German multicultural society "has failed" -- Chancellor Merkel

Yeekim said:
I am sorry if I misunderstood you - you seemed to be insinuating tht there were no remarkable cultural differences between Barbados and Haiti. So you think the biggest problem is the capacity of host country, (presumably, as in availability of literal space and natural resources)?
Very well. Say we want to move 1.5 million Haitians to New Zealand. This will leave their population density comfortably around 22 people/sqkm.
Click to expand...

Um, obviously the process of admitting 1.5 million people immediately on top of people from other countries who are immigrating to New Zealand would more than strain the administrative capacity of the host country. If, say, it happens on a more realistic time scale (of, I don't know, maybe a few decades?), then of course it becomes a question of just how tolerant New Zealanders are about living with a large number of people who come from another country and who have a different culture.

Perhaps the overall cultural make up of New Zealand would change quite drastically (but not immediately, since they won't be admitting 1.5 million people on such a short time span). I don't think that in itself poses a problem, unless you are implying that Haitians and Haitian culture are negative by default. However, it is also likely - perhaps more likely - that the different cultures will fuse together quite a lot in the middle, creating a new section of immigrants who are not New Zealanders circa the time when the immigrants had not arrived, but who are nevertheless shaped by the environment of the host country they live in. And if it's a good tolerant environment, then I don't see why there has to be some sort of inherent incompatibility between the immigrant culture and the host country's culture.

Also,

aelf said:
PS: Also, quite typically you try to shift a debate about multiculturalism and tolerance towards a more economic one about immigration. No wonder you think there is some sort of objective data analysis to be done. Instead of tolerance, we're talking capitalism here. Frankly, it's unsurprising coming from one of those who like to quantify everything, whether or not they are actually quantifiable by themselves without some sort of obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Basically, there are two quite distinct questions: immigration and living with people who have already migrated to your country. I believe multiculturalism relates more to the latter, while the former is mostly an economic question of labour policy and perhaps resources. This is also why I'm not interested in some sort of massive immigration hypothetical and more inclined to consider a situation more reflective of existing immigration trends (barring some catastrophic war or disaster).

I am, however, not a fan of very restrictive immigration, as that tends to keep people out on principle, whether or not they are actually potentially valuable citizens.
 
OK fine, Yeekim. What are some "detrimental" customs that are not illegal, that migrants should be stopped from doing?
 
Arwon said:
OK fine, Yeekim. What are some "detrimental" customs that are not illegal, that migrants should be stopped from doing?
Click to expand...
As I said, in this context, "detrimental" should be interchangeable with "hostile". So kindly refer to my original answer.
 
Next time, you should try to pick things which are actual foreign customs which actual foreign people do, as opposed to traits which individuals have, including locals.
 
aelf said:
Um, obviously the process of admitting 1.5 million people immediately on top of people from other countries who are immigrating to New Zealand would more than strain the administrative capacity of the host country. If, say, it happens on a more realistic time scale (of, I don't know, maybe a few decades?), then of course it becomes a question of just how tolerant New Zealanders are about living with a large number of people who come from another country and who have a different culture.
Click to expand...
Even supposing that New Zealanders were the most tolerant people on Earth, they'd still need to deal with a huge number of people who'd would need extensive education, both "formal" and "cultural", before they stopped being a drain on economy and started to actually create net benefits. Their large numbers would make the assimilation even more difficult, as they'd be likely to form ghettos, where their ignorance and poverty would only breed more of the same. These are the problems that would hardly be there, if we spoke of same amount of extra Irish or Welsh. And the problems, as you yourself mentioned, would be related to the culture of Haitians, not their skin color or peculiarities of diet - but simply "being tolerant" would not be enough to cure them.
aelf said:
... And if it's a good tolerant environment, then I don't see why there has to be some sort of inherent incompatibility between the immigrant culture and the host country's culture.
Click to expand...
There exists no "inherent incompatibility" in the sense that everyone can be assimilated (provided they remain minority, I guess) - but it would be an ordeal noone sane would willingly undertake.
aelf said:
Basically, there are two quite distinct questions: immigration and living with people who have already migrated to your country. I believe multiculturalism relates more to the latter, while the former is mostly an economic question of labour policy and perhaps resources. This is also why I'm not interested in some sort of massive immigration hypothetical and more inclined to consider a situation more reflective of existing immigration trends (barring some catastrophic war or disaster).

I am, however, not a fan of very restrictive immigration, as that tends to keep people out on principle, whether or not they are actually potentially valuable citizens.
Click to expand...
The answer is quite simple: if you want people to remain tolerant of minorities, do not strain the limits of their tolerance by ballooning these minorities in size.
 
Yeekim said:
Even supposing that New Zealanders were the most tolerant people on Earth, they'd still need to deal with a huge number of people who'd would need extensive education, both "formal" and "cultural", before they stopped being a drain on economy and started to actually create net benefits.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure things work in Estonia, but, in most First World nations, immigrants come to work, mostly in menial jobs that "natives" can't or won't perform, and contribute to the economy from very early on. Do you really believe that the Bourgeoisie would tolerate economically destructive immigration for the sake of mere compassion? :huh:
 
Yeekim said:
Even supposing that New Zealanders were the most tolerant people on Earth, they'd still need to deal with a huge number of people who'd would need extensive education, both "formal" and "cultural", before they stopped being a drain on economy and started to actually create net benefits. Their large numbers would make the assimilation even more difficult, as they'd be likely to form ghettos, where their ignorance and poverty would only breed more of the same. These are the problems that would hardly be there, if we spoke of same amount of extra Irish or Welsh. And the problems, as you yourself mentioned, would be related to the culture of Haitians, not their skin color or peculiarities of diet - but simply "being tolerant" would not be enough to cure them.
Click to expand...

And presumably New Zealanders don't need education? And what exactly is "cultural" education? I just don't see why differences in culture really matter outside of common sense things such as being able to maintain socially adequate hygiene, orderly behaviour and etc.

To begin with, I simply can't quite conceive of a large minority being a monolithic bloc without differences in age, education, skills and temperament within it. Not every immigrant needs to be educated. At realistic levels of immigration, picking up the host country's operational language is a simple enough affair with active government participation. Even if the process is slow or incomplete, it's still far from being inherently problematic. To call it "education" would be to exaggerate to make the task sound difficult. As for the young, they need education just like any young local.

Yeekim said:
There exists no "inherent incompatibility" in the sense that everyone can be assimilated (provided they remain minority, I guess) - but it would be an ordeal noone sane would willingly undertake.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to be "assimilated"? What does that mean anyway? And why must a minority remain a minority? The last, most importantly, is what no one has been able to explain satisfactorily. Usually, the arguments boil down to the fear of losing their culture to foreign 'invasion'. Well, then take steps to preserve your own culture? Why must you be given a handout for something you ought to do yourself if you cherish your customs? The thing about multiculturalism is it allows you to retain your culture, even if it would not remain static, whether you're a minority or a majority.

Yeekim said:
The answer is quite simple: if you want people to remain tolerant of minorities, do not strain the limits of their tolerance by ballooning these minorities in size.
Click to expand...

If you're only tolerant of something you can easily dominate and suppress then I guess you're just not tolerant?
 
Yes, Maori are super tolerant. Although, I don't know why we tolerate disgusting smelly Europeans when we could have superior Asians or Pacific Island immigrants instead. Really, we should never have accepted the Europeans in the first place. What a lazy bunch of dole bludger smelly thieving scum.
 
Really, we should never have accepted the Europeans in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well, that statement is indeed true. New Zealand is primarily a European country now.
Same with the Amerindians. They didn't pay too much attention to immigrants from overseas - and look where it landed them.
 
I guess we should watch out for Haitians and their weapons of mass destruction.

On an amusing note, the people so haughtily talking about the need to educate immigrants would have been talking about the need to educate the natives if they lived in the era of colonisation. It's not so much about the practicality of integrating newcomers as about a racial or cultural superiority complex.
 
They took paradise and turned it into a dysotopian nightmare.



aelf said:
On an amusing note, the people so haughtily talking about the need to educate immigrants would have been talking about the need to educate the natives if they were transposed to the era of colonisation.
Click to expand...

No, their all disgusting filthy immigrant scum who need to be sent home to protect the children from their filthy ape-like culture (fancy taking a dump in your own home) and stupid crotch coddling undergarments. What a disgusting bunch of people Europeans are. Absolutely filthy.
 
Article. From Crikey, an Aussie news and politics website

It's always dangerous to assume that translation is unproblematic: that words and concepts mean the same in one community as they do in another. Failure to allow for the change in context can result in misleading conclusions -- as with the widely reported remarks of German chancellor Angela Merkel on the weekend that multicultural policies have "utterly failed".

Ironically enough, the translation out of German is the least of the problems. The word Merkel used, "multi-kulti", is a common shortening of the more formal "multikulturalismus"; either way, "multiculturalism" is the obvious English equivalent. But the English word itself is so freighted with ambiguity that debate can quickly descend into meaninglessness unless care is taken to work out just what people are talking about.

In the context of a settler society such as Australia, we have at least a rough idea what multiculturalism involves. It signals giving up the attempt to impose the culture of a particular ethnic group -- the first settlers, in our case the British -- on all newcomers. Settler societies typically start out as outposts of the mother country's culture, but that status becomes more and more unrealistic as ethnic diversity grows and the old monoculture comes to appear increasingly "foreign" and outdated.

Eventually those societies develop an autonomous cultural identity of their own, which subsumes to a greater or lesser extent the immigrant cultures that have contributed to it. Societies where the distinct cultures remain very much alive may describe themselves as "multicultural", while those that stress the common identity more may refer to a "melting pot", but the difference is a matter of degree, and in all cases it is more informative to look at the actual policies and their results rather than the words used to describe them.

A country like Germany, however, is in a very different position. There, the idea that anyone can become a citizen without sharing a particular ethno-cultural identity is still new and revolutionary.

Wherever it takes place, the debate about multiculturalism usually turns out to be a debate about immigration. But whereas countries like Australia are built on immigration, large-scale immigration in Europe is mostly or recent origins, and many European countries are having difficulty with its implications.

For many years, Germany was one of the least hospitable places for immigrants in western Europe. Although it welcomed foreign workers -- particularly from Turkey -- they were only intended to be temporary residents: they lived separately from the ethnic Germans, it was difficult for them to bring families with them and almost impossible for those without German heritage to become citizens.

While those policies have changed, they have left a legacy of division and ill-feeling. But attempts to overcome that are very much a two-edged sword: they hold out the prospect of genuine integration (with considerable success in recent years), but they also involve making it explicit that the "foreigners" are there to stay and therefore arousing the xenophobia that most countries harbor somewhere beneath the surface - including its fashionable new form, anti-Muslim bigotry.

Merkel is pro-immigration and pro-integration, but she heads a centre-right party with its fair share of scaremongers on the issue. It seems she was trying -- perhaps with a degree of clumsiness -- to tell them that the old cold-hearted tolerance of immigrants was a dead end and that it's time to start treating them not as Turks but as Germans.

In saying multiculturalism has failed, Merkel was making what in the German context is a valid and important point. But in the way we use the term -- as a genuine acceptance of immigrants and their associated cultures -- it would be much more correct to say that the Germans haven't yet given it a real try.
Click to expand...
 
This is a very important point that the article Arwon posted makes. Turkish immigrants didn't arrive naturally or illegally, but were dedicatedly sought out in government deals. Most of the workers were chosen from poor rural areas and rotated every few years as to remain outside the society. Integration was specifically not intended. It took a while before it became obvious that the workers would be needed in longer term periods. At that point however it seems obvious that an immedeate transition on the side of the immigrants was going to become problematic aswell.
 
There's a lot of racism in Europe. It's a common idea that people of different skin colour can't be "real" Germans or French etc. They'll always be immigrants.
 
Moonbat said:
There's a lot of racism in Europe. It's a common idea that people of different skin colour can't be "real" Germans or French etc. They'll always be immigrants.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I said before it's for more or less the same reason that a white man can't become an apache by moving to an apache reservation.
 
[...]
 
Last edited:
Moonbat said:
There's a lot of racism in Europe. It's a common idea that people of different skin colour can't be "real" Germans or French etc. They'll always be immigrants.
Click to expand...
Common, but hardly universal. The conflict between ethnic and civic nationalism in Europe is an old one. (In Britain, in particular, "British" is an identity treated rather more liberally than English, Scottish, etc. It's an essentially constructed identity, after all.)
 
Lillefix said:
Yes, and as I said before it's for more or less the same reason that a white man can't become an apache by moving to an apache reservation.
Click to expand...

being a german is dependant on the state of germany handing you a piece of paper that proves you are.

i dont know about apache reservations, but this is most probably not the case there, so i can see why the line would be blurry.
 
holy king said:
being a german is dependant on the state of germany handing you a piece of paper that proves you are.

i dont know about apache reservations, but this is most probably not the case there, so i can see why the line would be blurry.
Click to expand...
I, and many others, feel that this is the wrong way to define a German. That is the crux of the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
16K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
Birdjaguar
Global Strategies for Dominance
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
AdamCrock
AdamCrock
Shadowbound
The Heart of Darkness
Replies
12
Views
2K
Ahigin
Ahigin
need my speed
Wrath of the AI
Replies
7
Views
823
Quintillus
Quintillus
cosmicmangobear
Contemporary World Leaders
Replies
3
Views
929
PhoenicianGold
PhoenicianGold
Top Bottom