Sharkfin seems to blame all the worlds problems on multi-culturalism.
Is he somehow pretending that we should go back to or create some kind of mono-cultural utopia?

When and where did such a utopia exist?

Im sure the people in Africa,the USA, Australia, New zealand, India and Asia altogether would have preferred that the whiteys with their "superior" culture and their MAXIM guns and "jesus", to have stayed at home.

The fact of the matter is that the world has been multi-cultural for a very long time, and even more so in October 2007. We have no choice but to live with and to cultivate the necessary virtues and tolerance to make it work.

It seems to me that both World War I was a crisis in the collective psyche of Europe ALTOGETHER. A crisis which triggered off vast sub-terranean forces of fear, anger, and frustration into the dreadful SCAPEGOATING slaughter of WWI.
The assasination of the Duke was just a spark that set the (waiting to happen) explosion off.

So too with WW2.

Meanwhile I came a superb example of the typical politically correct sanitised white-washed version of his-story so beloved of those on the "right" side of the culture wars. Please check out THE GREAT FORGETTING by Eunice Wong.

1. http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20071005_the_great_forgetting

Meanwhile it was not so long ago that the Australian "aborigines" were considered to be sub-human. Their collective affairs came under the laws of the FAUNA and FLORA act.

Ho Hum I read your two links, and was impressed with two examples of exactly what Tempstra was discussing. That they do not present a balanced view point isn't in contention as it does not attempt to, the issue is that the information is exaggerated at almost every turn.

In the interests of free speech, I have no problem with the authors of these articles publishing these polemics on the net, but if I found them dished up to students as factual texts, I would be disgusted.

Western culture has its flaws, but before one gets all dewy eyed about how the poor innocents were ravaged by the terrible whiteys here is a story to put it into perspective.

In the early 1800s one of Chaka’s strongmen Msilikasi split away from the Zulu tribe with about 20-30% of the nation. Chaka incensed sent a huge army to bring him down and punish his followers.

Knowing that an army marches on its stomach, Msilikasi had his army move in a broad band across the country side pillaging everything and burning or killing all people and livestock they could not take with them. This scorched earth tactic worked as Chaka’s army was forced to turn back. The estimated cost of this to the previous unsuspecting nations in the path was about 500 000. Msilikasi finally settled and founded a city now called Bulawayo or the place of killing.

The level of brutality in Africa was only briefy interupted by colonisation and continues happily in Dafur, Somalia, Eritrea, Ruwanda, Burundi, The DRC, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Angola, Zimbabwe, etc, etc, etc.

The Incas and Native Americans, etc, were also not known for their cuddly nature, but I don't have enough space to detail it all.

Would someone please enlighten me....do 'Heinemann texts' really exist and does any text make those absurd claims about the status of women before the advent of Islam.

The comments certainly don't pertain to the staus of women in the Roman Republic.

I'm also wondering from the context whether implicitly it is claimed that the status of women was improved by the advent of Islam.

In Terpstra’s thesis he talks about us belittling America, as if we should be acting mentally like us soldiers in WW2, with - Yours is Not to Reason Why.

It seems today in ruling circles, that anyone left of centre is not to be trusted, making younger children and certain adults wondering whether to be left-wing is criminal and right-wing is good as on the right side.

If this is a contest, the commentaries could be a little on the right side, or rather the rightist side, which could sound pretty good for John Howard refusing to apologise to the Aborigines.

It also gives the okay for colonialism, showing it was wrong to give freedom back to India after WW2, and to all the countries still mucked up with Westernised borders - nearly a million slaughtered in Rwanda.

As it also gives the okay for Israel’s 200 ready and powered nukes, per favour of the US, to let her have say over the Middle East, might be a real bugger-up for a long peace in the future, especially if Cheney has any say in it.

Tepstra’s message had me a little worried for a while, especially as I’ve had experience of academic historians getting carried away.

But really looking back through history, reckon those who have got carried away the most, are truly the Americans, who seem still determined to make the Middle East the most troublesome spot copying the Brits first by planting thousands of troops in Saudi-Arabia upsetting bin-Laden, annoying Iran no end with planting in the Shah, then backing Saddam against Iran, with Iran winning after eight bloodthirsty years, which America has never forgotten.

But now with America still determined to carry out her long range plan for her own 21st century as if she owns it, and also adding on the US thirst for ME oil, makes one still glad to be a so-called Left Wing Loonie, even though one still remains an agrarian unionist as in the days of Black Jack McKewan, and having grown up in the Great Depression.

Cheers - BB, WA

This is a big kettle of fish the writer has opened up with his railing all done under the banner of "political correctness for students." In the same article he throws in Howard and "a little businessman like, say, Rupert Murdoch." A strange choice, these leading lights that students should look up to?
The writer throws up all this sleight of hand, but disingeniously, forgets to mention the positions he rails about are right wing positions. Some are extreme right wing positions.
"Women were treated as possessions.” "Women had no personal rights." What rights do they have in the workplace under Howards new IR laws?
"Women could be married against their will."
"Women could be forced to dance naked.”
"Baby girls were regularly buried alive.”
… "Women were uneducated.” But hasn't Howard declared war on education at all levels? The oppression of woman is always bound up with the society and social relations therein. One aspect of many reasons, today, has been primarily for exploiting and more readily manipulating woman as a commodity to be brought and sold. Once again, Howards workchoices are primarilly about boosting exploitation for woman and men. "Women were not as important as men.”Which raises the question of genuine equality. But this society is riven by deliberate divisions carefully crafted so that a ruling class can rule over a working class. Including the fostering of gender politics men against women.
Of course, when it comes to the killing of women and men in Iraq - a mass killing of world-historic proportions we have a deafening silence by the writer. Latest estimates being 1.2 million by the British polling organization ORB. As well, as the millions that have been turned into refugees.
Students too are a source of cheap labor implemented by the right wing. The writer of the article serves up a large dose of political reaction instead of political correctness.
…

Just read this fellas 'wisdom'.....

Same old, same old.

Written from a Right Wing perspective, all that is Left is bad.

Written from a Left Wing perspective, all that is Right is bad.

...............given that we are currently gripped by Right Wing Governments (AND 'Oppositions'), the latter view has far more validity!