Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Terxpahseyton]

I do know that. So what does that mean? Maybe Muslims/Islam cannot successfully live in a multicultural society?

No it means that religion tends to complicate things. Your assumption is lead by wish, not reasoning. Because reasoning should tell you many many Muslims in deed do live successfully in all kinds of societies. Hence a universal and/or fundamental attribute of Islam you seem to imply can not be found.

 

[Yeekim]

Well then it's Europe's failings. Seems to work okay from the US to Brazil to Canada to Australia to India, which also happens to be a very inefficient flight plan.

Yeah, sure it works in Canada. Why shouldn't the policy: "bring us your young, well-educated, and financially solvent (and no one but them!), since we have one of the largest, emptiest countries in the world" work?

Unfortunately, it has been kinda difficult to implement in most European countries.

 

[classical_hero]

You can't have more than one culture at a time, otherwise they will clash with each other. One culture will try to dominate another culture.

 

[holy king]

says the australian.

 

[Truronian]

Thats not what you said. You said the PURPOSE of these announcements were specifically to appeal to xenophobes, as if its impossible to have a discussion about multiculturalism which is less "OMG ITZ THE BEST THING EVAR!!!" without it being xenophobic in nature.

I must have missed the part where we were discussing it... Cameron has simply thrown out a sound-bite with little supporting evidence. A discussion involves more than once person and clearly defined terms; here we have neither. If you read my post you'd have noticed that I didn't claim multiculturalism was any kind of misspelled capitalized expression, rather it's the society we live in. Saying it has failed makes no sense, and so one must wonder why Cameron is saying it the first place.

There are a great many xenophobes and bigots in this country, and one must be subtle when appealing to them. This is what Cameron is doing.

Maybe they have an honest opinion based on something other than fear. Remember, any word with "phobia" is describing fear, specifically irrational fear. Throwing it out casually is not the correct way to use it.

I'm not saying Cameron's sentiments will not appeal to some more rational types as well, but were he trying to court them specifically he would do so with slightly more intellectual arguments.

 

[Quackers]

What is active muscular liberalism anyway? Any Cameronites on this forum can explain that to me?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Maybe he means well known LibDem action man Paddy Ashdown.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can't have more than one culture at a time, otherwise they will clash with each other. One culture will try to dominate another culture.

I guess that would explain why anti-Semitism, and even hatred of Catholics, is now much lower in the US than it was 60 years ago? Because different cultures simply cannot live together?

And what do you propose to do about aboriginal Australians? Force them all to adopt your own culture so white Christians will no longer try to dominate them?

 

[Dumanios]

You can't have more than one culture at a time, otherwise they will clash with each other. One culture will try to dominate another culture.

Yeah, that's why we ended Slavery and reduced Anti-Semitism, Anti-Asiatic and Anti-Catholic feelings- Oh wait.

What do you Aussies do about the Aborigines?

 

[SKILORD]

America's a good example of effective multiculturalism.

Nobody tells these hicks here that they can't drink their iced tea, their language is distinct from the rest of the country, as is their cuisine and their culture on a variety of levels, such as the traditional Southern contempt for labor unions. New York and LA are not the same city, Chicago is totally different from Austin is totally different from Dallas is totally different from Portland.

BUT they do share substantial cultural commonalities enough to be considered the "homogeneous" American culture and to be able to discuss things with one another through the use of shared cultural landmarks. Multiculturalism is a good thing, Sarkozy's a douche, and also he's just looking for noble sounding arguments to justify his various usurpations of the rights of the (second and third generation) descendants of Algerian Frenchmen who immigrated to France, particularly those who practice Islam.

 

[Tee Kay]

What do you Aussies do about the Aborigines?

We ignore them of course.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

What have 2nd generation Algerians ever done for France anyway?

It's not like they won the World Cup or anything when Zidane was the captain.

 

[SKILORD]

And yet somehow MLK ended up being a better civil rights leader than Louis Armstrong.

My point being that while cultural contributions grease the way for social inclusion, they just don't seem to get the job done by themselves.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You can't have more than one culture at a time, otherwise they will clash with each other. One culture will try to dominate another culture.

Sure this kind of fight can happen. It did all the time and still does. But to characterize it as inevitable ignores the success in reducing antisemitism or racism and it greatly underestimates the number of options a society has. Because what you describe is a factor always awake, it is a trait rooted within the very core of human nature. The trait to draw lines, to encourage a mentality of "us vs. them", the trait that opposes things one does not understand or identify with - and as with every prime trait of human nature, this can do a lot of harm. But also as with every prime trait of human nature, civilization and culture is about directing or handling those traits in a way which is the most beneficial to us.

The perceived clash of cultures is just one of many possible manifestations of said trait, racism and antisemitism are others. And to characterize them as inevitable sources of struggle and misery as been stupid back then and is still stupid now. Because they are only as inevitable as we let them be.

But a fine example for how people can only learn the lessons of history if they understand the fundamental underlying mechanisms. Otherwise everything is just a labeled box one accepts but doesn't learn from.

 

[Quackers]

How long till we win a worldcup so we can say we've reaped the reward of multiculturalism? P

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Quite a while.

Jamaican born John Barnes was pretty good though.

 

[Hakim]

I have to go with the first option. I'm not sure what the 2nd option means, the economical aspect isn't even touched from what I've read and the 4th is true for all kinds of policy discussions.

It does seems like Merkel use the term MultiKulti to describe a feeling or end result rather than a coherent policy. She doesn't seem to have a clear idea of exactly what she's criticizing. I guess you could say that about most politicians though. They throw around terms and statements to evoke feelings and perhaps position themselves.

(In Europe,) France and UK is on different ends on the scale I think, with UK having the most group-oriented perspective. They'd be the ones to actually have adopted a multiculturalism policy. Countries like Germany and the Nordic just receives immigrants and try to deal with problems as they arise without following any plan or principle - call it "pragmatic" if you will. France have more of a language and citizenship based view on integration. I wouldn't call it opposite but at least distinctly non-multikulti, which is also makes Sarkozy statements about multiculturalism "failing" a bit odd imo (also considering he seem to understand the concept a lot better than Merkel).

And yes US would be the best example of a multicultural society.

 

[Patroklos]

It ends up being a discussion of the level of assimilation.

At some basic level, people within the same society need to agree, at least roughly, on some very basic tenants. The core fundamentals that underpin said society. Things like the value of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and others in the case of the US. This does not mean you can not maintain your cultural identity at the same time. The US is very diverse but I bet you if you go from China Town to Little Italy to Appalachia to Harlem to SoHo you would still get all of them to agree on the fundamentals I listed despite the vast gulf between those areas in some very significant ways culturally.

In Europe, at least from my impression when I was there and what I read, they tried to simply import other cultures wholesale and just let them exist unaltered from the foundation up alongside the native culture. Groups of people who have zero common substance to they way they define their lives are never going be compatible on a regular basis.

 

[Quackers]

What are the goals of multiculturalists anyway? They do know that the "Western" world will cease to be Western if they continue?

 

[SKILORD]

I wouldn't talk up the British too much on the multiculturalism front, there are significant problems regarding the social integration of second and third generation Indian immigrants there, it just manifests itself differently in Britain and the political figures are more likely to ignore it.

The "Western" world ceased to be exclusively "Western" a long time ago, if it ever was.