Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Formaldehyde]

America's a good example of effective multiculturalism.

Just about any country is a good example of effective multiculturalism. The ones which are not are the exception instead of the rule.

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.

I think American culture is actually a good example of a combination of various other cultures with a few distinctly American ones added over time.

 

[holy king]

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.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

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

Indeed. We aim to wrap an enormous chain around the West and drag it Eastwards. Please help contribute by saving your tinfoil milk bottle tops and donating them to help implement this plan.

 

[Cutlass]

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

Why would the "Western" world cease to be Western? Immigrants to the West become more Western over time. The West takes some flavoring from the immigrants, but is not changing to be like them. And if people like you worked a little harder at assimilation, rather than segregation, then the whole process would work even better.

 

[Tee Kay]

I feel like I want to take back everything I've said about "the West" and just flat-out state that it's a silly concept, like modernity, nationalism and polio.

 

[Quackers]

I predict it will become one part Western, one part Muslim (in UK) - other groups will be hoovered up by each side. It won't be pretty.

 

[Tee Kay]

I predict it will become one part Western, one part Muslim (in UK) - other groups will be hoovered up by each side. It won't be pretty.

"Western" and "Muslim" are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SKILORD]

If there is a creeping process of corruption of native cultures through external influences it was not started by modern liberals, it was started by Christopher Columbus. Once he landed it was inevitable that Europe too would change, that we would be in the immigration situation we are today, that world culture would eclipse local ones. But that does not mean that local cultures will be completely abolished, we must simply find ways to integrate them locally into the broader global culture.

Like Tarantino, with all his American styled Kurosawa films.

 

[Tee Kay]

If there is a creeping process of corruption of native cultures through external influences it was not started by modern liberals, it was started by Christopher Columbus

Because cultures didn't change and evolve before 1492?

 

[SKILORD]

Well, they did, and "Western" culture is doubtless founded on "Nonwestern" ideas from "Nonwestern" places.

But at that point this immigration situation became inevitable and the process was greatly sped up.

 

[Tee Kay]

But at that point this immigration situation became inevitable and the process was greatly sped up.

Immigration's been going on since forever

 

[SKILORD]

Rarely did they emigrate en masse to the nations that had held theirs as colonies.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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.

And we all know why this works so great in the US. Because the entire value-system as well as the national identity is based on a background of immigration. It is bound to help when getting more immigrants.

Groups of people who have zero common substance to they way they define their lives are never going be compatible on a regular basis.

True, but I don't find this much relevant. Because it is not only obvious, but also not an important factor regarding the issue of different cultures and immigration. If I for instance look at the German immigration issues and take a look at why certain immigrants don't do well in integrating, I see the same issues native people face when not getting their lives done and then I see those issues amplified by gang mentality (not in the sense of ghetto gangs, but in the sense of people ganging up because they feel like a group which belongs together) which is caused by the immigrants looking alike and/or having difficulties with the native langugage and/or sharing roots and/or speaking the same second language. All importent and serious factors, but which one can be explained by different substances of cultures? None.

And btw - immigrants who do well in an economic sense - hence who menage to integrate into the job market - also do just fine in integrating into society. Why? Because that is what actually is desirable - to all cultures. Not integrating is not a tendency caused by different "common substance", it is a tendency caused by failed integration into the job market.

And yes sure some individuals who place bombs but attended university etc don't fit into this picture - but not because of culture. But because they were/are a little nuts in the head.

 

[Tee Kay]

Rarely did they emigrate en masse to the nations that had held theirs as colonies.

That didn't began with Columbus.

 

[SKILORD]

Columbus started a process that made it inevitable is all I was trying to say.

 

[El_Machinae]

Specific to the OP, I'd imagine that it's because it's easier to erode the welfare state if the multicultural country becomes (a) aware and (b) dissatisfied with their multicultural nature. As diversity continues to increase, we'll continue to see noises about reducing welfare.

 

[SKILORD]

I like that a lot Machinae, it ties in nicely to the absence of a effective welfare state in America and makes a lot of sense in this specific situation. Budget cuts, austerity, so forth, need a good excuse.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Some people in Britain just can't handle multiculturalism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8529927.stm

 

[Tee Kay]

Columbus started a process that made it inevitable is all I was trying to say.

Well he certainly didn't started any trend of "corruption" of native cultures since that's been going on long before he came along. Nor did his little expedition to the Americas made an Immigrant Europe inevitable, for that matter. Hell, for most of the five centuries after Columbus the migration trend was from Europe to the Americas and, eventually, other parts of the world, rather than from Noneurope to Europe. Mass immigration from the former Third World to the former First World as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon resulting from various factors that one can't really say was preordained by the actions of a Genoese sailor in the 1490s.

 

[SKILORD]

So once those colonies were established you believe that they were a indefinitely sustainable system and only were broken up because of freak European generosity?

And once those colonies were broken up, you think it was not inevitable for a reaction to the original migration exactly like we are seeing now, driven by the same economic inequalities CAUSED by that colonial system?