Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Thoughtful Thug]

We ought to just click on the word "multiculturalism" and quickly drag it to the trash bin.

I don't dabble in the word.

 

[Yeekim]

In other words, multiculturalism really is and should be about 'live and let live'.

That sounds like a nice philosophy I'd be willing to sign up for. How about "let me live over here and I'll gladly let you guys live over there, wherever that is"?
With a subclause "if you are already here as well, please let us live the way we've used to and we'll let you join in"?

 

[aelf]

That sounds like a nice philosophy I'd be willing to sign up for. How about "let me live over here and I'll gladly let you guys live over there, wherever that is"?

That's not live and let live. That's "I'll let you be on condition that you don't come here."

Incidentally, Kymlicka (though a liberal) thought that migrant groups do not get the protection of group rights and must assimilate, and that the majority culture of the nation state should be protected. Sounds like your kind of guy, actually.

With a subclause "if you are already here as well, please let us live the way we've used to and we'll let you join in"?

What if they don't want to join in?

 

[Yeekim]

That's not live and let live. That's "I'll let you be on condition that you don't come here."

I fail to see the difference. That is their part of "let live".

Incidentally, Kymlicka (though a liberal) thought that migrant groups do not get the protection of group rights and must assimilate, and that the majority culture of the nation state should be protected. Sounds like your kind of guy, actually.

From what you say, pretty much.

What if they don't want to join in?

Then why come in the first place? But indeed - then what? Might be not a problem at all, or very much a problem, depending on where the dispute lies.

 

[aelf]

I fail to see the difference. That is their part of "let live".

From what you say, pretty much.

Then why come in the first place? But indeed - then what? Might be not a problem at all, or very much a problem, depending on where the dispute lies.

You don't seem to understand what live and let live means. Maybe that's the root of your problem with multiculturalism. You have a completely warped idea of what tolerance entails.

You are not tolerant if you take exception to the fact that people from another part of the world who are different might not wish to assimilate to a dominant culture.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

The video is clearly hyperbolic and hopefully not completely serious. Yet saying that "multiculturalism is the philosophy that every culture is morally valid and no culture has the right to impose its values on another" is "pretty effing close" to "recognition and positive accommodation of group differences" isn't it?

This is the problem I observe in this debate. On one hand they try to turn those who oppose their view as extreme when they are merely attempting to make simple points, while on the other they have a tendency of adjusting rhetoric for the purpose of softening the image of their position. There is really no need for this disconnect.

The second problem is how different people who are advocating for the side of, "multiculturalism hasn't failed," take different positions, and pose different solutions, and create different reasons for justifying their positions. For instance, Ziggy has a problem with immigrants being grouped into large groups in certain areas, but Arwon thinks this is a good thing by showing that 40% of certain suburbs in Australia are immigrant groups. It's debate excessively difficult because no matter what you say, someone will be there trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Ultimately the problem that they seem to refuse to except is that many of the problems associated with these perceived failures are a result of a desire to attain a harmonious multi-cultural society. And I will continue to assert that our desire to attain a harmonious multi-cultural society has been directly responsible for the immigration of people that have cultures that lie in contradistinction to western society.

When this video is posted, as hyperbolic or rhetorical as it is, they immediately retreated into a corner saying, "this is not what multiculturalism." But when you ask if we should discriminate when we establish immigration policies they don't want us to. And instead the reconnoiter their argument to push blame against other policies. All of the major supporters of "multi-culturalism" agree to a few ground rules.

1. Multiculturalism is the respect for other cultures.
2. Immigrants must abide by our laws and also respect our culture.

Yet, somehow when immigrants openly reject our culture and hold it in disdain, resort to extremism, flaunt it against us, and even fall into terrorism, it is not because they're not respecting our culture, or never had the intention of respecting our culture. It is a functional failure due to government policies who establish the rules and laws that immigrants are expected to follow. By their own definitions I struggle to conclude that it is our problem at all, and that it isn't anything but the immigrants not respecting our culture and our values.

Look, if I get offered a job in Saudi Arabia but they tell me that I can never attain citizenship and will always be considered a migrant worker, those are their rules. That, by all multicultural supporters rules, I must abide by. I must respect their culture and their laws. I must play by their rules. I cannot come to this country, knowing that I am a migrant worker and only a migrant worker and then become upset down the road because I cannot become a full citizen. The same goes for people who are ushered into immigrant communities. If you know you are going to be ushered into an immigrant community then you must abide by those rules. In my opinion you are essentially a guest in that country, and you also maintain the freedom to return to your old country if the conditions are so horrible. If you can afford to fly to Somalia to infibulate your daughter and fly back, then why not just fly back to Somalia instead of disrespecting our culture and our laws?

I do not agree laicite policies in France, but if you are a Muslim and you agree to immigrate to France for opportunity, then you must abide by those laws and respect that custom.

Arwon, taillesskangaroo, Formaldehyde, Mr. Dictator, and others persistently insist that the failure is rule of law and our culture. How this represents a multi-cultural attitude or abides by their agreed position that immigrants respect our laws and culture is confusing. If you support multiculturalism, and if you agree that immigrants must abide by our laws and customs, then you have no business blaming the laws and customs. You should be blaming the immigrants who are not respecting our laws and customs, and find some measure of agreement with people who say that multiculturalism has failed because we have tens of thousands of people in these countries that are not respecting law and culture.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Again, that's like saying capitalism is a failure because of the Wall Street crash.

Multiculturalism has no more meaning that different cultures living in one society. There are places all over the globe where this is happening and has happened for a long time. What they should be saying is: the policies we implemented with regard to immigration has flaws.

Like all policies have.

Now, instead of ludicrously announcing that multiculturalism has failed, politicians should recognize the mistakes they made in their policies. Like not putting all people from one culture in one specific part of a city and then wonder after 10 years why they're not integrating.

If tolerance is supposed to be a two way street, and if immigrants are expected to abide by our laws and policies, then why is it the fault of our policies that immigrants are not respecting our culture and our laws as opposed to the intolerant immigrants themselves? I also disagree with your Wall St./Capitalism analogy. A financial crisis isn't indicative that any particular failure in any economic model, but incorporation of people who will never respect your culture as a result of multiculturalist policies would seem to indicate a failure in the lofty expectations of multiculturalism.

 

[Camikaze]

So then we are back to square one: Why are the leaders of Europe wrong when they say multiculturalism has failed with significant portions of their immigrants are not tolerating our culture or the laws they're bound to? If the rules they are supposed to play by are bound into law, and they agree to accept this system they are entering, how is their assessment unfair or incorrect?

Failure in isolated instances on specific grounds (if you are assuming some sort of 'failure') does not equate to a failure of multiculturalism as an idea. If you get high crime levels in a particular urbanised area, then that does not mean that 'cities' as a whole are a bad idea. If you get food poisoning from chocolate cake (which I hear is excellent with whipped cream), that doesn't mean that 'cake' as a whole is a bad idea. You're attributing isolated incidents of non-optimal outcomes to a failure of the whole idea. This is why people have been at pains to point out that it was worked marvellously in Australia; that success in itself is proof that the idea is at the very least a workable one, and lends credence to the position that failures are much more likely the result of a few bad cake recipes than an actual deficiency of the entire idea.

 

[Leonel]

It appears to work pretty well too in Singapore and Hong Kong. Indians, Pakistanis, Europeans, Chinese, Hong Kong natives living together fairly well. There was really only one incident where two Pakistanis had killed an Indian security guard on the HKIS sports grounds but I only heard that through another kid and might be just conjecture as the kid when into extreme detail on the teacher trying to put the guards guts back in. But I digress!

Seems to work well in Singapore and Hong Kong

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Failure in isolated instances on specific grounds (if you are assuming some sort of 'failure') does not equate to a failure of multiculturalism as an idea. If you get high crime levels in a particular urbanised area, then that does not mean that 'cities' as a whole are a bad idea. If you get food poisoning from chocolate cake (which I hear is excellent with whipped cream), that doesn't mean that 'cake' as a whole is a bad idea. You're attributing isolated incidents of non-optimal outcomes to a failure of the whole idea. This is why people have been at pains to point out that it was worked marvellously in Australia; that success in itself is proof that the idea is at the very least a workable one, and lends credence to the position that failures are much more likely the result of a few bad cake recipes than an actual deficiency of the entire idea.

First, success in Australia will have to be defined ad infinitum. That success is defined on a subjective basis and hasn't gone without protest or issues, and it doesn't involve the demographics that France, Germany, and the UK are dealing with. Second, your examples are similar to Mr. Dictators Wall St./Capitalism analogy. They are all poor in construction. If immigrants are expected to abide by our laws and customs when they come, and the multicultural idea allows people to come without any intention of abiding by our laws and customs, then the idea is a failure in and of itself.

 

[JollyRoger]

So if they pay the same level of respect to law and custom as Jim Tressel, they should be tossed back?

 

[BuckeyeJim]

So if they pay the same level of respect to law and custom as Jim Tressel, they should be tossed back?

 

[Camikaze]

First, success in Australia will have to be defined ad infinitum. That success is defined on a subjective basis and hasn't gone without protest or issues, and it doesn't involve the demographics that France, Germany, and the UK are dealing with. Second, your examples are similar to Mr. Dictators Wall St./Capitalism analogy. They are all poor in construction. If immigrants are expected to abide by our laws and customs when they come, and the multicultural idea allows people to come without any intention of abiding by our laws and customs, then the idea is a failure in and of itself.

If people don't abide by local laws, they face punishment for it. Regardless of where they are from. The multicultural idea is not to let people ignore laws. It works in tandem with the justice system, and those that break the law are prosecuted. I don't know where this idea that multiculturalism allows people to break the law comes from.

As for customs, why would the idea be a failure on the grounds of people not abiding by specific 'customs' that they do not legally have to abide by? The multicultural idea extends everyone's basic right to do whatever within the law they like to immigrants as well as to locals. Should immigrants not have the same rights as locals in this regard? Is it a failure of multiculturalism that it allows for these equal rights?

 

[Tee Kay]

If immigrants are expected to abide by our laws and customs when they come, and the multicultural idea allows people to come without any intention of abiding by our laws and customs, then the idea is a failure in and of itself.

No one. Is advocating. An immigration system. That places immigrants. Above the law.

 

[Arwon]

Look, if I get offered a job in Saudi Arabia but they tell me that I can never attain citizenship and will always be considered a migrant worker, those are their rules. That, by all multicultural supporters rules, I must abide by. I must respect their culture and their laws. I must play by their rules.

That model is either stupid and doesn't work (ie Germany), or results in massive human rights violations (Gulf States). That should tell you something about what policies work and what don't, what restrictions are reasonable and what aren't.

 

[Mise]

Does anybody else pronounce "Kymlicka" hilariously? Because the way I'm pronouncing it is hilarious and salty.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

That model is either stupid and doesn't work (ie Germany), or results in massive human rights violations (Gulf States). That should tell you something about what policies work and what don't, what restrictions are reasonable and what aren't.

Why is it the policies fault instead of the people who agreed to abide by the policy, the rules, and the laws when they immigrated? I understand that many Gulf States have gross human rights violations. But let's presume this doesn't exist and migrants, while not being able to obtain citizenship, still maintained equal rights, what would be the problem with this scenario?

You've now shifted your entire argument. It's gone from - Immigrants have an obligation to abide by rule and respect culture of the nations they immigrate to; to - Immigrants only have to abide by rules and respect culture if the nation has policies that I happen to agree with.

Under no circumstance does anybody immigrating to a European country, or America, or Australia, have a valid excuse to ignore law and disrespect the pre-existing culture.

 

[Camikaze]

Under no circumstance does anybody immigrating to a European country, or America, or Australia, have a valid excuse to ignore law and disrespect the pre-existing culture.

As to law, no they don't.

Why not culture?

 

[Arwon]

No no man. Don't you see? Beer and cricket should be mandatory.

 

[Tee Kay]

No no man. Don't you see? Beer and cricket should be mandatory.

Link to video.