Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Sveon]

You still don't get it do you? They are not imported means of production, they are refugees.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You still don't get it do you? They are not imported means of production, they are refugees.

Of course I get it. If the refugees won't start producing they'll be a burden on society and we will help less refugees in the future. It's as simple as that. Socialists often fail to see the larger picture... From what I understand, there will be more refugees coming, not less.

The fault is still the view of the multicultural society as something that will increase production and innovation no matter what. It's only true if you take the cream. We aren't which is why new integration policies are needed.

 

[Traitorfish]

The fault is still the view of the multicultural society as something that will increase production and innovation no matter what.

I don't believe that anyone every claimed that multiculturalism would, in itself, spur production, merely that it would not hamper it, or at least not to such an extent as to cancel out the increase in production offered by the enlarged workforce.

 

[Arwon]

Of course I get it. If the refugees won't start producing they'll be a burden on society and we will help less refugees in the future. It's as simple as that. Socialists often fail to see the larger picture... From what I understand, there will be more refugees coming, not less.

The fault is still the view of the multicultural society as something that will increase production and innovation no matter what. It's only true if you take the cream. We aren't which is why new integration policies are needed.

Firstly, that view of multiculturalism is a ludicrous strawman. Multicultural policy exists because societies are diverse due to migration and therefore people of different backgrounds need to be welcomed and supported. It makes no normative claims about productivity. That's your burden-pushing, and I note that it's shifted since the earlier claims about multiculturalism wrecking societies - now it's narrowed down to refugees (guess you're okay with more and more foreigners getting work and family entry, that's progress!). And now you're demanding refugees immediately start contributing economically instead of merely not wrecking the host culture. Which I suppose illustrates that you can't point to any concrete cultural demands or policies you'd like to see enacted, as per my earlier challenge to name an actual change you'd like to see.

And of course talking about productivity is, you know, totally missing the point of refugee settlement.

Besides which, what makes you think refugee group X won't end up adjusting like every other group ends up doing so. People are just people, living their lives, trying to support their kids and scratch out an existance. They're not some monolithic bloc of welfare cheating criminal scum.

I admit I didn't study Australian situation extensively and based my claim on this article from the beginning of last year.

Might be the author has intentionally shrinked the numbers to better serve his point, or simply that your intake has significantly grown this past year.

The war in Sri Lanka intensified and ended over the last year. 7000 is the cumulative figure since Labor took power, just like 4500 was at an earlier time.

The politics of "boat people" is almost totally different to the policies of mass migration, although some sad idiots get them confused. Put simply, the major parties' treatment of asylum-seekers in boats and the rhetoric they use is grotesque and fearmongering. Boat arrivals do not get the same rights as people seeking asylum after having flown here, successive governments have deliberately manouvered to exclude them from legal due process. The opposition always make a point of calling them "illegal boats" (it is legal to seek asylum) and I have seen newspaper columnists attacking the Labor government for being soft because they don't automatically expel boat-borne asylum seekers, instead they dare to follow the UN Convention on Refugees (shock, horror!). It's political cowardice, and an utter misreading of what happened in an election a decade ago under very specific circumstances which has now convinced both parties they must be "tough on boat people".

It is one of this country's great shames, and it stands in complete and utter contrast to the attitude to migration and other cultures more generally (in the same time that this trickle of boat people has arrived and gotten such disproportionate political attention, Australia has re-settled millions under humanitarian visas and family and work entries).

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I shall clarify. I do not wish for total assimilation nor do I think that any one group is superior to another. I do not believe, however, that you have a right to come to my country and tell me to adapt to your views and your society you should adapt to the society you live in NOT the other way around. Multiculturalism want's the society to adapt to YOU however. Any body here hear the story about the kids in new mexico who were not allowed to wear their American flag shirts to school on Cinco de Maio?

As for the Muslim take over comment. Really? Muslims aren't taking over in europe then why can't my friend go out of doors without a veil and a male relation, without getting beat up by Muslim gangs? Why are you having to deal with being "Culturally sensitive" to them when they won't be to you? It may not be an invasion in the modern sense but in the ancient sense of assimilation by another culture it is very very real. Imagine for example that each population point in a city in civ was linked to a specific civ based on culture, now given the Euro birthrate in effect the europeans ARE NEVER GAINING A EURO POPULATION POINT, europe barley meets replacement. As time goes by the amount of Islamists rise and once they out number the Europeans we will se a Muslim Europe. That ain't good. Just sayin'.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Firstly, that view of multiculturalism is a ludicrous strawman.

At least now you deal with it. So, in what way was multiculturalism expected to be a success where it presumably now has failed? Better food? Less genetic disease? Of course it's supposed to make the nation more competitive.

Multicultural policy exists because societies are diverse due to migration and therefore people of different backgrounds need to be welcomed and supported. It makes no normative claims about productivity. That's your burden-pushing

It's always been praised as something admirable, not for altruistic reasons, but for economic or political. That people need to be welcomed and supported is a no-brainer.

and I note that it's shifted since the earlier claims about multiculturalism wrecking societies

Feel free to quote me.

- now it's narrowed down to refugees (guess you're okay with more and more foreigners getting work and family entry, that's progress!). And now you're demanding refugees immediately start contributing economically instead of merely not wrecking the host culture. Which I suppose illustrates that you can't point to any concrete cultural demands or policies you'd like to see enacted, as per my earlier challenge to name an actual change you'd like to see.

I haven't changed my views and I've not made any demands. You, and a bunch of people here, like those strawmans, they can give you that righteous feeling if you're able to project another poster as anti-refugee or whatever. You being the good guy and all...
Why would I come up with any concrete cultural demands or policies, you obviously already have the perfect multicultural society where everyone's contributing at an equal basis. Congrats! (..if you happen to have any issues, make sure you keep quiet about them, it may be racist to voice them)

And of course talking about productivity is, you know, totally missing the point of refugee settlement.

In the real world, productivity is something important. Refugee settlement is supposed to be a one time event, integration to the society is supposed to take place over a few years and in the end contribution to the society. In general.

Besides which, what makes you think refugee group X won't end up adjusting like every other group ends up doing so. People are just people, living their lives, trying to support their kids and scratch out an existance. They're not some monolithic bloc of welfare cheating criminal scum.

I guess that's the question - if this happen - refugee group X adjusts, there's no issue, multiculturalism just works out and everyone contributes to society. If not - refugee group X (Y or Z) does not adjust, the cost increases massively and politicians feel obliged to state that the multicultural society has failed.

 

[Babbler]

As for the Muslim take over comment. Really? Muslims aren't taking over in europe then why can't my friend go out of doors without a veil and a male relation, without getting beat up by Muslim gangs? Why are you having to deal with being "Culturally sensitive" to them when they won't be to you? It may not be an invasion in the modern sense but in the ancient sense of assimilation by another culture it is very very real. Imagine for example that each population point in a city in civ was linked to a specific civ based on culture, now given the Euro birthrate in effect the europeans ARE NEVER GAINING A EURO POPULATION POINT, europe barley meets replacement. As time goes by the amount of Islamists rise and once they out number the Europeans we will se a Muslim Europe. That ain't good. Just sayin'.

It's probably the case that those kinds of problems exist only in urban districts (=ghettos) with a high degree of immigrants and first-generation people. If you probably move to another district with a different population mix, you probably get away from that problem. The serious demographic projections I've show that within the next twenty to fifty year the Muslim populations in European countries will probably top out around 10-20%. So, it's not that big a deal. Really, with just a little tack and deft policy management will probably deal will with the problem.

Also, it's stupid to compare civ mechanics to real life, given that those mechanics are geared toward producing a fun experience rather than verisimilitude. Just sayin'

 

[Traitorfish]

I shall clarify. I do not wish for total assimilation nor do I think that any one group is superior to another. I do not believe, however, that you have a right to come to my country and tell me to adapt to your views and your society you should adapt to the society you live in NOT the other way around. Multiculturalism want's the society to adapt to YOU however.

I would contest this; I see multiculturalism as the mutual pursuit of peaceful co-existence and integration, and I think that turning it into a tug-of-war, as you seem to do, only increases conflict. Co-existence is not a zero sum game which you are entitled to win.
Nor do I think that the principals of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect are uniquely appropriate to integrating communities of starkly differing ethnic background, but also apply to subcultures and to relatively similar ethnicities- they applies (from a generic British perspective) as much to goths and to Scots as it does to Pakistanis.

Any body here hear the story about the kids in new mexico who were not allowed to wear their American flag shirts to school on Cinco de Maio?

That was because they were risking provoking violence, not because the school authorities disapproved of the flag in and of itself.

As for the Muslim take over comment. Really? Muslims aren't taking over in europe then why can't my friend go out of doors without a veil and a male relation, without getting beat up by Muslim gangs?

Probably for the same reason that people from my Catholic school used to get beaten up by Protestants: some people are jerks. It doesn't mean the whole group is rotten.

Imagine for example that each population point in a city in civ was linked to a specific civ based on culture, now given the Euro birthrate in effect the europeans ARE NEVER GAINING A EURO POPULATION POINT, europe barley meets replacement. As time goes by the amount of Islamists rise and once they out number the Europeans we will se a Muslim Europe. That ain't good. Just sayin'.

That's the same thing they said about the Irish. And the Jews. And the Caribbeans. We Brits, at least, have been through this about half a dozen times before, and it's never quite turned out the way the caps-lockers (or their contemporary equivalent) said it would.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I do not believe, however, that you have a right to come to my country and tell me to adapt to your views and your society you should adapt to the society you live in NOT the other way around.

So.. everyone is entitled to their view on how to live life, as long as it's your view? Reminds me of Ford and the colours of the Model T.

Multiculturalism want's the society to adapt to YOU however.

So you are multicultural then?

As for the Muslim take over comment. Really? Muslims aren't taking over in europe then why can't my friend go out of doors without a veil and a male relation, without getting beat up by Muslim gangs? Why are you having to deal with being "Culturally sensitive" to them when they won't be to you? It may not be an invasion in the modern sense but in the ancient sense of assimilation by another culture it is very very real. Imagine for example that each population point in a city in civ was linked to a specific civ based on culture, now given the Euro birthrate in effect the europeans ARE NEVER GAINING A EURO POPULATION POINT, europe barley meets replacement. As time goes by the amount of Islamists rise and once they out number the Europeans we will se a Muslim Europe. That ain't good. Just sayin'.

The serious demographic projections I've show that within the next twenty to fifty year the Muslim populations in European countries will probably top out around 10-20%. So, it's not that big a deal. Really, with just a little tack and deft policy management will probably deal will with the problem.

I think that is even largely overestimating in most cases. Maybe it reaches 10% people of non-Western muslim descent. It will by then be the fourth, fifth or even sixth generation though. Most of them will still have darker hair, a bit different skin colour, and maybe honour Ramadan in one way or another. Only few will still fluently speak the language their migrant ancestors spoke, a large part will not actively practice religion anymore, they will get the average 2.1 children per family, and will never be able to really feel at home anyplace else than Europe. That's how it went with almost all migrants everywhere.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that is even largely overestimating in most cases. Maybe it reaches 10% people of non-Western muslim descent. It will by then be the fourth, fifth or even sixth generation though. Most of them will still have darker hair, a bit different skin colour, and maybe honour Ramadan in one way or another. Only few will still fluently speak the language their migrant ancestors spoke, a large part will not actively practice religion anymore, they will get the average 2.1 children per family, and will never be able to really feel at home anyplace else than Europe. That's how it went with almost all migrants everywhere.

And even that's assuming that there'll be no cross-breeding between Europeans and Asians whatsoever, which would offer a rather pessimistic view of our ability to overcome racial hangups. I'm quite sure that, by that point, a good chunk of that 10% will simply be of mixed ancestry.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Most of them can also, unlike Loppan and Gabryel, distinguish between a refugee and a labour immigrant.

That's what I'd like to believe too. Ever since this populist-right thing started taking off a decade ago, I keep getting disappointed more and more in my countrymen and politicians. Sure, we aren't Scandinavia, but it's not that different at all. To top populism, although nothing to do with migrants, the liberals (which is right wing in our terminology) have now pledged to raise the maximum speed from 120km/h to 130km/h on various places in the country... the maximum distance where this is allowed, is about 15km long.. the maximum time saved on a normal drive is 29 seconds...our Liberals used to be ashamed of actually proposing such a thing, otherwise only joking about driving fast with their porches.

And even that's assuming that there'll be no cross-breeding between Europeans and Asians whatsoever, which would offer a rather pessimistic view of our ability to overcome racial hangups. I'm quite sure that, by that point, a good chunk of that 10% will simply be of mixed ancestry.

Very true, sir. Thank you for expanding. To be honest, I think the current might be about the last generation that marries predominantly within the own nationality. (in Holland its mainly Northern Africans and Turks though).

 

[Arwon]

Countries do not, and should not, grant asylum seekers and refugee resettlement based on their utility value. Traumatised, desperate, brutalised people will never meet that utility calculation.

That's why the Refugee Convention exists - states were agreeing to share the burden of helping refugees, recognising that it takes money, resources, time and effort to resettle them. Most rich countries don't do enough, and the UN processing procedures are woefully inadequate, but the principle still stands.

The argument that "they have to become productive quickly" is functionally the same as "we should repudiate the Refugee Convention and stop granting humanitarian visas."

 

[Babbler]

I think that is even largely overestimating in most cases. Maybe it reaches 10% people of non-Western muslim descent.

Okay, I agree. Mea culpa. I misremember my sources - here and here. 10% is probably a more reasonable ceiling for European Muslim populations within the 21st century.

It will by then be the fourth, fifth or even sixth generation though. Most of them will still have darker hair, a bit different skin colour, and maybe honour Ramadan in one way or another. Only few will still fluently speak the language their migrant ancestors spoke, a large part will not actively practice religion anymore, they will get the average 2.1 children per family, and will never be able to really feel at home anyplace else than Europe. That's how it went with almost all migrants everywhere.

And even that's assuming that there'll be no cross-breeding between Europeans and Asians whatsoever, which would offer a rather pessimistic view of our ability to overcome racial hangups. I'm quite sure that, by that point, a good chunk of that 10% will simply be of mixed ancestry.

Well maybe. Six or seven generations is a long time, and events could radically change the picture. The biggest factor is probably whether the European majority population is willing to accept newcomers. It seems to be doing a fair (if not very good) job at it, but I think, say, an even worse economic crisis could trigger a new round of populist nationalism, for example.

 

[aelf]

At least 6% of Swedes are. The less vocal 94% voted for sustained or expanded immigration. Most of them can also, unlike Loppan and Gabryel, distinguish between a refugee and a labour immigrant.

Gosh, you wouldn't believe how reassuring that is!

Indeed!

Noone in their right mind gives any importance to the question where somebody shops, what cuisine he prefers, what music he listens to or what holidays he celebrates and I don't think I've ever seen anyone in this forum who has said these things are important - so why even bring these strawmen up?

So what's all this talk about ruining the host country's culture, then? Is that a topic of discussion that the anti-multiculturalists have abandoned and are now labeling as a field of strawmen? Well, as Arwon said, I guess that's progress.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

America has been a larger threat to the Dutch culture than any Islamic influence by judging those factors.

 

[Yeekim]

So what's all this talk about ruining the host country's culture, then? Is that a topic of discussion that the anti-multiculturalists have abandoned and are now labeling as a field of strawmen? Well, as Arwon said, I guess that's progress.

So you think that most important parts of "culture" are cuisine preferences and shopping/dressing habits?

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well maybe. Six or seven generations is a long time, and events could radically change the picture. The biggest factor is probably whether the European majority population is willing to accept newcomers. It seems to be doing a fair (if not very good) job at it, but I think, say, an even worse economic crisis could trigger a new round of populist nationalism, for example.

True, it's hard to predict of course. History does provide us with some 'leads' though. Migration is of all times. In the 16th and 17th century the Netherlands were flooded with Spanish, French and Portuguese religious refugees.. apart from the purely 'economic refugees'. Now all that is left is a nice building here and there (Portuguese Synagogue) and some slightly out of place surnames (De La Mar).

I'm not an authority on this, but as a person from mixed descent I can see the 'degradation' of cultural identity. My grandma was Sudetengerman. I barely understand the dialect. I do speak German, but doubt that my children will ever attain the same level without actually living there or me talking German to them all the time.. which would harm their Dutch (since their potential mother would speak to them in Portuguese). That's a shame, but it the grand scheme of things it's not always so bad that cultural identity is lost so quickly.

 

[aelf]

So you think that most important parts of "culture" are cuisine preferences and shopping/dressing habits?

No one has defined what they mean by "culture" here, so what am I supposed to think? I don't see how these immigrants are a threat to liberalism or anything like that. Also, these banal practices and preferences actually do constitute a large part of culture (as fairly major elements of lifeworlds). Take that from someone who has had to go through awful classes on cultural studies.

 

[Traitorfish]

And preferred attire certainly seems to have formed a major plank in the Islamophobic platforms of the European xenophobes. The French didn't ban the burqa because they were worried it could be used to transport suicide-bombing Lilliputians.

 

[Quackers]

That is agressive secularism something you should really be a fan of TF?