Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

Main reason for these politicians to see 'multiculturalism' as a failure

  • Populistic - to win votes and stay in power

    Votes: 62 50.0%
  • Personal ideological - they believe they're right without any objective evidence

    Votes: 16 12.9%
  • Economical - Cost analysis shows the cost-benefit doesn't/won't add up for their nation

    Votes: 6 4.8%
  • Future threat - A future demographic/political/ideological/religious threat

    Votes: 28 22.6%
  • Other - explain, please

    Votes: 12 9.7%

  • Total voters
    124
I beg to differ. At least when those practices are not merely "backward", but potentially violent as well.

Well, it's not. Also, even if it was, did you really want to say what you just did? :crazyeye:

What I meant was with respect to letting such people in. If they keep their practices within the home, who belonging to the host culture would it harm? If they were not to be allowed in, they would do it as well. At least there might be some pressure to change if they were allowed in.

Yeekim said:
You might say the same after burning down your house and gambling away your savings; doesn't mean it is a smart idea. Besides, first law of nature: things can always get worse.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in response to what I said.

Yeekim said:
Would you classify general disgruntlement of people that has lead to notable revival of "far-right" parties in Europe as "success"? And that is not taking into account people who would never vote for such party - if only not to get behind the same table with skinhead-high-school-dropouts - but still think there are legitimate concerns (that's me)? That is definitely a failure for politicians who have promoted "multiculturalism" and who obviously feel they are losing support.
EDIT: Luckily, thanks to our pathetic-in-comparison-with-Scandinavia welfare system and abominable weather, immigrants are no hot topic in Estonia. So "that's me" should be read "that probably was me if I lived in France/UK/Netherlands etc".

So? These people are merely bigots. Even if they aren't really bigots, that has no bearing on the success/failure of multiculturalism. The failure is not that of multiculturalism, but that of the host country.
 
Aftenposten said:
Oslo rape statistics shock
Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

Of course, this was what the anti-immigrants suspected all along, but weren't allowed to say until a couple of years ago. Similar things have become evident in all European countries over the years - in addition to issues with unemployment and immigration, of course. There are real problems with immigration from primitive Muslim societies, but since we aren't allowed to talk about them they have spiraled out of control.
 
Yeah, obviously this has everything to do with culture/religion and has little or nothing to do about class :rolleyes:
 
I think t he failure of multiculturalism can be pinpointed on extremely sensitive and soft travellors who feel threateed by Swedish border staff :lol:
 
Government should manage whatever the people want it to manage.

Nope, ethnic nation-states are stupid, and if the language and culture of a nation can't survive in the free market of ideas, it deserves to die, for the same reason an indebted company deserves to fail.
 
I'm pretty sure what lots of people attribute to ethnicity or culture can be far more easily attributed to socioeconomics.
 
Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.
Heh, "charged". That's an utterly infallible measure of the occurrence of rapes, I'm very sure. :rolleyes:
 
I think t he failure of multiculturalism can be pinpointed on extremely sensitive and soft travellors who feel threateed by Swedish border staff :lol:

:lol: Feeling threatened is the domain of skinheads. Minorities feel insulted when skinheads think they are threatening. That's the difference.
 
I'm fine with that. As long as you and the politicians aren't deluding yourselves that a lot of these people will integrate and become supporting members of society, not for a long time, if ever. Reasonable well adjusted/educated people of other cultures are able to contribute, but multiculturalism is nothing to be strived for its own sake to gain economical advantage, it's just a matter of filling jobs and becoming internationally competitive.
I've not argued "they have to become productive quickly", just that if you believe that the multicultural society make you more successful, because of the multitude of cultures, you have to include this group. I they retain their culture and pass it on to their children, you can't disregard the unproductiveness to their or their parents former refugee status. Sometimes different cultures acts as barriers to integration and you may blame society for it, but you'd be wrong.

Intergenerational criminal enclaves of refugees doesn't happen, so you can stop worrying.
 
God Aelf didn't you know? Gosh your so insensitive i think an apology needs to be made to the skinhead community. :rolleyes:

Now go spend another week at Traitorfish's re-education camp or necessary beatings...uhhh teachings for priviledged people.
 
No, I'm serious about this. Sophie Lancaster was beaten to death for being a goth. This stuff hurts people.

Edit: Ok, getting a bit over-serious there, perhaps, but I really do think that subcultural prejudice is to be avoided as much as any other.
 
God Aelf didn't you know? Gosh your so insensitive i think an apology needs to be made to the skinhead community. :rolleyes:

Ahh, you're right, i should of been nicer to skinheads otherwise they would of never hatd me!

:rotfl:
 
I'm pretty sure what lots of people attribute to ethnicity or culture can be far more easily attributed to socioeconomics.
Yup. The problem is, attributing it to ethnicity or "culture" is intellectually easy (i.e. lazy). And, if you attribute it to ethnicity or culture, the solution is equally easy (i.e. lazy) -- don't allow immigration from other ethnicities or cultures.
 
Probably 85% meaningless balls-to-the-wall populism. 15% of people, of course, genuinely believe that multiculturalism is a failure because it violates some crazy aesthetic standard of the composition of ethnic groups in their perfect society.
 
Hard to understand the leftists on this thread when read in the context of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy all denouncing multiculturalism. I am just wondering if it wasn't for the powerful race-relations lobby and rampant political correctness (especially in the UK) we would have heard identical condemnations years earlier from Blair and Chirac.

Even Trevor Phillips the frigging head of Equality and Humans right commision has said multiculturalism has failed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1055221.ece).

What is equally puzzling is that some people don't even think there is a legitimate grievance at all!
 
Why can't the immigrants just integrate like Indians do in the US? Indians immigrating to the US can keep their culture, but they pose no threat to society unlike the Algerians in France
 
I think the issue is immigration is harder to control in Europe. They don't have the advantage of being sequestered from the major emigration zones by two oceans.
 
Erm, Quackers, the entire point is that multiculturalism isn't an actual policy or set of policies that can be abandoned, or that can "fail". The idea that "multiculturalism" can "fail" is lazy, dog-whistle politics -- because it completely misrepresents what multiculturalism actually entails. The aims of multiculturalism is simply that other cultures, races, religions etc are treated equally under the law, and demands nothing more than that people of other cultures, races and religions follow the law. Those goals were all broadly achieved by equality laws under the Labour government.

As a statement of fact, there are many different cultures in existence in the UK. You can either accept that (a multicultural "policy"), or you can do as the French do and try to force people to adopt the dominant culture. When Sarkozy or Merkel say that multiculturalism has failed, they're talking bollocks, because their policies are the exact opposite of multiculturalism. When xenophobes hear "multiculturalism", what they really think is "Islam" (or "Blacks", "Jews", "Gypsies", "Micks", etc.) -- so Sarkozy and Merkel dog-whistle those voters by claiming that "multiculturalism" has failed. Now, surprise surprise, Cameron is at it too.

So, well done for identifying three Conservative politicians, all engaging in the same rhetorical tactic. But the idea that Labour never did this too just shows your ignorance: Blairites "rejected" multiculturalism a decade ago. Do try to keep up. David Blunkett, Jack Straw, Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears all took the idea of "national identity" and tacked it on to the end of "multiculturalism" (by which they meant "equality"). Brown's policies on creating a "Britain Day", for example, were overtly interventionist. Indeed, as I said, multiculturalist goals were achieved under equality laws in the early days of Labour: any further meddling tended to be overtly interventionist, authoritarian, and integrationist.

And yet, the actual policies that result from this "rejection" of "multiculturalism", both by Labour and Cameron, look very much like the multiculturalist policies they supposedly rejected. As Arwon said, "multicultural policies" manifest themselves as support tailored for immigrant and minority cultures. But that is exactly what Cameron proposes we do anyway -- except this time, he's doing it to abate the radicalisation of Muslim youth. Same set of policies, different brand. Multiculturalism is dead: long live multiculturalism?
 
Hard to understand the leftists on this thread when read in the context of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy all denouncing multiculturalism. I am just wondering if it wasn't for the powerful race-relations lobby and rampant political correctness (especially in the UK) we would have heard identical condemnations years earlier from Blair and Chirac.
:lol:

Why can't the immigrants just integrate like Indians do in the US? Indians immigrating to the US can keep their culture, but they pose no threat to society unlike the Algerians in France
Because Europeans aren't used to the idea of other people having a right to a culture outside of the dominant national one, and so take things like "worshipping a different interpretation of the same god" and "having a beard" as personal slights.

And this isn't a problem unique to immigrants, either. The reactionaries are as happy to grind their heel in the face of native ethnic minorities- just look at how they treat Irish Travellers in the UK.
 
Back
Top Bottom