As some of you might know, immigration is a big issue in most (western) European countries, Le Pen's election results were just one example. Now those in favour of immigration often talk about a "multi-cultural" society as the prospect for Europe's future. This "multi-culturalism" usually means a mixture between the established European culture (meaning western and secular) and the immigrants cultures, mainly Arab, Turk, Indian, Pakistani and various African cultures.
Of course something exactly like that hasn't existed in Europe's history as there were not many Arabs, Africans, etc. on the continent.
But in former times, the ethnic and cultural diversity in Europe was far bigger than many today know. Migration was also not uncommon. Before racism and nationalism devided even the most similar looking Europeans, people of different origins and cultures often shared the same region. In other words, ethnic minorities were common in most countries. Most of them were Christians, of course distributed through the different factions of Christianity.
The periods of what is today called "ethnic cleansing" within the 20th century pretty much wiped out that diversity. Especially WW2 and the years after it massivly changed Europe.
So my question is: Has Europe already been multi-cultural or is "European" a common culture?
And if you should answer the first question with yes, then what can present day Europe learn of it?

I don' think the Europe of pre WW1/WW2 was as multicultural as today, where, the number of immigrants and their willingness to be proud of their culture is greater

Originally posted by allhailIndia
I don' think the Europe of pre WW1/WW2 was as multicultural as today, where, the number of immigrants and their willingness to be proud of their culture is greater

Maybe you got me wrong. I meant to compare pre WW2 Europe with post-WW2 Europe (without immigration from beyond its borders which started later).
After WW2 many areas of Central Europe were cleansed in the sense that there was usually only one ethnic group left. In the Balkans that was "archieved" in the 90s.
With diversity in that sense I don't mean diversity between Europeans and non-Europeans, but within the different European ethnic groups and cultures. These people also were proud of their culture. Examples are Jews and Gypsies, but also Serbs in Croatia and vice versa, as well as Germans in Eastern Europe.

Ok in that sense, maybe, but I feel that it was still a bit far of from multicultural diversity, since these were separate countries and now, we have every country have some mix of immigrants.

Hell any continent is culturally diverse, but now every country in Europe, almost has a sizeable minority community.

Your point is valid, that's why I asked if "European" is a common culture. If that was the case, then there would indeed never have been such a thing as a multicultural society before.

I'm quite undecided about it myself, but I wanted to point out that it has been different from that what those who fear other influences take for granted.

1. Le Pen "succes" isn't motivated only by imigration.
2. What you really understand by "multiculturalism" ?? In my opinion Europe in 1920 ( for example ) was far more multiculturalist than now ... ;)

Regards

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
1. Le Pen "succes" isn't motivated only by imigration.
2. What you really understand by "multiculturalism" ?? In my opinion Europe in 1920 ( for example ) was far more multiculturalist than now ...

1. Of course, but in connection with his success the issue has been brought up here and elsewhere. That was just an introduction. ;)
2. That is the question. I am pretty much of the same opinion though.

I would argue no, that Europe has never (before now) been "multi-cultural". I put that expression in quotes because it has a specific meaning and therefore really isn't applicable to earlier times.

Medieval European states freely encouraged huge migrations of peoples all over the continent to fill local farming or border patrol vacancies, for instance, but medieval states weren't based on ethnicity or national peoples like modern states are. The medieval rulers were merely concerned with having enough peasants to keep the estates humming and the border areas populated with soldier-serfs. An example would be medieval Poland, which over the centuries encouraged large numbers of Flemish, French, various Germans, Hungarians, Jews, and etc. to settle areas emptied by war or famine. There are parts of north-central Poland (south of Torun) today where the villages all have Scottish-related names, traced from a time in the 16th and early 17th centuries when many Scots settled there. At the time King Sobieski was repulsing the Ottoman attack on Vienna in 1683, Poland had more than 100 functioning mosques (mostly for its Tartar population). Poland's Catholic king wanted to enter the Thirty Years War but the country had a huge population of Protestants, as well as Orthodox, 'Uniates", and Moslems - not to mention the Jews - so the Sejm forbade Poland's participation for fear of civil war. The Sejm, the Polish parliament, was addressed when it opened by a long liturgy dedicated to "The Polish Nation" - but by this expression they didn't mean ethnic Poles, but rather the collective nobility who ruled Poland - many of whom were ethnic Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Germans, Czechs, etc. This was the common view at the time. We look back now and call the medieval states "multi-national", but contemporaries would have been confused by this term. Poland in 1485 had only one nation, the Polish nation - but surely you don't believe that this would include the lowly peasants! The Holy Roman Empire, the Papal States, Venice, Hungary, Byzantium, etc. were all the same.

Hungarians today are quite nostalgic for the Habsburg empire, and point out how prior to 1914 people could travel throughout Europe without passports. They fail to remember that only a small minority of people could afford to travel in 1900, that they comprised a tiny and wealthy elite. Yes, this elite was very multi-cultural, far moreso than Europeans today - but it was a tiny part of the population. The average European was just beginning to be able to travel beyond their birth villages.

I think Europeans today are really achieving their highest heights of multi-culturalism, though they (like all modern societies) are struggling with how to deal with immigrant populations with radically different cultural "weltanschauung"s.

Vrylakas, as he usually does, made some valid points about the class structure of Europe in earlier times and the way that affected ethnic relations and the place (and power) of ethnic minorities within European society which I agree with but I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion that "Europe has never (before now) been multicultural".

I suspect we may agree on what the historical facts are but disagree on the conclusion because of a different understanding of what constitutes (defines) a 'multicultural society'. I think the way the term multicultural is defined is the key to answering Hitro's question.

In the early 1980's I worked briefly in the Multicultural Education Branch of the Victorian Education Department and although there was a rambling (and somewhat vague) official definition of 'multiculturalism' I doubt that any two employees in the Branch (there were hundreds) could agree on what was really meant by the term multiculturalism.

My understanding is that the term 'multiculturalism' originated in Canada in the late 1970's and was in part a philosophical reaction to the policies of assimilation that had been official government policy in managing migrants arriving and settling in places like Canada and Australia in the post war period.

To get back to the issue in question, I presume that individual European nations and the European Union have official definitions of what they mean by multicultural and if these are the definitions used in the context of Hitro's question than Vrylakas is undoubtably right.

I believe that the key difference between the concept of 'assimilation' and 'multiculturalism' is that the former promotes/forces the merging of many cultures into one homogenous mass whilst the latter not only allows cultural (etc) diversity but promotes it as a strength of that society - of course there are a myriad of hues in between the two concepts.

My definition of a 'Multicultural society' in the context of Hitro's question would be as follows:

a society that includes people of diverse cultural, racial, linguistic and religious backgrounds and allows them the ability to practice their different cultures, languages and religions whilst requiring adherance to some common institutions and laws within that society

Using this definition I would say the answer to Hitro's question is yes, there has been a multicultural Europe before. :)

Originally posted by andycapp
a society that includes people of diverse cultural, racial, linguistic and religious backgrounds and allows them the ability to practice their different cultures, languages and religions whilst requiring adherance to some common institutions and laws within that society


This isn't exactely a rigouros definition of multiculturalism and not even of so-called "multiculturalism" which is abussive propagate by mass-media, but anyway this definition has its value - and from this point of view Europe was in 1900 ( for e.g. ) more multiculturalist than now. ;)

In fact now - in most part of Europe exist two culture : a)a urban, well-educated or at least medium-educated, little cosmopolite population which differed from country to country only at some "surface" aspect which belong usually to "civisational layer" of culture and b) a sub-urban, usually under-educated, almost tribal "ghettoised" population. :(

Sad, but true - the old "rural" population was almost complete wiped out or became "urban" - and this was the part of population which give probably the most part of "ancient" multiculturalism. Also the imigrants in Europe are usually people which came from over-populated and extremly poor sub-urban area of third world metropolis - not really representants of their country culture ...

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ...

The problem with immigration today is that most immigrants want to live in a country and not learn the language of the country...only live with immigrants from the same country.
Americans used to complain on the fact italian immigrants don't want to learn english and were here to earn money and send it to their family in Italy.
As for europe,i think it should be unified...we have the same values n history.It leads to another thread ;)
Should nations from the same world be counted as one nation.
Ex:the western world,the arabic world etc.
Y shouldn't europe be unified with america,Australia and New-Zealand so?

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


This isn't exactely a rigouros definition of multiculturalism and not even of so-called "multiculturalism" which is abussive propagate by mass-media, but anyway this definition has its value - and from this point of view Europe was in 1900 ( for e.g. ) more multiculturalist than now. ;)

You're right Mitiu, it is not a rigorous definition of 'multiculturalism' nor did I intend it to be. Quite the reverse, my intention was to construct a definition of multiculturalism that captured it's meaning but was not specific to modern society (perhaps a contradiction in terms) and would allow us to use it as a template to evaluate European societies of earlier times and answer Hitro's question - phew! :crazyeye: (hope that explanation is not to convoluted)

Whilst it can be argued that multiculturalism is a modern construction, my take on Hitro's question was rather:

'were there any previous European societies that had the same or similar features as todays multicultural Europe?'

If this is what Hitro meant then my answer would be yes!

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ...

No need, you made yourself clear Mitiu. :)

Originally posted by andycapp
No need, you made yourself clear Mitiu. :)

Thank you - but if it's possible : ussualy people call me Ioan ... :)

And I have another comment : the " spiritual-artistic layer of culture" became also very common and with little diversity across Europe ... but unfortunately in many cases this bring also a degradation of artistical values ...
Of course this is my opinion not necessary a absolutely statement. ;)

Regards

A European society that comes to mind immediately is Byzantium (the late East Roman Empire).

This society is obviously not 'multicultural' in exactly the way we understand the term today, however the Byzantines had similarities to modern Europe in the sense that they accepted the settlement of groups of foreign people (eg. Patzinaks, Slavs, Arabs, Scandinavians, Franks, Italians) as mercenaries, traders and farmers and allowed them to continue to their cultural and religious practices. Admittedly they were usually denied the same rights as the natives, at least initially.

The first multicultural european state is, of course, the Roman Empire itself. Just look at roman panteon ... ;)

Regards

Originally posted by Damien
The problem with immigration today is that most immigrants want to live in a country and not learn the language of the country...
This has actually been the eternal "problem" of immigrants - they speak their own language and practice their own ways! No matter where people move, those already there have this complaint. It is very short-sighted. These immigrants may not assimilate, but their children will be a hybrid of the two cultures/languages. Each successive generation converges with the 'host' culture, quickly becoming indistinguishable from the so-called natives.

Others have explained that europe has been very multicultural in the past. The difference with today is that the immigrants are not other europeans. Instead of scots or danes, the new faces are turks or algerians. Tho often left unspoken, the fear seems to be because these people are darker skinned or islamic. Islam carries a long historic stigma in the west, and stereotypes show that it continues. Politicians frame this fear in economic terms, but commoners speak what the real crux is - at base, "they aren't like us." Even in a very open, progressive society as Holland, such drivel is common. Turks and Moroccans make up something like 3% of the population, but some people fear that the netherlands will be an islamic state within a generation, that they are all thieves, etc. This is a small minority, but many are sympathetic to the simplified ideas.

Such paranoia is created in the people's heads only because of scheming politicos:mad:

The basis for all politicians' success is fear:eek: .

That's right, fear. Why do you think Le Pen qualified
Why do you think JAques Chirac won?
Why do you think the BJP wins after every round of communal violence in INdia?

In fact, in the Star Wars saga, George Lucas points out that the Republic becomes the cruel Empire, partly because of the fear of being defeated by the Trade confed. Most autocratic rulers play on the people's fears, mainly racial and immigration , to justify their rule and show to the people that they are the only ones who can provide a solution.

Multi-cultural has NOTHING in common with multi-racial;
although many people with strong anti-immigration or
strong pro-immigration views thoroughly confuse them.

Race is in your genetic code; it is what you inherit,
store in your cells and pass on if you have children.

You have absolutely no choice about your race!


Culture is what you learn, store in your brain and teach.

Culture is very much down to you personally!


Europe has always been multi-cultural; despite a
number of threats:


Roman Empire: impose mono-culture of Latin, roman gods,
currency, law and entertainment (such as gladiators).

Roman Catholic Church: impose mono-culture of
medieval latin and centrally planned religious
thought with unmarried men only clergy

Adolph Hitler: impose mono nazi culture of three classes
Germans = first
Jews, gypsies and blacks = soap (as in Holocaust),
others = serf, servant, worker class.

Americans: everyone to think like the Americans

Islamic: everyone should be islamic


At the moment Europe is dually threatened by American
(entertainment, financial, IPR, linguistic threat) and Islamic
(colonisation, proclamation and consolidation) cultures.


I believe on balance that multi-culturalism is declining.

... excluding mines of course ;).

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Multi-cultural has NOTHING in common with multi-racial;


In fact multiculturalism has little to do with imigration also ... :)


Culture is what you learn, store in your brain and teach.

Culture is very much down to you personally!


You're not right at this point - culture is extremely related with a community in which you live and where a person learn many things - almost all in fact !!


Europe has always been multi-cultural; despite a
number of threats:


In fact Europe was the most prolific culture-generator place on Earth !! ;)


At the moment Europe is dually threatened by American
(entertainment, financial, IPR, linguistic threat)


Except entertainement issue and after this ( which some reserves ) the linguistic threat the difference between European and American culture are only superficial ... My opinion is this is not a conflict of cultures - is a conflict of (super)powers !!
BTW - what is IPR ??


I believe on balance that multi-culturalism is declining.

May you be more precisely ??

Regards

IPR is an abbreviation for Intellectual Property Rights

IPR includes Author's Rights, CopyRight, Patents
Protection of Designs and Trade Marks etc.

The concept has been extended by the Americans who
like to think that they can own ideas and your genes.

Sodak,the problem is that many children of immigrants don't wanna be with "natives" and want to stay with children of immigrants from the same nation.
There's a real problem about that in France,especially with Algerians(2 million people) because there was a bloody war between France and Algeria that ended 40 years ago.Many algerian people hate France.In sub-urban french quarters,a minority rules and the police doesn't wanna go there anymore.
Although it's only a minority of 10%,there are about 6,000 people in a sub-urban quarter n that makes 600 people messing up the whole quarter every day,90% not wanting to go out cos they fear em.Cars r burnt, there's piss in the elevator etc.Many people are pissed off n this is beneficial to far-right,wanting "everything for the state",nationalist n bigoted and moreover i think far-right can't deal with the prob.Le Pen would have placed cops in good places so that the figures dealing with criminality sink.Anyways,everytime french people go the wrong way,giving the whole power to the state instead of voting for people talkin about giving counter-power.Socialists made a wrong socialism.
There are real problems about temporary jobs.Young people don't work or sign for an underpayed job for 5 years(system created to make the figures of unemployment lower).The govt created centers designed to re-educate deliquents.There are about 20 centers in France with 5 places each one n one educater for each delinquent(who doesn't listen).Are there only 100 guys burning cars in France?I don't think so.In Strasbourg,there's 1 burnt car/500 inhabitants every year.
I think europe should take example on Switzerland but it's not what's being done :mad:

Originally posted by Damien
Many algerian people hate France.


Interesting post ...
They hate french for the war or for their actual condition ?


moreover i think far-right can't deal with the prob.Le Pen would have placed cops in good places so that the figures dealing with criminality sink.....Socialists made a wrong socialism.


Intersting words - may you be more detalied ?

Regards

I think they hate France because of the war.French and others live in sub-urban quarters too.It always makes me mad when i hear"they have nothing to do;that's y they burn cars;to spend time".U think 90% of the people living in HLM(12 floor-towers in France) make a party in the hall n 10% burn cars because they don't like the music?The former generations had nothing to do as well and didn't burn cars to spend time.
About what i call wrong socialism;i've explained it.Socialists should've cared about giving young people real jobs n about education than creating centers with 5 places each one.