I'm really not clear what you are asking. Could you rephrase it? In the US, well off people have always trusted their children to people of racial and ethnic groups that they would not allow at their dinner table. White people have usually had colored servants.
Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
I'm really not clear what you are asking. Could you rephrase it? In the US, well off people have always trusted their children to people of racial and ethnic groups that they would not allow at their dinner table. White people have usually had colored servants.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Our values"? I assure you, my good little monarchist, "our values" coincide only occasionally.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
new york is an excellent example of how different cultures come together.... if that is what is happening in europe, there would be no problem then, would there?
seperate/segregated =/= different
Quackers
The Frog
"Our values"? I assure you, my good little monarchist, "our values" coincide only occasionally.
Your so 18th century TF.
Do we agree on enlightenment principles? I imagine so.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Oh, come now. I'm very much trapped in the '20s.
Broadly, but that only really means so much. I mean, I reject private property, you reject popular sovereignty; wars have quite literally been fought over less.
No, you're being told the presence of other cultures does not, in any way, detract from yours. Culture is additive, not subtractive. The fact that people celebrate Chinese New Year doesn't make my own New Year celebrations any less meaningful.
Pay the rent and don't be a douchebag? Maybe the chance to learn from different people and grow in my understanding of the world. You're asking the wrong person here, dude. I've lived with Singaporeans, Chinese, Germans, Italians, Norwegians and Malaysians. Even Queenslanders! All lovely people who are part of the rich and broad tapestry of human existence. Wht do you expect from flatmates?
Dude, I think you've just defined multiculturalism as "failure". Which makes any claim that multiculturalism has failed a tautology, coming from you.
What Warpus describes is a natural cultural synthesis which is the usual product of a multicultural policy. It's not "ïntegration" because the law and social policy aims at obedience to the law and support for migrant groups, not demanding facile and shallow outward expressions of conformity to the monoculture.
Multiculturalism is basically "let it be", a policy of following social reality and supporting actual people, rather than trying to shape it through imposing cultural demands on migrants. So in policy terms it's pretty limited in scope (just like any NON multicultural policy is limited in scope and can't really achieve much). It manifests as, basically, some culturally-based support services (for example, we have a government-funded multicultural TV station called SBS, which broadcasts movies, news, sport and radio in a bunch of languages - including a recently started locally-made Mandarin news program) and probably funding or logistical support for various groups festivals and traditions from local governments, if they have the numbers and organisation to justify it.
That's really pretty much it. There's no great social-engineering conspiracy to create a mosaic or crush the dominant culture or whatever. It's just a policy that says if that's what occurs, that's people's rights to live how they want and still expect some support from their state.
No I'm not. I'm just saying it's silly.
I'd say the same to a Chinaman if he comes up with some Chinese nationalist nonsense. It's not all about you, Quackers.
Oh, and this too. And besides, some people celebrate both. You can be Western and also Chinese/Arab/Muslim/etc. The idea that one person can only really belong to one strictly-defined culture is outdated.
As you may see, that is already a bit different than just "abide by the laws of the country", no? Being a leech of a douchebag is perfectly legal in every country I know of.
Always a good thing.
Oh, I am sure of it. Obviously I wouldn´t turn anyone down merely because s/he is a member of a nation x.
Why, those same things of course, plus what Ziggy said. But they aren´t as given as many people here seem to think - especially if you can't pick and choose your immigrants the way Canada or Australia does.
Afaik, your national hot topic with regards to immigration is the "boat people" who number in what, few thousands? Whereas there is some half a million illegals living in UK alone. Or what about Greece or Spain, who detain tens of thousands illegals each year? You objectively lead a sheltered life.
Mise
isle of lucy
Being a poor flatmate isn't grounds for deportation under even the most fascist of immigration policies. There are literally millions of people -- the overwhelming majority of which are white, British-born and with British heritage -- who I would not wish to live with, and who would not wish to "cohabit" with me in return. There are probably around a dozen people in the entire country that I'd be willing to live with in the long term. Even my some of closest friends wouldn't make the cut, because they have disgusting habits or walk around in a towel after they shower.
I simply don't understand why we're talking about cohabiting with people at all. Clearly, what I'm willing to put up with in my own home is much more strict than what I'm willing to put up with in the pub, on the street, at work, on public transport, etc. And what I'm willing to put up with in terms of the right to live and work here (much less full citizenship) is looser still. Obey the law, just like everyone else in the country.
Nobody in this country likes chavs. They don't participate in our glorious traditional culture, they commit crimes, they don't have jobs, and do nothing but leech off the government. Can we just wall off Scotland again and ship them off there? Send them to Ireland or Australia or something? Would they all fit on the Isle of Man? Clearly, chavculturalism has failed.
I simply don't understand why we're talking about cohabiting with people at all. Clearly, what I'm willing to put up with in my own home is much more strict than what I'm willing to put up with in the pub, on the street, at work, on public transport, etc. And what I'm willing to put up with in terms of the right to live and work here (much less full citizenship) is looser still. Obey the law, just like everyone else in the country.
Nobody in this country likes chavs. They don't participate in our glorious traditional culture, they commit crimes, they don't have jobs, and do nothing but leech off the government. Can we just wall off Scotland again and ship them off there? Send them to Ireland or Australia or something? Would they all fit on the Isle of Man? Clearly, chavculturalism has failed.
The whole question of 'what should we expect from people' in an argument about multiculturalism seems to be making the odd assumption that there is some culture or group of cultures that are lazier than everyone else; below the standard you expect. Sure, expect common courtesy from people who enter your metaphorical house, but what that has to do with multiculturalism I don't know.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Multiculturalism has nothing to do with racial or ethnic differences, even if these differences often coincide. Given this interpretation:
- The salad bowl with different cultural and religious divisions keep the society segregated, and for example keeps people from marrying between groups due to social, cultural or religious pressure. It also lowers the competitiveness in some groups that won't adapt, which again ties in to the welfare.
Are you saying that immigration policies for groups that won't adapt should be stricter?
No one has argued that anyone should be shipped off anywhere. It's like a strawman.
No, I only stated that the other example also is multiculturalism. It doesn't always work out as well as Warpus described.
You're still only seeing the part that's well-functioning. No one would argue (some probably would) if all things went as smoothly as you describe. There's nothing wrong with multiculturalism per se and when it works, it's great and a contribution to society, but it does not by far sort itself out, like you and many politicians have believed for a long time. The recent statements are a reflection of it. I'm pretty sure that you, in Australia, have a different experience, but it's a lacking one. We'll probably get a similar fort around us too and pick and choose more who we'll accept. If we do 'multiculturalism' will add more than it will substract from society.
I think Cameron knows the coalition won't last long after the AV vote. Labour seems to have a lot of support (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/), so I think his multiculturalism comments are an attempt to win far right votes.
There are a'holes in all cultures.What? No. Multiculturalism is not apartheid. The whole point of multiculturalism is to create an environment where multiple cultures can coexist without segregation.
But that's like everything else that humans as a species have ever tried.
Sure, as Camikaze said, it's reasonable to expect new migrants to contribute positively to society, but I don't see what this has to do with multiculturalism, unless you base your immigration policies on broad generalizations of people of certain cultures as being detrimental to society, which isn't a good idea.
Ooooh, people from the country where a quarter of the population were born overseas don't understand the evils of multiculturalism? Right.
This idealised "fortress" of "picking and choosing" that you think exists, doesn't. It's not really different to Europe. People mostly enter to work or to be with their families who are already there. Are you telling me you think the people entering Italy or France to work or be with their families are somehow "worse" than the people entering Australia or Canada to work or be with their families?
If your cultures are unwelcoming and your policies unsupportive of newcomers, then you're going to get social problems, but that's a result of not doing multiculturalism sufficiently well. It's not like the numbers in Europe are proportionately higher than in Australia, in fact they're lower virtually everywhere both in "percentage of population which is foreign born" and in "arrivals per year as a percentage of total population" terms. Hell maybe you need more migrants in these countries to get people accustomed to them.
As for refugee and asylum entries (which should, of course, create more problems with social disolcation and such)... refugees and asylum seekers are a small minority of the total population of Europe or Australia, and of total arrivals. We're talking substantially less than half a million applications a year across 50 countries. Only a handful of countries get more than 10 000 applications a year. So don't tell me refugees or asylum entrants are this big uncontrolled flow of foreigners Australians just can't understand.
And as I say, the numbers of entry are lower. France, a country with 3 times the population of Australia, has lower gross numbers enter than Australia does (140 000 per year), foreign-born people make up only 8% of that country. And something like 70% of arrivals each year consist of family entries joining existing citizens, hardly a source of additional social dislocation or instability.
In the case of Sweden, they have about 14% foreign-born and a high asylum intake, but 3 of the 5 largest foreign-born populations are European - Finns, Poles and Yugoslavians. In Norway (11%) there's more Poles and Swedes than Pakistanis, and only 30 000 of those.
Greece and Spain? 10% or less. They're just not used to being recipients instead of sources of migrants. Much like the Irish. They'll get over it.
The difference between Australia and much of Europe is of attitude and policy on the part of host countries, not of the nature, character or size of the migration.
Arwon said:
I understand the evils of White Britfags and South Afrikans. Evil evil buggers, what with their silly accents and smarmy holier-than-thou attitudes always looking down their noses at the colonials. Really, if either of their countries were all that good, would the buggers have come to our fair shores? Of course not. Let's send em all back to blighty and blacky and be done with 'em. Hang the
Arwon said:
As one of these people: I still support sending the Britfags and South Afrikans back home, what a dirty bunch of so-and-so's. If they don't like it, and they never do, they can GTFO!11!!1111!!1111
Arwon said:
We should send all thoes Britfag overstayers back in chains! What a bunch of illegal immigrants stealing our jobs! Utter mongrels. Australia is for the Australians. And not for whiny Britfags.
Kraznaya
Princeps
Post of the year, bar none
My two cents (I don't think I have much to say that hasn't been said already): The opposition between "multiculturalism" and "assimilation" is mostly overblown. In practice, I think you probably see as much assimilation in "multicultural" countries (Canada, Australia (?)) as in "assimilationist" countries (France, the United States, etc.).
In the "multicultural" countries, you don't have apartheid or segregation (well, okay maybe for the aboriginal peoples ...) or cultures living-side-by-side (well, okay, that not true with (Anglo)-Canada and Quebec, but that's a whole different story). What you do have is one dominate culture that have in varying degree of assimilation various immigrant communities living in its large cities. Why wouldn't there be? They dominate culture has all the money and power, and people will sooner or later realize you have become an integral part of that culture to succeed in those societies. Yes, there are fairs, exotic food restaurants and all that, but I think that those are really just artifacts ripped from the former motherland cultures. Those things will probably either be incorporated into the new main culture (with substantial modifications of course) or allowed to die away.
I think debates about "multiculturalism" is a proxy debate about how liberal a country's immigration policy should be. Now the main reason for people proclaiming its failure is mostly a way of saying that don't want immigrants without actually saying and looking like a racist, or saying you are opposed to it without actually doing anything (or being actually against it). In the case of center-right politicians, it's a good way of papering over difference between the "nationalist"/populist portions of their base (which a likely to oppose a liberalized immigration policy) with economic elites, who like have the rich immigrants to spend their money and the poor immigrants to provide them with cheap labour. Given that they hold all the levers of power, and they can align themselves with the pro-immigration forces elsewhere, its likely that there won't be much substantial reductions in immigration levels in most Western countries (there could be exceptions, depending on local political situtions).
In the "multicultural" countries, you don't have apartheid or segregation (well, okay maybe for the aboriginal peoples ...) or cultures living-side-by-side (well, okay, that not true with (Anglo)-Canada and Quebec, but that's a whole different story). What you do have is one dominate culture that have in varying degree of assimilation various immigrant communities living in its large cities. Why wouldn't there be? They dominate culture has all the money and power, and people will sooner or later realize you have become an integral part of that culture to succeed in those societies. Yes, there are fairs, exotic food restaurants and all that, but I think that those are really just artifacts ripped from the former motherland cultures. Those things will probably either be incorporated into the new main culture (with substantial modifications of course) or allowed to die away.
I think debates about "multiculturalism" is a proxy debate about how liberal a country's immigration policy should be. Now the main reason for people proclaiming its failure is mostly a way of saying that don't want immigrants without actually saying and looking like a racist, or saying you are opposed to it without actually doing anything (or being actually against it). In the case of center-right politicians, it's a good way of papering over difference between the "nationalist"/populist portions of their base (which a likely to oppose a liberalized immigration policy) with economic elites, who like have the rich immigrants to spend their money and the poor immigrants to provide them with cheap labour. Given that they hold all the levers of power, and they can align themselves with the pro-immigration forces elsewhere, its likely that there won't be much substantial reductions in immigration levels in most Western countries (there could be exceptions, depending on local political situtions).
Similar threads
