Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Formaldehyde]

Now you're just being outright biased towards Muslims, saying that the mere presence of Muslims will inevitably cause extremism to proliferate.

Didn't I point that out pages ago?

The right response to terrorism is better law enforcement, not condemning entire ethnic groups.

Indeed. But I think the notion of characterizing Sweden as being unwilling to face a problem due to potential backlash from irate Muslims is particularly disingenuous. How exactly is such a small group supposedly terrorizing an entire nation? Are we to believe that the law enforcement forces of the entire country are incapable of dealing with a few clearly identifiable problematic miscreants.

9/11 was not the fault of American multiculturalism.

You are never going to convince the far-right of that. Just take a look at the recent Orange County fiasco featured in this other recent thread:

Patriotic Tea Partiers Protest Terrorists

But all that is possible in a multicultural country. In fact, it's only possible in a multicultural country, unless we only choose to admit immigrants from the same ethnic/cultural stock, and force existing minorities to conform to the cultural norms of the majority, as Australia did for half a century. Personally I find the idea quite abhorrent.

I have no idea where this false notion of complete assimilation comes from. It is as if the opponents think they have been deliberately deceived by their governments about what immigration of dissimilar cultures is really all about. It isn't a blind acceptance by all new immigrants of the dominant culture of their new country. It is a melting pot, or a stew pot if you prefer, and it takes time for them to adapt. If there is overt hostility and general lack of acceptance, it will obviously take much longer.

 

[metatron]

It wouldn't.

Wonderful.
So your point #4 in post 519 is made of this air and a lot of your creativity.
"They" were not "able to import their extremist viewpoints because of loose immigration policies."
Apparently other factors are more relevant.

As someone with a communications degree, working on his PhD at Ohio State, with 5 years of communications work in the private sector, and a three years of service working for the federal government on complex communication theory, I can tell you that it is unclear what your point is.

American degrees reflecting pocketbooks much more than talent set aside for a moment, i as a horrible mediocre student of psychology inform you that once a display of compensation becomes pathetic and gross enough it needs a pg rating.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

I disagree that it isn't clear cut. There's probably a billion people from the third world that would love to emigrate from their nations. We import a few million a year. It shouldn't be hard for western society to adequately find compatible immigrants. Particularly if our intelligence agencies are functioning as they should. Blind multiculturalism, however, allows any and all cultures, compatible or not, to enter into the country. And thus we end up with infibulation, extremism, financing of terrorism, and terrorism attacks within our borders. We even have massive violent protests when we do simple things like express our rights to free speech.

I'm not so sure you understand what concentration is. In order to determine concentration you need to know the raw number. You also need to consider the area the concerned population is living on. So yes, raw numbers do matter. 10,000 problematic immigrants spread out across the state of Texas would not cause as large of a problem as 10,000 problematic immigrants concentrated in a burrough of London. Lebanese immigrants are not a problem. I don't think there is any place on earth where Lebanese immigrants have ever created an endemic problem. Not in Australia, not in Deerborn Michigan, not anywhere. It's a largely secular nation. Iraq is also secular. And no, you don't have a sizable Somali population. It doesn't come close to registering on your Muslim immigrant percentage list on Wikipedia. Plop a few ten thousand of them into one of your cities and you will have problems if you're not judicious in your selection process. Their herd mentality will overwhelm any desire to assimilate as you claim to desire at the end of your post. Particularly if you decide to pluck people from Mogadishu. The idea that tens of thousands of people from southern Somalia is just as likely to lead to problems as tens of thousands of people from Lebanon is disingenuous. As to your accusation that I'm just targeting Muslims out of hand, it's a lie, and rude, and I don't appreciate you and Formaldehyde's insistence on besmirching my character when it isn't warranted. Did you have a selective reading complex? Did you not read the large number of sentences antecedent to that comment which indicates that quality of culture matters? If anything you're the one insisting that all Muslim cultures are the same by pretending that Turks, Lebanese, and Iraqi's are as likely to cause just as many problems as Somali's, Eritreans, and Yemeni immigrants. It's pretty clear to most individuals that that comment was made in direct response to quality of culture. My entire argument is predicated on choosing people to immigrate into your nation that adhere to a quality of culture that will not foster extremism, violence, and rights abuses against others. If I've been consistently defending secular Islamic societies why on earth would I disparage the entire religion. I notice there is a report button, I will not tolerate your disparaging remarks any more. If you don't want to absorb context, then don't debate me in such an unbecoming fashion.

As for Sweden: How is not a product of multicultural policies? In my opinion this is exactly a product of multicultural policies. The Somali's were brought in and sheltered under multicultural premises. These areas were constructed and designed under multicultural premises. The Somali's were allowed to maintain their culture out of multicultural designs. It was an extremely laissez faire policy towards the Somali immigrants and this is what has led to problems. To go farther, immense amount of government financing has gone in to assisting the Somali's (Arwon earlier blamed a lack of financial support as causing problems in the UK and France). They've been treated well, provided welfare, been given special schools, and special housing complexes. The Swedish people have gone out of their way to do everything they could to make their new brethren feel at home. Remember now, multiculturalism has been defined as merely tolerating different cultures. But this toleration of different cultures led to the emergence of an immigrant group that doesn't tolerate the culture they live in. The multicultural policies of Sweden have expressly led to the funding of a group of immigrants that no longer have a need to adjust their intolerant, and at times, extreme culture. The Swedish government built and supported a Somali community center to help integrate Somali people in a passive way - it was then used to support Al Shabaab and recruit teenagers to fight against the Ethiopians. The multicultural stance of Sweden has been one of "averting your eyes to cultural differences at all costs so that immigrants feel welcome." All of the prescriptions that have been suggested by you and Arwon were attempted in Sweden with the Somali's. They've been given healthy benefits, access to universal healthcare, provided significant government assistance in other forms, they have access to job training programs, language classes, unemployment benefits, access to regular schools, and specialized schools to help maladjusted children adjust to western life. They actually have better access to social assistance than citizen Swedes. What has been the result? Failure. The Swedish government and societal position towards immigrant groups couldn't be any more inclusive and tolerable if it wanted to be. If you talk to Somali's in America, many of them will even tell you that Sweden's multicultural policy towards immigrant groups is precisely the reason why they have such stark problems. When Somali's come to America they know they will have to work to support their family. They know they have to have some measure of integration in order to care for their families. They are family oriented, and the family will always take precedence over culture where necessary. When they go to Sweden they quickly realize that they can survive comfortably and have their needs taken care by the generous social welfare system. They've become idle, and it doesn't matter where you look, idleness causes extremism. One of the largest causes in young adult extremism in Saudi Arabia is because of idleness. And all these things in Sweden have their roots in the multicultural attitudes carried by the Swedish people and the government.

The right response to terrorism is better prevention, not better reaction. What do you think is the best method for controlling teen pregnancy? Abortion or education? What do you think is the best method for controlling poverty? Education or welfare? What do you think is the best method for keeping your car from breaking down? Routine maintenance and not buying a Chevy, or better mechanics? What do you think is the best method for preventing work place accidents? Reactive policies? Or preventive policies. It will always be better to prevent extremism from existing in a society than simply reacting to it. Intelligence does not prevent the fermentation of extremism. Sound and prudent immigration policies will.

As for 9/11. You cannot win a debate by declaring that objective facts aren't really facts. The sky is blue. The grass is green. Tourist visas, education visas, and business visas are a part of immigration. It revolves around our embassies and our consulates. It is the importation of foreign people into our nation. Our policies revolving around business, education, and tourist visas are expressly tied to multicultural policies and our desire to diversify our nation. We have education visas to increase multiculturalism on our college campuses. We have business visas to increase diversity in society and bring in talent from other nations and expose or commercial/industrial complexes to new ideas and promote multiculturalism. And both provide quicker access to permanent status and citizenship. Our policies were loose before 9/11 out of a direct result of our desires to increase multiculturalism within our nation and to show good faith towards other nations and towards people of the world. Our tolerance and desires led to lax enforcement of our laws, probably out of our desire to not look like we were unfairly targeting immigrant groups, and it wound up biting us in the butt. We should have never needed to have stronger reactionary intelligence policies in the first place (carefully understand that preventive intelligence is tied to immigration, and that reactive intelligence is an independent entity in this case) - our immigration system, if enforced and prudent, wouldn't have allowed it to occur in the first place.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

But I think the notion of characterizing Sweden as being unwilling to face a problem due to potential backlash from irate Muslims is particularly disingenuous. How exactly is such a small group supposedly terrorizing an entire nation? Are we to believe that the law enforcement forces of the entire country are incapable of dealing with a few clearly identifiable problematic miscreants.

If you think it is disingenuous, then feel free to explain why it is occurring. Especially when Swedish officials have stated this is the case. Law enforcement is capable of dealing with the identifiable problematic miscreants, but their pragmatic analysis has determined that it is not worth it. They look at France, they look at the cartoon protests, and determine that proactively pursuing miscreants has the potential to create exponentially greater problems. It could lead to riots, to greater instances of violence. Swedish officials are in a spiral that they can't pull out of. And instead of fomenting huge periods of unrest, like what happened in France when those immigrant Muslim teenagers got electrocuted and massive riots occurred for days on end, they choose to let the problem be and approach as passively as possible.

Wonderful.
So your point #4 in post 519 is made of this air and a lot of your creativity.
"They" were not "able to import their extremist viewpoints because of loose immigration policies."
Apparently other factors are more relevant.

There are other factors that are relevant, but I don't think any factor predominates tackling the problem at its source. Earlier I also made it clear that these are strings of problems. You could really build a large flow chart to communicate all of the problems. But then you could prioritize them according to different metrics of your choice. The problems in the UK and France are not due to isolated Muslims self-radicalizing in their bedrooms. So how you would conclude that self-radicalization is "more relevant" than preventing people who adhere to extreme views of Islam that are not compatible with western values is exceptionally confusing. A more accurate way of communicating your point would be: other factors can be more relevant in specific instances of terrorism. But just because one guy self-radicalized isn't indicative that it is a more relevant problem than the inclusion of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who adhere to extremist and intolerant ideologies that have immigrated to western nations.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you think it is disingenuous, then feel free to explain why it is occurring.

Why should I "feel free" to explain a problem I don't think really exists to any major extent.

Especially when Swedish officials have stated this is the case.

Source, please.

Swedish officials are in a spiral that they can't pull out of.

Ditto.

And instead of fomenting huge periods of unrest, like what happened in France when those immigrant Muslim teenagers got electrocuted and massive riots occurred for days on end, they choose to let the problem be and approach as passively as possible.

Blacks has also rioted in a number of US cities under similar circumstances, including even St. Pete. Do you think the blacks represent a sizeable threat, or that the police in the US "approach as passively as possible" thereby increasing this supposed threat?

And once again, do you have a source that the French authorities are also ostensibly afraid of Muslims, as you just insinuated that Sweden are? Do you have any facts at all to corroborate all these allegations? Or are you merely speculating?

 

[Verbose]

Especially when Swedish officials have stated this is the case. Law enforcement is capable of dealing with the identifiable problematic miscreants, but their pragmatic analysis has determined that it is not worth it. They look at France, they look at the cartoon protests, and determine that proactively pursuing miscreants has the potential to create exponentially greater problems. It could lead to riots, to greater instances of violence. Swedish officials are in a spiral that they can't pull out of. And instead of fomenting huge periods of unrest, like what happened in France when those immigrant Muslim teenagers got electrocuted and massive riots occurred for days on end, they choose to let the problem be and approach as passively as possible.

Which, where?

And there's nothing like the situation in French problem areas for starters, and second the oh so misrepresented French riots certainly weren't Muslim.

 

[Arwon]

Oh, and just to address the vaguely classist recurring meme that "multiculturalism works in Australia because the migrants are all 'good' migrants" (meaning educated and skilled migrants):

 

[Winston Hughes]

The attacks on multiculturalism are mainly about winning the votes of people who hate and/or fear Muslims.

Were it not Muslims, it would be Jews, Africans, Slavs, Roma or whichever other group could most easily be painted as a threat, so as to promote a sense of in-group solidarity for the paranoid and ignorant.

This ain't new. My grandfather saw the same arguments made against Catholics when he moved from Ireland to England after WWII.

 

[Tee Kay]

Blind multiculturalism, however, allows any and all cultures, compatible or not, to enter into the country. And thus we end up with infibulation, extremism, financing of terrorism, and terrorism attacks within our borders. We even have massive violent protests when we do simple things like express our rights to free speech.

Define competibility. Which cultures are competible and which aren't. It seems you're thinking of cultures like they're boxes. A person is either Western or Muslim, and if they're Western they must be liberal and democratically-minded and if they're Muslims they must be extremists and incompetible with Western society. That's not how cultures work. That's never been how cultures work. There's no "pure" culture, Western or Muslim or extremist or otherwise. If we want to combat extremism we should combat extremism, not cultures. Otherwise it's collective punishment, which I think you'd agree is unacceptable.

I'm not so sure you understand what concentration is. In order to determine concentration you need to know the raw number. You also need to consider the area the concerned population is living on.

And then you need to consider the total population of that area, and then how many are actually "problematic" and how many are perfectly good and reasonable people.

Lebanese immigrants are not a problem.

There are some people here who would disagree with you.

It's a largely secular nation. Iraq is also secular.

Secular nations that have been the scenes of long-running religious violence. Turkey, Syria and Tunisia are also secular. Algeria and Egypt all pursue secular policies to some extent. Somalia was a freaking Maoist state. Sudan's government is not so much Islamist as Arab Nationalist. Interestingly some of the less problematic communities here are Iranians and Afghans.

Nationality matters little. The tremendous diversity which exist within countries made sure of that.

As to your accusation that I'm just targeting Muslims out of hand, it's a lie, and rude, and I don't appreciate you and Formaldehyde's insistence on besmirching my character when it isn't warranted.

"High concentrations of Muslims will lead to higher concentrations of extremist viewpoints, and allow it to proliferate." That's what you said. There's nothing in there about the "quality" of cultures or differences within the Muslim communities. If you mean extremists then you should say extremists. Otherwise it's an unfair over-generalized, borderline-prejudiced characterization and I will point it out. If you expect an apology, you'll be disappointed.


I am not an expert on Sweden and I won't pretend I am so I'll leave that particular case study to more capable minds.

The right response to terrorism is better prevention, not better reaction. What do you think is the best method for controlling teen pregnancy? Abortion or education? What do you think is the best method for controlling poverty? Education or welfare?

Indeed. But one controls teen pregnancy by educating teens, not castrating them. One controls poverty by providing education and training, but not sterilizing the poor.

As for 9/11. You cannot win a debate by declaring that objective facts aren't really facts. The sky is blue. The grass is green. Tourist visas, education visas, and business visas are a part of immigration.

Back to you. 9/11 hijackers weren't immigrants.

We have education visas to increase multiculturalism on our college campuses.

I don't know how you do things in the United States, but here education visas exist for the purpose of milking cash from unfortunate foreign students who were lured to Australia by the reputation of a better educational system and a better life. Similarly, the skilled migration scheme exists because there's a shortage of skilled workers, and probably also because immigrants tend to be quiet types and easier to exploit. It's a similar story with the German Gastarbeiter program, and I suspect with most European immigration schemes as well. Family visas and asylum visas are just simple human decency. Sometimes there are diplomatic reasons involved, but cultural diversity is hardly the primary goal of any current immigration programs.

Our tolerance and desires led to lax enforcement of our laws, probably out of our desire to not look like we were unfairly targeting immigrant groups, and it wound up biting us in the butt.

Yes, neglecting public security in order to avoid "upsetting" a group of people is exceedingly stupid. But that's not multiculturalism.

 

[aelf]

Wow, I could have written this. Except: can you really make the laws culturally neutral enough? Always?

No, but that's not really an excuse, just as it's not an excuse not to pursue truth as best as you can just because truth is always relative to some extent.

There probably aren't many as drastic cases left as we've seen in past - let's remind for a moment cultural conflicts Europeans settlers had with American Natives who, as some have argued, entirely lacked the concept of "private property" - but different cultures still don't really see eye to eye regarding many things, yet.

Law says: Children must attend school. Parents refuse to let children attend school. How many times have you seen mud slinged at Czech Republic who attempted to enforce that law?

You may be on to something here. The thing is, what is best for society over a course of, say, a few centuries, isn't necessary what is best for the current generation.
Take an example: only tangentially realted and hyperbolic, but thats what came to mind right now:
Estonia has a lot less inheritable diseases than Finland. Likely because while Finns have mostly languished in relatively peaceful and incestuous conditions over centuries (apologies guys!), we have been raped in turn by Germans, Swedes, Danes, Poles, Russians, Tatars...name it.
Still, I don't think that this eventually lucky result would make the folks who perished in Great Northern War which wiped away over half (and at places 4/5) of the population much happier...

You admitted yourself that the problem is not nearly as bad as it used to be. Like it or not, the world is becoming more cosmopolitan, which makes grand narratives about clash of civilisations more and more implausible. If cases where serious problems can directly be attributed to fundamental cultural incompatibility are relatively rare, then there is no crippling issue with multiculturalism. I'd suggest, therefore, that the salient causes of social problems involving immigrants must be found within the socio-economic domain of class, which also informs cultural experiences and interactions.

What I really don't understand is this fatalistic attitude that anti-multiculturalists have towards the cultural angle of a larger social problem that, for reasons I have explained above, does not merit throwing up your hands and giving up by simply preventing people from coming into your countries. This categorical rejection makes me think that the reasons for the opposition to immigration have less to do with the fact that cultural incompatibility can manifest itself in tangible ways, because this is eminently solvable without having it destroy the very fabric of social cohesion. And while the banks have nearly bankrupted your countries, it seems to me very dubious that so much attention have been drawn to the relatively small problem of immigrant culture.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Oh, and just to address the vaguely classist recurring meme that "multiculturalism works in Australia because the migrants are all 'good' migrants" (meaning educated and skilled migrants):

I don't have a lot of time, but I will tag this. I just want to clarify that I never suggested anything about educated and skilled. But there is a limit.

I do not believe that it is necessarily education of skills that migrants need to be successful. But I believe that people who come from semi-sedentary backgrounds or nomadic backgrounds are at an exceptional disadvantage compared to a sedentary, impoverished, urban slum dweller. I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to realize that traditional Somali goat herders will have a significantly difficult time adjusting to life in the suburbs of Columbus or Minneapolis.

In Minneapolis and Columbus a particular a demographic has emerged as a problematic group. It isn't adults with children that have issues, they do quite well. It is their teenage children that exhibit the most propensity to end up in gang activity, on social assistance, and to fall into extremist ideologies. The problem for this is simple: it's impossible for them to connect with their native peers.

When this group immigrates here, all Somali children are put into special English as a Second Language classes. It really doesn't matter what their age is. 5-17 in many cases can be in the same room. Whats bad is that the teenagers do not learn the second language as well as the youngsters, and they're expected to know more English when they are integrated into the traditional public school system after a year (ideally) or two. The young children do just fine. They show a propensity to learn, they have the capacity to learn, and the knowledge divide is minimal compared to their peers. But this is not the case for the teenagers. They have a more difficult time learning, they are more vulnerable and susceptible, they are more likely to be outcasts according to their peers, they are more likely to be indoctrinated and reject absorbing amongst their peers, and the BIGGEST issue is the knowledge divide. They do not have the knowledge required to remotely succeed at a high school level. They have often have no experience or background in math, science, any sort of history, or English. And they typically never recover. Due to their limited literacy they have a difficult learning in the most remedial environments. They struggle a tremendous amount, and all too often they drop out of their education programs. Without the education they become idle, join gangs, or in the worst case scenarios they fall into extremism. Teenagers have gone back to Somalia and have been caught up in all kinds of shady business. This is the unskilled group that needs to be examined more closely. Here in America the unskilled Somalia adult with kids knows he must acquire a skill and learn English to provide for his family. It's really the teenagers that present the greatest stumbling block to the integration process.

 

[Arwon]

all Somali children are put into special English as a Second Language classes. It really doesn't matter what their age is. 5-17 in many cases can be in the same room.

That's a pretty crap policy.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

That's a pretty crap policy.

It achieves better results than abruptly placing them into integrated classrooms. Many of these children, especially refugees, have never even BEEN in a school. When you place these teenagers into this environment it has some extremely adverse effects. My buddy tells me that there are Somali's who are brought here from refugee camps that had never seen money until they arrived at the refugee camp. It's an enormous curve that is too much for some backgrounds to overcome.

 

[Arwon]

That's not why it's crap.

(Hint: Sounds like massive under-resourcing of the education system. We had a similar issue with retrenchment of something like half of the country's ESL teachers in the 1980s and early 90s. Then people wondered why Vietnamese refugee children/teenagers were having some trouble adjusting, and falling into drug gangs and you had this nice old tabloid newspaper/current affairs show moral panic about Vietnamese drug crime in Cabramatta, a suburb of Western Sydney)

 

[BuckeyeJim]

That's not why it's crap.

(Hint: Sounds like massive under-resourcing of the education system. We had a similar issue with retrenchment of something like half of the country's ESL teachers in the 1980s and early 90s. Then people wondered why Vietnamese refugee children/teenagers were having some trouble adjusting, and falling into drug gangs and you had this nice old tabloid newspaper/current affairs show moral panic about Vietnamese drug crime in Cabramatta, a suburb of Western Sydney)

I don't know what you mean by "under resourcing." They have lower teacher per student room sizes, and we spend far more per student trying to teach Somali children English than we do regular kids out of our desire to get them to succeed in regular classrooms. Being able to speak Somali and English in Minneapolis or Columbus/Akron fetches boku bucks. Schools, community centers, outreach centers, interpreters etc. I don't know if there is a dollar value on the ability to salvage everyone.

 

[Arwon]

Part of a country's responsibility in accepting refugees is to ensure that they get the services they need.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Part of a country's responsibility in accepting refugees is to ensure that they get the services they need.

It's hard to convince anyone of that in a country where people aren't even convinced that there is a similar moral obligation for ordinary citizens.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I noticed many are treating multiculturalism as a single set-in-stone policy. Like all policies there's a way to do it right and there's a way to ef it up. There have been success stories, there have been failures. It's not doom and gloom, it's not a holy grail. Do we say that capitalism has failed every time we have an economic breakdown? Of course not. The way we implemented capitalism fails in those situations. Likewise, the way you implement multiculturalism can succeed and fail. The term is too ambiguous and too broad to make sweeping statements like that.

Therefore it's silly to say "multiculturalism" has failed.

Did multiculturalism demand that immigrants are to be put into ghetto's where they'd have little chance of succeeding? Nope. That was a failure on the part of those in charge because of the lack of insight, or even the complete absence of it, with regard to long term consequences. So instead of spreading lies and misinformation about how a policy which has many faces has 'failed" the more prudent thing to do is examine why some implementations fail and other succeed.

Of course, this is way too nuanced for politicians to explain to the public who want a one-sentenced reason and a clear and physical scapegoat every time it goes bad, and who better to use than Jews. I mean Muslims. I mean those weird people with their weird clothes and weird foods and weird rituals as opposed to the normal clothed, normal food eating and normal rituals us indigenous folks have.

 

[Quackers]

What are the benefits of multiculturalism anyway?

 

[Tee Kay]

It enables us Chinese to take over the world without firing a shot!