Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Quackers]

Sane people think multiculturalism is no problem. You see no problem your sane everybody else is crazy insane.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hard to understand the leftists on this thread

Would you like us to use smaller words?

 

[JollyRoger]

Would you like us to use smaller words?

Press 1 for Leftist Englush, 2 for Rightist English, 3 for Spanish

 

[Japanrocks12]

Sane people think multiculturalism is no problem. You see no problem your sane everybody else is crazy insane.

I broke it down for you. The people that oppose multiculturalism on some purely ideological principle either have extreme views to the left or to the right and are usually arguing against multiculturalism in bad faith. I guess I shouldn't have used the word "sane," but perhaps "not extreme" would have worked better.

This is not true of you if "multiculturalism" is just another bogeyman for you to attack and gain political cred.

 

[NYHunter]

Government should manage whatever the people want it to manage.

Yes, that's the core of democracy. So?

 

[Bill3000]

So opposing multiculturalism is xenophobia. Bravo keep the flow and debate of ideas going!

It's not that, it's that it's a code word.

 

[Gustave5436]

So opposing multiculturalism is xenophobia. Bravo keep the flow and debate of ideas going!

"I oppose multiculturalism" is a euphemistic way of saying "I don't like dark skinned people/women/gays/[insert minority group of choice here]."

Disliking people for being different from you is the very definition of xenophobia. It's an objective fact, not a slur which lowers the quality of public discourse. That role is played by the multiculturalism "controversy" itself.

 

[Japanrocks12]

On the face of it, muticulturalism is such an unoffensive idea that it would be very hard to formulate an emotionally loaded argument against it like the Europeans mentioned in this thread have. That is incredibly suspicious, and suggests that they are actually opposing something else.

 

[Arwon]

And yet, the actual policies that result from this "rejection" of "multiculturalism", both by Labour and Cameron, look very much like the multiculturalist policies they supposedly rejected. As Arwon said, "multicultural policies" manifest themselves as support tailored for immigrant and minority cultures. But that is exactly what Cameron proposes we do anyway -- except this time, he's doing it to abate the radicalisation of Muslim youth. Same set of policies, different brand. Multiculturalism is dead: long live multiculturalism?

This is actually a point worth emphasising in the British case where the same government is also pursuing its "free schools" policy whereby anyone can set up a school if they can get together the money to open one.

If perpetuation of a monoculture can successfully happen anywhere, it's through shared socialisation in a school environment. By allowing school diversity, in particular the existence of private schools (with the Right generally seeking the expansion of private education's scope and diversity), these Right parties are guaranteeing the continuing existence and recognision of particular "communities" within broader society.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So opposing multiculturalism is xenophobia. Bravo keep the flow and debate of ideas going!

What would you label the stance opposite of multiculturalism? Monoculturalism?

Now why would someone want a monolithic culture?

 

[Ajidica]

Now why would someone want a monolithic culture?

Because they don't like Gyros and baclava and want the rest of us to suffer?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Because they don't like Gyros and baclava and want the rest of us to suffer?

I ate both of those about 30 minutes ago!Curses on those who would deprive me of such beauty.

 

[Rashiminos]

Now why would someone want a monolithic culture?

They're technocrats who're fans of ST:tNG?

 

[Ajidica]

That is about the worst interpretation of TNG I have ever heard. The entire friggin show is about respecting all cultures even if you must do things that may not be appealing to you (but you are always saved at the last minute by technobabble or because of Picard's sheer force of will and gravitas.)

 

[Rashiminos]

That is about the worst interpretation of TNG I have ever heard. The entire friggin show is about respecting all cultures even if you must do things that may not be appealing to you (but you are always saved at the last minute by technobabble or because of Picard's sheer force of will and gravitas.)

You may want to think about the first part a little harder. There's a joke hidden somewhere if you're willing to look for it.

 

[Yeekim]

No, it doesn't. That happens when you openly advocate using the power of the majority to intentionally violate the basic rights of the minority, as you and others are doing here.

Please show me where I have advocated violating someone's basic rights.

That rather assumes that the presence of ethnic minorities necessarily leads to the formation of strong and permanent ethnic enclaves, which I am sceptical of. Certainly, that is a common phenomenon with newly arrived immigrant minorities, but it's not something which tends to be sustained for more than a generation or two without external pressure.

I think it mostly assumes steadily increasing number of fresh immigrants. I believe that to be more likely than not, taking into account global population problems and what not.

Even today, only a minority of British Asians live in the "ghettos" portrayed by the xenophobic media, just as very view of the people I went to school with lived on the "Irish streets" that their grand-parents grew up on.

Maybe it is partly owed to the the fact that these groups faced some external pressure to assimilate?

But a society when viewed collectively is not simply the aggregate of individual personalities within it;

That's what I said. Or at least what I think I said?

Somalia is not a ruined country because Somalians are in possession of a culture which necessarily results in self-ruination, but because the history of Somalia, a grandly complex affair, lead them to that point.

Yes, we obviously can´t say that their troubles were caused by them originally having "inferior culture", but rather that their troubles have had a negative effect on their culture, something that can alse be seen in Afghanistan and Chechnya among other places. It can be reversed, but it takes time and is difficult.

But it's roughly proportionate to the Muslims population relative to the overall Asian population of Britain, thus suggesting that isn't a specifically Islamic phenomenon, as many claim it to be.

So we should say it is an "Asian" phenomenon rather than "Islamic" one? Fair enough.

So? These people are merely bigots. Even if they aren't really bigots, that has no bearing on the success/failure of multiculturalism. The failure is not that of multiculturalism, but that of the host country.

That very much resembles claims that communism has never failed, but only and always countries attempting to institute this.

Nope, ethnic nation-states are stupid, and if the language and culture of a nation can't survive in the free market of ideas, it deserves to die, for the same reason an indebted company deserves to fail.

What radical Cultural Darwinism.

The aims of multiculturalism is simply that other cultures, races, religions etc are treated equally under the law, and demands nothing more than that people of other cultures, races and religions follow the law.

Laws are culture-specific themselves, therefore the very existence of laws necessitates elevating principles of one culture over another. The idea that people of all races should be treated equally is pretty culture-specific principle, for example.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Please show me where I have advocated violating someone's basic rights.

You mean in a few recent posts in just this thread, or in all the others as well?

Government should manage whatever the people want it to manage.

Once again, not when their basic rights are being deliberately violated.

In reference to deliberately excluding some minorities:

A policy does not become "tyranny" merely because it is endorsed by majority. Also, one is shielded from becoming an oppressed minority if s/he is preventively kept out of the country.

I beg to differ. At least when those practices are not merely "backward", but potentially violent as well.

You don't think that "preventatively" keeping an ethnic group out a country isn't violating their rights simply because you personally think they are "potentially violent"?

If the number of such "backwards" people grows too large, this change needs not occur, as they: 1) "bring their society with them" and 2) become too many to be effectively lifted out of material poverty.

You don't think that characterizing an entire religion with over 1 billion members as being "backwards" so you can exclude them isn't violating their rights?

You don't seem to care at all about their inalienable rights to live their lives in peace in any European country in which they now live, especially your own. This is news to you?

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, that's the core of democracy. So?

So if people wish government to manage culture then that is what it should do. Even ignoring that "culture" is about as all-encompassing term as you can get. Absolutely everything a government could do has a culture-related aspect/impact.

"I oppose multiculturalism" is a euphemistic way of saying "I don't like dark skinned people/women/gays/[insert minority group of choice here]."

Yeah, and "I am an anarchist" is an euphemistic way of saying "I'd like to loot and rape without that pesky government stopping me".

Disliking people for being different from you is the very definition of xenophobia.

And putting words into other peoples' mouths so you could ignore their actual points and apply your preconceived ideas is the very definition of narrowmindedness and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Leonel]

Because they don't like Gyros and baclava and want the rest of us to suffer?

You anti-multicultural jackboots will have to pry those Gyros, Thai Iced Tea and Turkish coffee from my cold, dead hands!

 

[Yeekim]

You don't think that "preventatively" keeping an ethnic group out a country isn't violating their rights simply because you personally think they are "potentially violent"?

1) I think all decisions should be made by case-to-case basis, not according to ethnicity. Arguments that would support keeping an ethnic Somali without basic education or language skills out of country, would not apply to one with a degree from Harvard. Also, please don't use "ethnicity" and "culture" interchangeably.
2) There is no such thing as "right to settle where you please", never mind "basic" right.

You don't think that characterizing an entire religion with over 1 billion members as being "backwards" so you can exclude them isn't violating their rights?

I did no such thing. I wrote "backwards people" and I meant "backwards people" and not "Muslims". Coincidentally, there is a partial overlap between those groups, but I have never implied they are synonomous. And I have quite clearly expressed this in this thread as well.

You don't seem to care at all about their inalienable rights to live their lives in peace in any European country in which they now live, especially your own. This is news to you?

Their right to "live where they already live" and its "inalienability" depends entirely on their legal status in said country and whether they are for example citizens or illegal immigrants. Please stop making big words entirely without any substance.
Yes, hypothetically, if there were people who practice cutting off noses of their women living next to me, I would insist on interrupting that activity. That was the example of things I find disturbing I brought in this thread, so I assume that is what you are having problems with?