Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Cashie]

I think there's an ingrained Old-World and New-World separation that makes it difficult to compare multiculturalism in Australia or the Americas to multiculturalism in Europe or even Asia.
The USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are all considered multicultural nations, all bred out of British (and other European) colonialism where the native populations were exterminated or marginalised to varying degrees.

European countries, on the other hand, especially the ones which used to have empires, feel threatened about the idea of losing their identities - the fear, I think is that the could walk down a busy London (or Paris or wherever) and not see a single white face. Which is played on here, to varying extents, too - never mind that Australia is microscopically young country in real terms and whitey only arrived 220-odd years ago, and that we virtually destroyed the occupants (succeeding in Tasmania). A joke I used to hear was about going to Cabramatta and playing "Spot the Aussie".

Assimilation is not something I endorse. Sure, I consider myself Australian and not British, Irish Scottish or whatever other Old Country might have spawned my brood; mainly because I see no great merit in pretending I'm anything but where I'm from. I could legitimately pull the classic line on St Paddy's Day, but it doesn't phase me.

One of my cousins is married to an Afro-Colombian lady and they have a dark-skinned son: no effing problem. If anything, I'm jealous that he's going to grow up bilingual.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think there's an ingrained Old-World and New-World separation that makes it difficult to compare multiculturalism in Australia or the Americas to multiculturalism in Europe or even Asia.
The USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are all considered multicultural nations, all bred out of British (and other European) colonialism where the native populations were exterminated or marginalised to varying degrees.

European countries, on the other hand, especially the ones which used to have empires, feel threatened about the idea of losing their identities - the fear, I think is that the could walk down a busy London (or Paris or wherever) and not see a single white face. Which is played on here, to varying extents, too - never mind that Australia is microscopically young country in real terms and whitey only arrived 220-odd years ago, and that we virtually destroyed the occupants (succeeding in Tasmania). A joke I used to hear was about going to Cabramatta and playing "Spot the Aussie".

Assimilation is not something I endorse. Sure, I consider myself Australian and not British, Irish Scottish or whatever other Old Country might have spawned my brood; mainly because I see no great merit in pretending I'm anything but where I'm from. I could legitimately pull the classic line on St Paddy's Day, but it doesn't phase me.

Much of this reasoning stems from prejudice. I'm sorry, but you're missing the point and you're constructing an image to fit your own preconceived ideas.

One of my cousins is married to an Afro-Colombian lady and they have a dark-skinned son: no effing problem. If anything, I'm jealous that he's going to grow up bilingual.

So? What's the point? Is there any communicational issues? Is she involved in drug-trafficking?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Where immigrants fail it is often discrimination, segregation, or something like that. Where those things aren't a problem they typically do well enough.

I'm pretty confident that discrimination is less of an issue here compared to the US. Segregation is a problem. Should we restrict the choices more where the immigrants are allowed to settle or which school they can go to? No more religious schools? That would of course limit their freedom, which would be against our liberal values.
The last issue - "something like that" is tougher to address.

I think what you're saying is that if we let them take care of themselves economically, they will have to get by and if they don't they still won't be a much of a strain on the society. You'll not have to bother either way in a state lacking welfare. Crime rate might get higher though.

 

[Dachs]

Much of this reasoning stems from prejudice. I'm sorry, but you're missing the point and you're constructing an image to fit your own preconceived ideas.

So? What's the point? Is there any communicational issues? Is she involved in drug-trafficking?

These two responses look hilarious next to each other

 

[Yared]

In Sweden, immigrants come here and move into one some immigrant-filled concrete suburb. Why? Well, it's cheap and they can't afford anything else. The "Swedes" who live in these concrete suburbs are either there because they are themselves low class or because they're unemployed.

This create segregation because there will be other neighbourhoods and communities where mostly ethnic Swedes live, and they are richer.

So the segregation is "poor, immigrant" vs "not poor, Swede".



What I'm curious about is how have other nations decided to tackle segregation (if they have)?

 

[Arwon]

We go there for dinner? c

If you mean "particular suburbs get identified with particular cultures" then it's just not really seen as intrinsically a problem. A high ethnic population in an area doesn't necessarily mean a ghetto or segregation.

It can, of course. But the association seems to be automatically "deprivation and crime" in the minds of Europeans. Sure, there's crime-problem suburbs here, but there's plenty of non-ethnic suburbs in that category too.

 

[Tee Kay]

These two responses look hilarious next to each other

Not that communicational issues or drug-trafficking are issues that directly stem from any policy of multiculturalism, anyway. It's language, law enforcement.

 

[Camikaze]

@Loppan Torkel- I'm really confused as to what you are attempting to say or do other than refute every example thrown your way. What has been said is what the multicultural experience is in Australia. It works. That is irrefutable from your position. But you appear to be saying that this has no bearing on the idea of multiculturalism as a whole, and the only reason I can see for this to be the case is if you are excluding examples that are positive simply because they don't fit the hypothesis of failure. From the Australian example given, multiculturalism demonstrably works. Maybe Sweden's attempt at it hasn't worked. I don't know. But that multiculturalism has been shown to be successful indicates that this is a failing with the Swedish implementation rather than with the concept as a whole. I'm confused as to what part of that you are attempting to argue against.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

In Sweden, immigrants come here and move into one some immigrant-filled concrete suburb. Why? Well, it's cheap and they can't afford anything else. The "Swedes" who live in these concrete suburbs are either there because they are themselves low class or because they're unemployed.

This create segregation because there will be other neighbourhoods and communities where mostly ethnic Swedes live, and they are richer.

So the segregation is "poor, immigrant" vs "not poor, Swede".

They may not be able to afford anything else in the larger cities with little or without own income. Of course there's a safety in living within a culture of your own, but is it for the better in the long term?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

@Loppan Torkel- I'm really confused as to what you are attempting to say or do other than refute every example thrown your way. What has been said is what the multicultural experience is in Australia. It works. That is irrefutable from your position. But you appear to be saying that this has no bearing on the idea of multiculturalism as a whole, and the only reason I can see for this to be the case is if you are excluding examples that are positive simply because they don't fit the hypothesis of failure.

The same goes for you. You look at some aspects of the multicultural society and see only success. I say it's not all success. There are many issues which are costly for society. The reasons for when it is successful and when it's not is not solely based on the reception and support the immigrants get. The immigrants themselves also have a large responsibility to integrate. If it's not taken, society need to investigate the causes for it and attempt to solve the issues. As it is now and has been - it's a taboo subject that isn't investigated due to a fear of increasing prejudice against groups of people. In the end, it's still necessary.

From the Australian example given, multiculturalism demonstrably works. Maybe Sweden's attempt at it hasn't worked. I don't know. But that multiculturalism has been shown to be successful indicates that this is a failing with the Swedish implementation rather than with the concept as a whole. I'm confused as to what part of that you are attempting to argue against.

In some cases it works, in some it doesn't. I'm pretty sure the result largely is the same for you even if no Australians at this board will ever admit it. Maybe you've lived your life in the richer parts of town.

 

[holy king]

We go there for dinner? c

If you mean "particular suburbs get identified with particular cultures" then it's just not really seen as intrinsically a problem. A high ethnic population in an area doesn't necessarily mean a ghetto or segregation.

It can, of course. But the association seems to be automatically "deprivation and crime" in the minds of Europeans. Sure, there's crime-problem suburbs here, but there's plenty of non-ethnic suburbs in that category too.

what he was talking about is a problem of class, not one of culture or ethnicity.
those "concrete suburbs" have been working class districts since they were built, it's just that the working class now consists of a large portion of immigrants.

 

[Camikaze]

The same goes for you. You look at some aspects of the multicultural society and see only success. I say it's not all success. There are many issues which are costly for society. The reasons for when it is successful and when it's not is not solely based on the reception and support the immigrants get. The immigrants themselves also have a large responsibility to integrate. If it's not taken, society need to investigate the causes for it and attempt to solve the issues. As it is now and has been - it's a taboo subject that isn't investigated due to a fear of increasing prejudice against groups of people. In the end, it's still necessary. In some cases it works, in some it doesn't.

The question is 'does multiculturalism work', and even one success proves that it does! To answer that question in the negative you have to prove that all cases of multiculturalism are a failure. The Australian example directly defeats any chance of that position being true.

I'm pretty sure the result largely is the same for you even if no Australians at this board will ever admit it. Maybe you've lived your life in the richer parts of town.

Now, now, be nice. FWIW (and I don't think it's worth much at all), the most common baby's name in my district is Mohammed, and it's one of the poorest districts in Sydney (although I'm in one of the better suburbs). The only people in Sydney who think it doesn't work are people who live in suburbs and districts stuff in the '50s.

 

[holy king]

think banlieu, arwon.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The question is 'does multiculturalism work', and even one success proves that it does! To answer that question in the negative you have to prove that all cases of multiculturalism are a failure. The Australian example directly defeats any chance of that position being true.

Sure, you prove to me first that the Australian multiculturalism is a success.

Now, now, be nice. FWIW (and I don't think it's worth much at all), the most common baby's name in my district is Mohammed, and it's one of the poorest districts in Sydney (although I'm in one of the better suburbs). The only people in Sydney who think it doesn't work are people who live in suburbs and districts stuff in the '50s.

So you're linking the most common baby name "Muhammed" directly to one of the poorest districts in Sydney? Doesn't sound very successful...

 

[Camikaze]

Sure, you prove to me first that the Australian multiculturalism is a success.

Anecdotal evidence from every Australian to post in this thread? I'm not sure you quantify the success and/or failure of multiculturalism...

So you're linking the most common baby name "Muhammed" directly to one of the poorest districts in Sydney? Doesn't sound very successful...

I'm not measuring success by an ethnic group becoming the rich in society in half a generation.

But it does raise again the point that any failures you see due to multiculturalism could probably be better explained by socioeconomics.

 

[Arwon]

Maybe I should tell the story of the Auburn Tigers Australian Rules footy team who won their competition despite having to play finals during Ramadan (and therefore most of them were fasting). Wonderful little encapsulation of, well, something.

Edit: Oh hey there's actually a video. (Quite cool - the extra context is that it's not just ethnic guys playing an Aussie sport, but that they're playing the Australian game in an area totally dominated by Rugby League, and where the AFL is unpopular).

think banlieu, arwon.

Yeah, I got that. We have similar places (though possibly not quite such concentrated bleak high density areas, Australian cities are very low density), as will any society. As you say, they're class and poverty issues. Actually one of the most notorious spots in Sydney is a place called Macquarie Fields, hotspot of intergenerational poverty and welfare dependency on the fringes of the city. Also pretty lily white. There was a riot there about the same time as Cronulla.

(Actually there's probably something in that - this may not even be an issue of class or ethnicity, but of urban planning.)

As it is now and has been - it's a taboo subject that isn't investigated due to a fear of increasing prejudice against groups of people. In the end, it's still necessary.In some cases it works, in some it doesn't. I'm pretty sure the result largely is the same for you even if no Australians at this board will ever admit it. Maybe you've lived your life in the richer parts of town.

For what it's worth, the Immigration Minister who just made an important speech about multiculturalism grew up in the heart of Western Sydney in a well-below-median-income area called Fairfield, a full 30km from the rich centre of Sydney, 20% Iraqi, 15% Vietnamese, 30% of the suburb speaking either Asyrian or Arabic, 60% born overseas. Seems to have worked out ok!

 

[aelf]

You misunderstood me. I was not accusing you of "bashing others", I said I had done this myself -and I also preemptively accepted criticism for not expressing my own ideas more clearly. I had no time yesterday but I have now - so here goes:

I think that multiculturalism is the amalgam of the following:
1) Dogmatic ideas that "ethnic nation-states are stupid" and that they should thus be changed - expressed in this thread e.g. by Bill3000 here.
2) Refusal to admit that mixing of different nations and ethnicities via immigration is highly likely to cause friction and problems as a result; or stating that benefits of such mixing will a priori outweigh such problems; or blaming all such problems on the host country, who "simply hasn't been accepting and tolerant enough"; or merely dismissing such problems by saying that they are all "solvable over time". The last one is potentially true, but still does not answer the question why should we want to be saddled with solving them in the first place. These positions have, with varying degrees of reasonableness, been put forth by numerous people in this thread, including you. I won't deny that there are countries which have, over the course of their history, greatly benefitted from immigration - I am merely stating that this result is far from granted, nor even solely in the hands of the host.
3) Naive belief that all cultures are always compatible enough to happily exist side-by-side while "being treated equally under the law and following it" - expressed in this thread by e.g. Mise here. This viewpoint ignores the fact that laws themselves are very much a product of culture, not some universal supracultural phenomenon. Who gets to write these laws then?
Japanese and Arizonans, for example, could hardly be subjected to same gun-control laws without one side feeling extreme discomfort. The best they could hope for would be some sort of a lose-lose compromise. And to improve my earlier reply to Formaldehyde: I would likely find a township of Christian Fundamentalist gun nuts as potentially unsettling neighbors as a village of Pashtun tribesmen I referred to earlier in this thread. I wouldn't be troubled for having to share an office cubicle or bus with one, but I would be quite worried about them gaining any local or national leverage.

And what do I want?
Basically the opposite:
1) Respect to wishes of people who prefer to continue living in a nation-state - don't attempt to engineer these into different kind of states. There are plenty of those in the world as well and I certainly ain't going to force them down my road either. That does not mean that already present minorities should be expelled, of course.
2) Understanding that creating a culture mix via immigration can cause problems; that the benefits are to be discussed and weighed against the costs; that every conflict has at least two sides and that it is safer to err to the side of caution when in doubt as such conflicts are far easier to create than to quench.
3) Recognition that the law of the host country must be respected as is and when it conflicts with one's beliefs or traditions, then those beliefs and traditions need to change rather than the law. If everyone in a society is happily adhering to the same laws, then that society is, in fact, not multicultural, irrespective of how many skin tones or cuisines it contains.

So what's the alternative? Just cutting back on immigration?

You guys have allowed immigration for one reason or another (including for purely economic reasons) so that multiculturalism has become a fact of your social structure. Is it really unreasonable to ask that you try to live with your neighbour, instead of judging or even pre-judging them in broad-brush terms? Sure, maybe a lot of immigrants (debatable, but I don't have any statistic) are poor and aren't model citizens by your definition, but why don't you ask yourselves why that might be the case, instead of simply attributing it to cultural incompatibility. At the end of the day, no matter the culture, people want some similar things, like a better life (which is why the immigrants immigrated to begin with, no?). Those who are not anti-multiculturalists are simply recognising these realities: That diasporas exist and that people have some common basic economic needs (without being outrightly denied the validity of their ways of life). As such, multiculturalism is not a social engineering policy that can 'fail'. It's merely an adaptation, if you like, to the realities of globalisation.

Name one country that lets immigrants in purely for some multicultural goal and I'll believe your theory about social engineering and all that.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

For what it's worth, the Immigration Minister who just made an important speech about multiculturalism grew up in the heart of Western Sydney in a well-below-median-income area called Fairfield, a full 30km from the rich centre of Sydney, 20% Iraqi, 15% Vietnamese, 30% of the suburb speaking either Asyrian or Arabic, 60% born overseas. Seems to have worked out ok!

A bit interesting to read. The failures of multiculturalism in the nations mentioned don't apply in Sweden, but I wonder how this is enforced in practice -
Respect for Australian values

Spoiler :

Firstly, our multiculturalism is underpinned by respect for traditional Australian values.

However, if there is any inconsistency between these cultural values and the values of individual freedom and the rule of law, then these traditional Australian values win out. They must. This has been the case since multiculturalism was introduced as Australian policy in the 1970s.

'These are that the first loyalty of all Australians must be to Australia, that they must accept the basic principles of Australian society. These include the Constitution and the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as a national language, equality of the sexes and tolerance.'

It becomes an issue when communities are formed which don't integrate. Is it because of too liberal policies in Sweden perhaps?

 

[Yared]

They may not be able to afford anything else in the larger cities with little or without own income.

Yes.

Of course there's a safety in living within a culture of your own, but is it for the better in the long term?

I do think that an immigrant is better off living in a community where there are few of their ethnicity and overall a majority of Swedes. The person will be forced to more often use Swedish and will feel more welcome in the country as they make Swedish friends.

 

[Arwon]

A bit interesting to read. The failures of multiculturalism in the nations mentioned don't apply in Sweden, but I wonder how this is enforced in practice -
Respect for Australian values

Spoiler :

Firstly, our multiculturalism is underpinned by respect for traditional Australian values.

However, if there is any inconsistency between these cultural values and the values of individual freedom and the rule of law, then these traditional Australian values win out. They must. This has been the case since multiculturalism was introduced as Australian policy in the 1970s.

'These are that the first loyalty of all Australians must be to Australia, that they must accept the basic principles of Australian society. These include the Constitution and the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as a national language, equality of the sexes and tolerance.'

It becomes an issue when communities are formed which don't integrate. Is it because of too liberal policies in Sweden perhaps?

By "Australian values" he doesn't mean anything beyond democracy, equality and the law. He also calls them traditional German values at one point. The key point is really the flipside, the respect and tolerance for other cultures bit.

Spoiler :

When I was growing up it was concern over Asian migrants. Each generation expresses some anxiety about the new, the unfamiliar.

'Sure, the last mob turned out okay,' they say, 'but this wave is different. Will this wave be good for us?'

In the age of concern about terrorism inspired by extremist Islam, it is perhaps inevitable that questions get asked about Muslim migration to Australia. This is despite only 1.71 per cent of the Australian population identifying themselves as Muslim.

It is important that we are very clear here. Just like previous groups of migrants, the vast majority of the current group of migrants to Australia come here not to change our values, but because of them.

The wave of Bosnian migrants in the 1990s was fleeing religious persecution and intolerance. They came here not to force their beliefs on others, but simply to live in a country which embraced freedom and allowed people to practise their religions in peace.

Similarly, many Hazara refugees come to Australia because they are driven out of their homeland by religious extremists who see them as not pious enough.

Of course, if anyone who comes here – or indeed if anyone born here – promotes values such as Sharia Law or religious intolerance or violence, they do not do so in the name of multiculturalism.

Bearing that in mind, it is right for Australians to be concerned about extremism – whether Islamic or otherwise. Whatever the motivation or background, intolerant interpretations of religion do not align with Australia's values, principles or laws.

And, as such, it is the role of government to ensure policies and programs are put in place to deal with and counter such extremism.

To cast all Islamic migrants or all members of any religious group as somehow unworthy of their place in our national community, however, tars the many with the extremist views of the very few and does an injustice to all.

It's counter-intuitive to assume that the majority of migrants want to change Australia. Allegations of migrants wanting to come to Australia to convert the populace and turn it into a replica of their homelands ignore the truth: people come to Australia because, to them, Australia represents something better.

They bring their own unique stories and backgrounds to add to the mosaic of Australia's multicultural society, but they come to live in accordance with the laws, values and institutions that have made Australia so attractive to them in the first place.

They come because of what Australia is, not to change it into what they left behind.

For those fleeing persecution, terror and hatred, they come to Australia in search of peace, justice and harmony. For many others, they come in the hope of creating, in this new land, a new life for themselves and their loved ones – for prosperity and in the knowledge that, in Australia, their children will not be discriminated against for their colour or creed.

For these men and women, the last thing they want is Australia to change, to become less free, to become less democratic, to become less equal.

If Australia is to be free and equal, then it will be multicultural. But, if it is to be multicultural, Australia must remain free and equal.

Honestly man, step one is to stop assuming migrants are a threat and to stop generalising anything that one or two of them do onto the whole group.