Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Hakim]

Great post. It's basically my position, it's sane in every way and it's not racist as some would have you believe. I don't mind some immigration for good reasons and if they retain their culture, even while abiding the law, I'd probably see the society as multicultural in that aspect. I wouldn't mind some conditions for gaining and keeping their citizenship either.

About the bolded part, which reasons is good in your opinion?

Wihtout having read the whole thread I have not seen a big debate between welcoming and making a traumatized political refugee a part of a multicultural society compared to a guest worker who decides to settle for good. This is a more universal challenge that I think you could easily compare from one host nation to another anywhere in the world. And here I think you could find more solid statistics in failure and success from one nation to another. There's a clear seperation IMO between work immigration and political refugees, sadly I don't have any statistics on this to throw out. But I speculate that a lot of the multicultural areas that sees problems in Europe right now is as a result of work immigration and not political refugees, so you can't really start to say "It worked for us, why didn't it work for you?".

Work immigration and refugee immigration are different, but isn't work immigrants generally considered to integrate easier?

That's a pretty big assumption on your part. Culture-wise Greeks and Italians were probably closer to Australians than Turks are to Germans, which kind of is the point of the other side's argumentation. Those who don't integrate well in Sweden - in what way weren't they supported? In what way does Australia support their immigrants more than Sweden?

Compare Germany to Sweden then because we had Turkish guest workers too, didn't we? While it seems Germany's problems is almost solely related to those Turks, Sweden's Turks is never mentioned in integration debates. It's like they've disappeared.

Perhaps the immigrants not integrating in society need more incentives for prioritizing their contribution to their new home over their own culture, in those cases where these are incompatible. And as explained earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing some conditions being met to gain and keep citizenship. Violent or severe crimes as well as support of terrorism should make a case for withdrawal of citizenship.

Conditions to keep citizenship? Unless these conditions should apply for all citizens, for this to work you'll need to tag immigrants citizenship so that the legal system can identify them.

Anyway, specific ideas like these is what I was thinking about in my earlier post. Personally I think many of them are undoable for various reasons but there'd be less noisy debates if these were lifted at a early stage. You've expressed scepticism regarding the chances for a sane and rational debate in these issues but I believe it could happen as long as politicians avoid repeating that multiculturalism has failed over and over. Some suggestions could make sense even if you're not anti-immigration (language tests for citizenship for example).

 

[Singularity]

(...)
Work immigration and refugee immigration are different, but isn't work immigrants generally considered to integrate easier?

Compare Germany to Sweden then because we had Turkish guest workers too, didn't we? While it seems Germany's problems is almost solely related to those Turks, Sweden's Turks is never mentioned in integration debates. It's like they've disappeared.(...)

A guestimate would be that work immigrants integrate well on their own, but family reunions, second generation immigrants and pockets of isolated culural regions within a larger host culture could easily cause some multicultural difficulties. Political refugees is a different story since they often require extensive care and attention to be made after having suffered various levels of trauma from where they fled from - which is why I would say that you need to take the statistics with much care when you read about either side of the immigration debate trying to use it for their own advantage -- That is unless you live in France where you're only allowed to publicize the positives when you quote minority statistics.

Concerning Turks living in Sweden, a lot of Turks immigrated again to Germany in the 60's and 70's from other European countries. We're talking comparative numbers here, and I highly doubt you have such a large percentage of Turks remaining in Sweden today as they have in Germany.

 

[Cashie]

Much of this reasoning stems from prejudice. I'm sorry, but you're missing the point and you're constructing an image to fit your own preconceived ideas.

Please explain.

The reason people argue against multiculturalism is based on prejudiced. It's the idea of a faceless mass of foreigners threatening "our way of life", and not Mr Nguyen at the shop or Kumar on your cricket team. Whatever, it's the idea of putting people in a basket and being afraid of them and not treating them on equal human terms. You could argue that since minorities stand out and that if they are victims of bigoted violence or discrimination, then Multiculturalism Has Failed.

It's a bit rich for Britons to complain about Indians, Nigerians, Pakistanis, New Zealanders or Bangladeshis "overrunning" their country. Same goes for Vietnamese or Algerians in France.

What's going to happen, deport everyone who doesn't have fish & chips every Friday night?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

About the bolded part, which reasons is good in your opinion?

Probably the same reasons that are applied now, but perhaps with better control, more analysis and openness behind them and not to a greater extent than our neighbors.

Conditions to keep citizenship? Unless these conditions should apply for all citizens, for this to work you'll need to tag immigrants citizenship so that the legal system can identify them.

Is it a terrible idea to send someone who has committed murder in his new country back to his old from where he fled?

Anyway, specific ideas like these is what I was thinking about in my earlier post. Personally I think many of them are undoable for various reasons but there'd be less noisy debates if these were lifted at a early stage. You've expressed scepticism regarding the chances for a sane and rational debate in these issues but I believe it could happen as long as politicians avoid repeating that multiculturalism has failed over and over. Some suggestions could make sense even if you're not anti-immigration (language tests for citizenship for example).

Agreed, but I see the first step would be to admit that issues exist in the first place. What's to discuss if all is perfect?

Please explain.

The reason people argue against multiculturalism is based on prejudiced. It's the idea of a faceless mass of foreigners threatening "our way of life", and not Mr Nguyen at the shop or Kumar on your cricket team. Whatever, it's the idea of putting people in a basket and being afraid of them and not treating them on equal human terms. You could argue that since minorities stand out and that if they are victims of bigoted violence or discrimination, then Multiculturalism Has Failed.

It's a bit rich for Britons to complain about Indians, Nigerians, Pakistanis, New Zealanders or Bangladeshis "overrunning" their country. Same goes for Vietnamese or Algerians in France.

What's going to happen, deport everyone who doesn't have fish & chips every Friday night?

All your reasoning comes from a prejudiced mind. You lump everyone who raises a concern negative aspects of multiculturalism into a, for you convenient, basket of bigoted, narrowminded, fish&chips eating people.

It's easy and feels good to do it. People from all generations try to find people who fit their profile of evil and then do their best to distance themselves from it while condemning it. "You bad - me good!". Try to read the posts with an open mind instead.

 

[Yeekim]

I have no idea what you're trying to say now. If not "multiculturalism means separate legal systems" then what? Are you saying Australia or Canada aren't multicultural societies because the migrants don't demand changes to the criminal law code? It sounds a lot like you're equating multiculturalism, by definition, to situations of failure and strife only.

Edit: I'm pretty sure you're defining frikkin Singapore out of the multiculti club here.

Well... I've never been to Canada, Australia or Singapore. If you are saying that these places do not fit the definition I brought before, then I have no choice but to believe you. This would mean that these countries, while accepting a lot of immigrants, have been very successful in integrating/assimilating them - to the point that they are actually monocultural everywhere where it matters. Hopefully you'll excuse me if I retain a certain amount of scepticism regarding how seamless this integration has actually been, however, until I'll get a chance to gather some personal impressions some day. Also, my suspicions are supported by what Singularity says below. Nevertheless, I am rather willing to believe that Canada and Australia are doing the right thing for themselves.

How do you account for the fact that the ethnic groups in Europe, which you say are problematic and ghettoey, are generally smaller than populations than in Canada and Australia (countries which invented the concept of explicit multiculturalism as official policy and spent resources to support it) which aren't? Are the migrants different, the government policies different, or the majority population's attitudes different?

I'll go out on a limb and say all three are all different.

Sorry to say this Loppan, but a lot of the Aussies are talking out of their collective arses. Any country that manages to nurture John Howard as a PM for allmost 12 years are clearly needing a lesson or two in multiculturality.There's a lot of human dispair in Australia. It's just another experience than the one we have here in Europe.

What can I add?

In France it's forbidden to publisize any statistics of negative social values that includes representational numbers by a cultural minority within the country. Now, that's just daft IMO. It's running from the problem and pretending it's not there, and eventually it will all just flood over and there will be cars burning in the french streets all over again.

THIS. This is where multiculturalism, or at least its French variety, is failing terribly.You can't have a discussion if you attempt to hide the facts.

So what's the alternative? Just cutting back on immigration?

I outlined "what I'd want" in some detail, actually.

Is it really unreasonable to ask that you try to live with your neighbour, instead of judging or even pre-judging them in broad-brush terms? Sure, maybe a lot of immigrants (debatable, but I don't have any statistic) are poor and aren't model citizens by your definition, but why don't you ask yourselves why that might be the case, instead of simply attributing it to cultural incompatibility.

It is like asking "if you have adopted a child, shouldn't you try to raise him as best as you can - as if he was your own?". Obviously, the answer is "HELL YES!". You are correct that this is a foregone conclusion. But the question is, really: "How to raise him? How much freedom should he get? How strict should the rules be?" And also "Should we continue to adopt other kids, who just might be slightly dysfunctional?" "Is there a really a moral obligation for us to do so?" "Maybe it would be better if we solved our demographic/economic issues some other way?".

To elaborate upon my definition of failed multiculturalism:
"Multiculturalism is also belief that different cultures can be integrated without any assimilation, and generally treating assimilation attempts as "violence" towards minorities."
I think some degree of assimilation is necessary and should not be frowned upon. In other words, the kids need some rules.
EDIT:

Is it a terrible idea to send someone who has committed murder in his new country back to his old from where he fled?

Nah, I vote we send them to Australia instead. After all, isn't it the original purpose of the damn place? /jk

 

[Arwon]

So, to clarify, are you saying that societies aren't multicultural societies if the migrants don't demand changes to the criminal legal system?

Which societies do you consider, currently, to be multicultural?

 

[Cashie]

All your reasoning comes from a prejudiced mind. You lump everyone who raises a concern negative aspects of multiculturalism into a, for you convenient, basket of bigoted, narrowminded, fish&chips eating people.

It's easy and feels good to do it. People from all generations try to find people who fit their profile of evil and then do their best to distance themselves from it while condemning it. "You bad - me good!". Try to read the posts with an open mind instead.

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond.
My original point (was I unclear? Probably) was that in the "old world" (Europe and to a lesser extent, Asia) it's easier and (perhaps) more valid to argue against multiculturalism with the line that it would endanger the traditional culture. France being less "French", Scotland being less "Scottish", etc. This argument is often made on racial or religious grounds.

In the newer immigrant nations, we have a different perspective. The older generations, especially those who live outside the major cities, may feel threatened by the visiting city suburbs with Arabic or Chinese signage perhaps more visible than recognisable English.

I understand where these people come from: it's where I was raised. Don't prejudge me.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think the main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure is that the established culture fails to properly adapt to the changing culture.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I've said this before, but multiculturalism does not mean or imply that a host culture has to acquiesce to every demand of an immigrant culture. To imply that it is, or to define it that way, is to present an unimaginably banal caricature.

 

[Hakim]

Is it a terrible idea to send someone who has committed murder in his new country back to his old from where he fled?

No that makes sense.

However since you respond with a question, does that mean you're not completely comfortable with establishing an country of origin attribute to the citizenship and then treat people different in the legal system, depending on where they're from?

 

[aelf]

I outlined "what I'd want" in some detail, actually.

Actually, no, you didn't. What you seem to be implying is that there needs to be an acknowledgement that certain arrangements have not worked out and that there should be political discourse on what should be done. Heck, people who are not against multiculturalism can agree with those. What is still not clear is how this has to do with normative cultural concerns. So I still don't know where exactly an indictment of multiculturalism can be found and I still have no idea what exactly is a non-multicultural society if it's not a monocultural one (which I trust is not what you're actually wishing for, right?).

It is like asking "if you have adopted a child, shouldn't you try to raise him as best as you can - as if he was your own?". Obviously, the answer is "HELL YES!". You are correct that this is a foregone conclusion. But the question is, really: "How to raise him? How much freedom should he get? How strict should the rules be?" And also "Should we continue to adopt other kids, who just might be slightly dysfunctional?" "Is there a really a moral obligation for us to do so?" "Maybe it would be better if we solved our demographic/economic issues some other way?".

So what exactly are you proposing?

 

[Yeekim]

So, to clarify, are you saying that societies aren't multicultural societies if the migrants don't demand changes to the criminal legal system?

That is ... a grand oversimplification of what I am saying, yes.
1. No need to focus on "criminal" - all parts of the legal system are culture-influenced and equally important.
2. "Not demanding changes" ain't good enough - that is some way from "agreeing with/accepting it".

Which societies do you consider, currently, to be multicultural?

I think the most obvious examples of multicultural countries are signatories to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, insofar as they actually try to follow it. That is non-exhaustive of course. I do not think there are (m)any truly monocultural societies left - even where integration is working well, it is still a process which can never be complete as long as new immigrants are constantly arriving. Also, look below for my response to aelf about differences between "multiculturalism" and "multicultural society". I admit I have been inconsistent of my usage of the terms as well. Hopefully, you can still understand me, it currently makes sense to myself at least.

Actually, no, you didn't. What you seem to be implying is that there needs to be an acknowledgement that certain arrangements have not worked out and that there should be political discourse on what should be done. Heck, people who are not against multiculturalism can agree with those.

Heck, yeah, very much hope so, I believe it to be pretty sensible.

What is still not clear is how this has to do with normative cultural concerns. So I still don't know where exactly an indictment of multiculturalism can be found and I still have no idea what exactly is a non-multicultural society if it's not a monocultural one (which I trust is not what you're actually wishing for, right?)...
So what exactly are you proposing?

First, I want to point out that, as I explained in an earlier post, I understand "multiculturalism" as a certain (flawed) ideology, or a belief system, not as a set of factual conditions in a given country. A country where multiple cultures (co)exist needs not subscribe to the ideology of "multiculturalism", just like a country does not become "socialist" by virtue of having a "social policy". For instance, signatories of DRIP I mentioned above, obviously have multiple cultures coexisting within them, yet I'd say they are not "multiculturalist", since they don't seem to think that those cultures can be subjected to same laws with no problems and no special treatment or privileges, nor do they pretend that there are no problems related to living side by side that need solving. Instead, they have recognized the need to "emphasize the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations" as well as to "promote their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development".

Now, I do not want to suddenly find my country in a position where we would be forced to recognize similar necessities, because of a minority group who aren't here today, but who could arrive tomorrow. If they arrive with out consent, then they could be justified in expecting that we take steps to accommodate them - and these steps may not be something trivial. "Multiculturalists" are asserting that this won't be necessary or that these steps will be trivial; I don't think we can count on it.

Now what if these groups have already arrived? Then we can only do damage control.
EDIT: It also might turn out to be too late already for some. For instance, theoretically we might find that currently the best thing France could do would be to grant some sort of cultural/institutional autonomy to Maghribians. I can certainly see that being wildly unpopular. Which is also why I think there is zero chance of that happening. Which would mean they are in deep trouble as a result of their past policies.

 

[warpus]

THIS. This is where multiculturalism, or at least its French variety, is failing terribly.You can't have a discussion if you attempt to hide the facts.

That's not an example of multiculturalism failing, it's an example of a stupid law failing.

 

[Yeekim]

That's not an example of multiculturalism failing, it's an example of a stupid law failing.

First, read what I am saying multiculturalism is from this post. Then read my answer to aelf right above your post.

 

[warpus]

First, read what I am saying multiculturalism is from this post. Then read my answer to aelf right above your post.

I started reading the post you linked, but quickly realized you don't understand what multiculturalism is. Everyone adhering to the same laws means that the country in question is not multicultural? Listen, I don't want to get into a huge debate about that part of it, it seems like you guys have already covered that. I just wanted to say that your example of multiculturalism failing is just a stupid law not working, nothing inherent about multiculturalism failing.

 

[Yeekim]

I started reading the post you linked, but quickly realized you don't understand what multiculturalism is. Everyone adhering to the same laws means that the country in question is not multicultural? Listen, I don't want to get into a huge debate about that part of it, it seems like you guys have already covered that. I just wanted to say that your example of multiculturalism failing is just a stupid law not working, nothing inherent about multiculturalism failing.

When Cameron et al said that "multiculturalism has failed", they hardly wanted to say "it is downright impossible for different cultures to live together". If that was how you understood them, then I think it might be you who doesn't understand what multiculturalism is. :shrug:

 

[Arwon]

I guess if you just make up whatever the hell meaning of multiculturalism you want, it must seem perfectly reasonable to define it in a way that it a. doesn't exist and b. has somehow managed to fail anyway.

That is ... a grand oversimplification of what I am saying, yes.
1. No need to focus on "criminal" - all parts of the legal system are culture-influenced and equally important.
2. "Not demanding changes" ain't good enough - that is some way from "agreeing with/accepting it".

OK, so give us some examples of the sort of legal conflicts you're talking about, then. What aspects of law do you think migrants are trying to change? And what makes you think that it's not multiculturalism for contradictions between newcomer cultural values and existing law to be resolved in favour of the law of the land?

Don't get me wrong, your insistence that multiculturalism requires a non-unitary legal system is still deeply wacky (are the Russians and Ukrainians demanding separate Russian and Ukrainian law in your country or something?), but let's try and flesh this out, shall we?

 

[Yeekim]

I guess if you just make up whatever the hell meaning of multiculturalism you want, it must seem perfectly reasonable to define it in a way that it a. doesn't exist and b. has somehow managed to fail anyway.

If you don't like my definition, you are free to provide your own. I also could have defined it as something that is omnipresent and cannot fail, but I don't think such definition would've been germane to the thread.

OK, so give us some examples of the sort of legal conflicts you're talking about, then. What aspects of law do you think migrants are trying to change?

Well, here are some protesters who apparently do have a problem with criminal law:

Spoiler :

Disclaimer: yes, yes, I do get that they are entirely non-representative sample of Muslims as a whole, I really do.

More seriously, I am not sure what the good folks who've made a habit of burning cars in Paris themselves know what exactly it is what they want, but they apparently harbor a gripe about something.

I shall answer the rest of your post later, off to sleep soon.

 

[Arwon]

I suspect car-burners in Paris aren't exactly arguing for the legalisation of car-burning.

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, France needs more acceptance of its multicultural reality, it has an extremely assimilationist official stance and an official policy of denying the existence of cultural difference and insisting everyone is French and only French. France is, in fact, an object lesson in the dangers of not keeping pace with the multicultural reality on the ground.

You cannot use it as an example of "failure of multiculturalism" unless by "multiculturalism" you mean nothing more than "migration of people with distinct ethnic and cultural backgrounds." The "guest worker" model of many Europe an countries is manifestly not multiculturalism - and in fact illustrates the danger of not accounting for the fact that your new workers have a differernt cultural and ethnic background.

Oh, and as for definitions, I've posted several times on what the term means in an official policy sense, as opposed to the various weird strawmen people are coming up with.

For a start:

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.

Though really I think our immigration minister sums it up quite well.

I have not yet heard an alternative articulated which is appropriate for the context of a country with large numbers of ethnically and culturally distinct migrants. All the "opposition" to multiculturalism seems to fall down completely on providing any practical complaints or solutions which aren't either generalised complaints about the mere existence of migrants or things which have nothing to do with a formal policy of respect for other cultures within the context of the core culture's legal system, insistence on equality, and so forth.

 

[aelf]

First, I want to point out that, as I explained in an earlier post, I understand "multiculturalism" as a certain (flawed) ideology, or a belief system, not as a set of factual conditions in a given country. A country where multiple cultures (co)exist needs not subscribe to the ideology of "multiculturalism", just like a country does not become "socialist" by virtue of having a "social policy".

That is a horrible analogy, and it points to a kind of bad reasoning that thrives on the abuse of language. Certainly, what one understands in the term 'socialist' is generally very different and only tangentially related to what one understands in the term 'social' as it is used in 'social policy'. To suggest that people who advocate socialism seek to appropriate the meaning of 'social' in every context in which the word is used is obviously stupid. But such an appropriation is exactly what you are trying to do with 'multiculturalism'. The meaning of all instances of the term are, through your reasoning, being conflated with or replaced by the single arbitrary meaning signified by your usage of it. Thus, the general usage of 'socialism' and your usage of 'multiculturalism' are incomparable because, in the former, there is virtually no confusion between the ideology and the term 'social' as an objective characteristic of policy, while in the latter, the fact and the ideologically-charged meaning are not so clearly separated.

Why are they not clearly separated? Because you said that an open immigration policy is part of or indeed central to the so-called problem. Therefore, you implied that multiculturalism as a fact that is brought about by immigration plays a key role in the constitution and realisation of multiculturalism as an ideology. So unless you are willing to drop the claims about immigration, I call BS on your attempt to differentiate fact and ideology in order to retain some kind of moral high ground.