it is de facto racist to either state or 'notice' (for statement) that "Only one culture can exist and mixed culture is destructive to all original cultures."

So now that the bloviation over whether a question asks for confirmation of an unconscious precept -- yes, of course it does, so long as there is a TOPIC to the argument, which is what more sane people do with the odds and ends you bloviate about -- we can see the truth of it: some people want culture, others want mixed culture because they're bigots against culture.

I wonder why people want to mix things into a generic grey, especially since in the past it has contributed to the ruins of situation.

You who defend immigration are fixating on one tiny part of an issue -- how good you feel for being altruistic and "progressive" regarding ethnicity -- and missing the bigger point: if humanity is going to get its act together, we need localization and an end to external control, which means we must replace external control with internal motivation, e.g. a shared sense of values. You either have a culture, or you have a military, corporate bureaucracy which enforces pseudo-culture, but at least in the latter, you're free to be as grey as you want.

Unlike the racist fanatics, and the racist anti-racists, I see this issue as part of a bigger question which is "What sort of society do we desire?" -- my answer cannot be limited to the topics we have here, but when you start thinking my way, you see how simple the question is and how unnecessary and hypothetical your response is.

anti-globalism / post-modernism / heavy metal / organic spirituality

You ask:

"Is it "racism" to notice that only one culture can exist, and mixed culture is destructive to all original cultures?"
___________________________________________________________________________________

If, humorously, you break the word "iceberg" into two parts, for illustration's sake, think of the "ice" as the part of the iceberg you see above the water, and the "berg" as the greater part that is unseen below the water.

This picture of an iceberg illustrates what a paradigm is (a concept introduced by scientific historian Thomas Kuhn to mean "a collection of assumptions, concepts, practices, and values that constitutes a way of viewing reality, especially for an intellectual community that shares them.") Essentially, a paradigm refers to the world view through which the world around us is interpreted.

In other words, as the writer S. Faiz Khan once remarked, "A paradigm is what you think OF something before you start thinking ABOUT something. And like an iceberg, the "berg" is what you think OF something (and it's usually unconscious), even before you start thinking ABOUT something - the "ice". Which brings me back to your question: "Is it "racism" to notice that only one culture can exist, and mixed culture is destructive to all original cultures?"

Your so-called "question" is subtly framed as a request/challenge for confirmation of the following statements: - The request for confirmation: "Only one culture can exist and mixed culture is destructive to all original cultures."
- The challenge: "Is it "racism" to notice the preceding request for confirmation statement?"

Analytically, if your camouflaged point of: "Only one culture can exist and mixed culture is destructive to all original cultures" refers to a culture that is in whatever terms you define "race," mono-racial, then yes, it is de facto racist to either state or 'notice' (for statement) that "Only one culture can exist and mixed culture is destructive to all original cultures."

In all directions you're begging the question and your "berg" (unconscious? submerged point of view) is plain to see - you think this before you even start to think about it. Even if and as you try to disguise your technically racist point of view (whatever you emotionally or socially actually feel) as "culturalist". Seems to me self-honesty - even in print - would make your argument stronger even if less palatable or politically correct.

It's a shame you've apparently, presently got this view as being against excessive immigration, or desiring, or even insisting that people become assimilated into a culture rather than remain separate in it (and in enough numbers begin to 'colonize' it), because thinking so doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with discrimination and racism. Yet you've made the link.

Independent of any considerations of race or multiculturalism, I for one believe there's a right to a continuing cultural "identity" for all indigenous cultures (i.e. the ones immigrants come to) and that both formally and informally it ought to be and should be made incumbent on new arrivals to, minimally, be required to properly learn the written and spoken language of their new "home" in addition to its laws and (selected) customs. Try today to officially become a German or Dutch citizen without learning German or Dutch!

In most places, one of the biggest signatures of non-assimilation is not learning to speak the indigenous language fluently (in the U.S., English). Yet, at least in the United States it's long been evident from several generational studies that no immigrant grand-children - let alone children - grow up speaking other than the new language of the culture their parents/grandparents have immigrated to (much to the chagrin of the folks from the 'old country' - and because of almost irresistible factors like peer pressure, the school playground, video games, movies, and television).

Working 'multiculturalism' absolutely requires language assimilation - and waiting one or two generations to achieve language assimilation means nothing but trouble BECAUSE of the dynamics of extended rejection/assimilation which can be and are aggravated by poor indigenous language skills, and visible differences associated with that such as skin color, physical features, religion, marital rites, etc.

For example (marital rites resisting assimilation), Jews who did and have emigrated to a nation founded on Judaeo-Christian values (and not the Talmud or rabbinic laws and values) i.e. America and Britain - remain, to the degree they do so in America and Britain, Jews, by, in part, very actively and effectively blocking, discouraging, etc. marriage INTO their faith by non-Jews. Ironically, one of the biggest challenges in both American and British Jewry are Jews marrying OUT. Ditto in a more savage sense (kill the girls who dare) in a significant percentage of Indian, Pakistani, and Arabic households in the U.K., and, from recent news stories, in the U.S.

I'm not a language or culture "nazi"; it is however important to remain dynamically adaptable, and what works as laissez-faire policy when only a comparative few people are immigrant, doesn't work when they begin to arrive in comparatively significant numbers. And policies should alter in adapting to that (by becoming more formal and insisting, in this case, on formally demonstrated language skills as a condition of entry (it's too late afterwards, especially in America).

As well as the obvious - don't ask the host country to change its laws to what you had back home (e.g. Muslims in the UK have begun a movement to introduce Sharia law in parts of the UK legal code). Personally, I think that's a step too far --- UNLESS --- equally, for example, Brits in the countries the immigrants have come from can similarly work to change Sharia law in those countries into a British legal code. Quid pro quo - and of course, were it so, I predict, an immediate die off of interest in immigrants attempting any such, to my mind, ridiculous transformations.

Taking this stance has nothing to do with racism or, even, multiculturalism in the broad sense. Rather, it underwrites the obvious - the dynamics of a culture require a common medium of transmission for that culture's longevity, vigor, and integrated identity. A thousand channels babbling different languages, classes (like in the L.A. Unified School district) that provide some kind of support for some 80 different languages, etc. - when taken together and extended to the point where, as in Miami, English is less and less a viable working language, is taking multi-language culture too far.

I am for peoples and cultures from anywhere immigrating, but in number that enrich the host, not rewrite its basic cultural identity and cultural (values, laws, et al) DNA, unless the indigenous people so desired and expressed that. We didn't do that in America. Instead we practiced genocide twice over, and proudly called it "Manifest Destiny" and "Slavery." And today America remains - though, strangely, invisible to most Anglo-Americans, one of the most racist cultures in the world.

I didn't say xenophobic. I didn't say foreign. I did say "racist" - even though there is no scientific definition of 'race' as continuing DNA revelations make clear ("race" is a sociopolitical and socioeconomic construct as in "how and where do we draw a line between "them" and "us'?). Enough said.
______________________________________________________________________

"The illiterates of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." — Alvin Toffler