is what bothers me. In the worst case scenario, it results in cavernous holes in the ground in lower Manhattan. That sickens me. I see no place in democratic society for groups that advocate that kind of difference.

[Aloysius]

No, there is need for a society to ensure that it's members are healthy.
Yes there is, because the opposite cost the society as a whole.

Back to the topic... I don't like multiculturalism, because all it makes is creating "communautarism". Antagonistic ones, that is. I would like to live in a society blind to your origins, so that they are not a prison. Stuff like ethnic ghettos, endogamic groups, the various "I hate you" manifestations or community-based justice system is abhorrent for me.
It's funny that you use the apartheid reference, because I see apartheid as the ultimate multiculturalism, with the added (and inevitable IMHO) perversion of one community dominating the others.

[Freedom Canadian]

The melting-pot/multiculturalism dichotomy is in the news all the time in Canada.

In theory, canadians are proponents of multiculturalism while quebecers are proponents of the melting pot. However, it leads to interesting situations in the media whenever there is a controversy.

For instance, a few weeks ago, security at the national assembly in Quebec city prohibited fundamentalist sikhs from entering the building without their kirpans because it's a weapon. The reaction in most national newspapers such as the Globe and Mail were that it was because quebecers are intolerant and racists and, unlike canadians, not believers in multiculturalism. What's funny is that about 90% of the comments from english canada under the story were basically saying "Multiculturalism doesn't work. Go Quebec !" :D

Anyway, it does seem to me that multiculturalism, at least how it was implemented in western countries so far, leads to tensions. Some immigrant individuals or small groups abuse it and then it leads to backlash and more generalized anti-immigrant feelings in the majority.

As for ghettos, I think those unfortunately happen in any society with significant immigrant populations, whether the society is multicultural or melting-potish.

[Enk]

No, there is need for a society to ensure that it's members are healthy...

1) Would you (and based on previous posts, I think you might) agree that the most healthy societies today happen to be in Scandinavia?
2) How much of the health and stability in those areas is due to having a homogeneous populace?

[Aloysius]

As for ghettos, I think those unfortunately happen in any society with significant immigrant populations, whether the society is multicultural or melting-potish.

No need to encourage their existence however.



2) How much of the health and stability in those areas is due to having a homogeneous populace?

Scandinavia does not have homogeneous populace (not in 2011), and Sweden is to multiculturalism what North Korea is to communism. Heck, they (at least, their judges) even ruled that racism can only be from white to non-white, and thus any expression of hatred or bigotry against white/christians must be tolerated. The argument being that the majority can't be a victim, thus the crime can't exist.

They are more stable than most other society, but that's because of socio-economic policy.


As for the topic, to the question "why is Islam targeted" in the UK, here is a simple answer :

http://pewglobal.org/files/2010/12/2010-muslim-01-13.png
IIRC, Muslims in the UK come mostly from Pakistan (and India), Egypt and Nigeria. Sure, they probably don't have the exact same answers than their compatriots : some are even less liberal by the way. So, if you allow "londonistan", "londoneria" or "londogypt" to exist, you have basically homogeneous enclaves of peoples united by a fascist, intolerant and violent mindset. Against the rest of the country.

[Enk]

...Scandinavia does not have homogeneous populace (not in 2011)

Is Scandanavia more or less stable (and it's population more or less healthy) as a result of the new heterogeneity?

[Aloysius]

Is Scandanavia more or less stable (and it's population more or less healthy) as a result of the new heterogeneity?

As far as I know, Scandinavia is not specially healthy. Japan, Australia, Canada, France and Spain enjoy higher life expectancy, not counting the micronations like Monaco, of course...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryName=Slovenia&countryCode=si&regionCode=eu&rank=61#si

As for stability, there has been a shift from social-democracy to right-wing government in Swede, Denmark and Norway, often in reaction to the growing number of immigrants. Denmark now has the most xenophobic/strict immigration rules of Europe, ans Sweden has experienced at least two anti-immigrants serial killers. And some places in those countries have been heavily ghettoised too.

[Darkfire]

I'm as liberal as they come, but I don't see much wrong with what Cameron is saying - it all depends on how he is going to implement these ideas. Withdrawing funding from groups who advertise sharia law is all fine, but it's important to not make such groups, and muslim groups in general, feel targeted, because that might make the separation bigger rather than smaller, and extremist groups more extremist rather than less ("See? They are always out to get us!").
So I would advocate a tactful approach, making people proud to be British muslims instead of "British, despite being muslim". I think if the youth are seeing they are growing up in a pleasant society that respects them and doesn't regard them as second-rate citizens, that is more likely to keep them away from extremism than forcing them to accept a society they feel alien from.

As always Cat you express things better than I could :)

[Pigs in Space]

On the flip side, you've got this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285492/Council-workers-banned-flying-England-flags-OWN-cars.html

Interestingly, every time there has been racial violence over here, the whiteys drape themselves in the flag...

[Enk]

So let's put aside the "healthy" part - life expectancy figures make it obvious that its a red herring.

...As for stability, there has been a shift from social-democracy to right-wing government in Swede, Denmark and Norway, often in reaction to the growing number of immigrants. Denmark now has the most xenophobic/strict immigration rules of Europe, ans Sweden has experienced at least two anti-immigrants serial killers. And some places in those countries have been heavily ghettoised too.

Based on this, I think you'd have to say that the new heterogeneous nation is in general worse off than it was when it was homogeneous, no?

[Varaj]

I'm no historian, but I play one on TV, it seems from what I recall is the most successful empires absorbed and stole from the cultures they invaded instead of just enforcing new culture on the concurred areas.

One might argue it is why English has been such a successful language. It melting pot of a language. If some other language has a better word we steal it and make it our own.

[The Winslow]

I'm no historian, but I play one on TV, it seems from what I recall is the most successful empires absorbed and stole from the cultures they invaded instead of just enforcing new culture on the concurred areas.

The major difference is that they created a roman/conquered hybrid culture in the foreign lands they added to their empire by exporting Roman people; whereas here we're talking about what would be the analogue to these conquered countries invading Rome and creating a hybrid culture there.

[Varaj]

whereas here we're talking about what would be the analogue to these conquered countries invading Rome and creating a hybrid culture there.

Mongols did exactly that their; capital was populated by the best and brightest of the conquered folks. Romans really did too just didn't allow them into government.*

*From my understanding.

[Aloysius]

The Mongol empire did not last long. And anyway, we are not speaking of empire.

Think about it : roman empire lasted roughly 8 centuries (it was not really an empire before 300 BC, and was in disarray after 400 AD. England or France are already more than 1000 years old, and survived without that much problem to the loss of their empires. Japan is 1500 years old, and its empire was utterly short lived.
Yet, who is the most successful ? Ulan Bator, Pella and Samarkand or Tokyo, Paris and London ?


Based on this, I think you'd have to say that the new heterogeneous nation is in general worse off than it was when it was homogeneous, no?

It depends of the society. Finland is probably better now than in the 1980, as is Norway. For Swede or Denmark, those country have had some difficulty, but are faring considerably better than most European countries.
The main problem to answer this question is that a lot of unrelated stuff has changed (deregulated markets, globalization, aging, internet, E.U...) and thus it's impossible or very difficult to establish an unbiased comparison "with vs without".
The arrival of a large "alien" immigration induce a lot of "turmoil" for a society, but this may be both positive or negative, depending of the way it is integrated or not. Think about Singapore, and more generally the effect of the massive Chinese immigration in South-East Asia : I'm not sure the country deprived of this are faring better than those submerged with it...

[Varaj]

The Mongol empire did not last long. And anyway, we are not speaking of empire.

Think about it : roman empire lasted roughly 8 centuries (it was not really an empire before 300 BC, and was in disarray after 400 AD. England or France are already more than 1000 years old, and survived without that much problem to the loss of their empires. Japan is 1500 years old, and its empire was utterly short lived.
Yet, who is the most successful ? Ulan Bator, Pella and Samarkand or Tokyo, Paris and London ?


Historically empire building is the only thing that comes close to culture integration. Mass immigration is a new type of issue that causes problems from culture integration.
I would hesitate to call England or France empires any more than I would call the US an empire.
I'm not suggesting it is a solid answer that I have a strong position on but it seems to me that large scale empires that lasted any time period at all had models of cultural integration as opposed to cultural destruction or multiculturalism.

[Name Lips]

It always seemed to me that strict, regimented societies, with clear, defined roles for all members were just more efficient.

At risk of Godwining the thread... I think of societies like Nazi Germany. Or the early Roman empire (especially as they were expanding throughout Apennine Peninsula), or many conquering nations throughout history.

But they don't necessarily form long-lived empires. They're scary effecient, very productive, and operate like clockwork. But they also tend to be very inflexible. If the world changes, or the climate or technology, they sometimes refuse to change their traditions and become less and less effecient. If they do change, it often means an upheaval or something else dramatic that preserves the people and society, but changes the culture or government. Or the traditions become merely symbolic, instead of essential ways of life.

But I also tend to think of peaceful, philosophical, agrarian societies as being more ethical. They start fewer wars, tend not to oppress their people, and generally become more and more open and liberal as time goes on. Until, of course, an expanding, more aggressive, less tolerant, and more efficient society overwhelms and absorbs them.


It's a difficult and probably unwise sort of thing to generalize, though. The more I look at history the more I realize that it's not really the same things happening over and over, but a series of unique events with singular causes and effects that sometimes seem to form patterns, but never really do.

[Aloysius]

It always seemed to me that strict, regimented societies, with clear, defined roles for all members were just more efficient.


I'm not sure about that. They are more warlike. And, being more warlike, they have better chances to build an empire (it's like playing to some loto... you can't win if you don't bet). But many fails to so, because they cause they can't win and that cause them to be destroyed. Nazi Germany and it Japanese ally are good examples, but Sparta is probably another.


Historically empire building is the only thing that comes close to culture integration. Mass immigration is a new type of issue that causes problems from culture integration.

The Roman empire faced mass immigration too, even if it often more than bordered with invasion... And it happened elsewhere : German and Dutch in Russia (they were invited by the Czars), Parsi in India, Roms in Europe, Jews here and there, Vikings in Normandy and probably a lot other cases I don't think about in Asia.

[shiningbrow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7H6v1xSZIU&feature=BF&playnext=1&list=QL&index=2

[Brynja]

bwhahhah Badiddlyboing Idaho....oh god...

[Radu]

That sketch was simultaneously really irritating, insulting, funny, and bizarre. I really wish I could say it's a totally unfair portrayal, but I know people like that. Some of them are my relatives.

Also, I have to admit the series of pictures and commentary was pretty damn funny. "Isn't she probably pretty? What a guy!"

Why the whole Burka/American interaction with Islam commentary though? It's not as if we don't have Muslims in the United States. Is it just such an odd situation that it's supposed to be funny or is there more being said that I'm not catching?

[Ancalagon]

No, there is need for a society to ensure that it's members are healthy. The problem is more about the resurgence of groups/individuals in the UK saying immigrants and communities based around immigrant groups need to be more 'British', which mostly just means 'stop being different from me', as it's kinda hard these days to define what it means to be British. This statement will just give these groups more motivation to impose their own views on what it means to be British on immigrant communities.

Then again this could just be a kneejerk reaction based on my experiences growing up under the Apartheid government in South Africa.

Nod. I fully support your right to believe in different supernatural beings than I do, have funny hairdo, read different books, speak in a different language, listen to different music and movies, eat strange food, wear unusual clothes etc etc... Some people are bothered by sheer difference, and that is sad.

However - and I know you agree on this - I think that an insistence on the fundamental beliefs that form western society - equality, secular government, the rule of law, democracy... is necessary. It seems a bit counter intuitive, but freedom mandates belief in freedom, the same way perhaps that tolerance can't tolerate intolerance.

I would much have a population of chain smoking, hard boozing citizens educated and engaged in the democratic process than healthy apathetic sheep.

[Brynja]

Why the whole Burka/American interaction with Islam commentary though? It's not as if we don't have Muslims in the United States. Is it just such an odd situation that it's supposed to be funny or is there more being said that I'm not catching?


Yeah we do but we don't have em in Badiddlyboing!

[shiningbrow]

This is one of a series of sketches of this couple around London in similarly absurd situations. They always whip out their book of photos and do the same skit, but usually the women aren't wearing veils in the photos. The implication is that these naive but hyper friendly Americans go everywhere--to Cairo, on the double decker bus, and they are not put off at all by British reserve, or by shy Muslim women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSumZ4qBltA

[Radu]

Shiningbrow, thanks for that explanation. Now the sketch makes a lot more sense.

[Pigs in Space]

Oddly, most of the Americans I have ever been on a tour with behave exactly like that.

[Brynja]

A shame you never met Ginge and I "on tour" we don't talk. lol

[Harry]

Oddly, most of the Americans I have ever been on a tour with behave exactly like that.

I live in Memphis, TN, which is heavily traveled by tourists from Germany, Britain, and Australia, and occasionally the Far East. It's a Mecca of sorts to many people. But I don't know they are British, German, Aussie or genuinely Oriental until they come up to me, pull out a phrase book, and stumble around for a bit verbally.

I imagine I'd be the same way if I were visiting their lands. You'd never know I'm a typical 'Merican until I opened my mouth.

[Pigs in Space]

Why do they need a phrase book if they are english speakers?

Is every second word required to be "Y'all"?

[shiningbrow]

I once began flapping my arms like a chicken in a Brazilian restaurant when I was trying to figure out what pecho do frango was. I don't eat red meat and my portuguese wasn't then what it is now. Still, I wasn't silly enough to assume some poor working class people in a run down mall in Brasilia would speak Ingles. They found me pretty funny and gave me a very nice cold Antartica beer. It was a hot day and went down easy. The grilled chicken breast was delicious.

[Harry]

Why do they need a phrase book if they are english speakers?

Is every second word required to be "Y'all"?

Come on up, my friend. Come on up. Hear how the real folks talk around here.

I've got a clerk here, one of many Russians. She actually taught English back in her homeland, and gets really frustrated that people cannot understand her here. I put her in a position where she talks to more folks, but even after a year, she has trouble making herself understood. At first, the problem was her accent. But you know, while we are all hicks here, we understand accents. Had an old fellow today who babbled about for five minutes in what I assume was a Czech or Romanian accent, wanting to know the difference between the water in a pink bottle [Breast Cancer Month] and the same water in a blue bottle, exclaiming that whiskey is whiskey is whiskey bottle no the same. And everyone understood him.

But he talked slowly. My Russian, she talks too fast. I keep telling her to slow down, but I fear we are in one of those Flatland/Sphere discussions. But then, I've been to other countries, like Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin and California.

[Hatter]

My colleagues in China and India complain I talk too fast too. :(

[Harry]

I've mentioned a few times that I have an older South African lady working for me. On occasion, I see her husband. Tonight we chatted briefly, and he noted that I was carrying a box of candy. He pointed to the registers and their candy and mentioned that half the stuff wouldn't sell in South Africa, because they contained peanuts. At first, I assumed this was some weird regional allergy, but then he said no one but the very poor eat peanuts, or anything containing peanuts. Peanuts are strictly for the underclass, the poor, the country folk. His wife chimed in with a comment about it was true, and how they had never imagined anything like peanut butter, and how she'd been disgusted the one time she ate a Reese's Cup. I told them I lived on peanuts - without peanuts I'd starve and they looked mortified. She mentioned something about the poor boiling them, and I said "Yeah. I did that when I was in my 20s." Then she went on to finish her comment, saying they boiled them to get rid of worms.

I gave her a Little Debby snack cake last week. She didn't like it either. Still, great lady and her husband is also very nice.