Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Tee Kay]

I don't know who in this debate wants a single worldwide state with no borders, right now, but I seriously doubt that even a small minority does.

Actually, I'd support that. That'd be great.

 

[Mise]

I am willing to accept financially solvent people with university degrees regardless of their religion, color or shape.

You realise, don't you, that our world class university education is by a huuuuuuuuuge margin the number 1 route for non-EU immigrants to enter the UK, and to stay here after graduating?

Here's an article on it: http://www.economist.com/node/18184446?story_id=18184446
I hope you'll agree that the Economist isn't a rabidly idealistic left wing outfit looking to create a perfectly politically correct utopia.

 

[wolfigor]

America's a good example of effective multiculturalism.

<... snip ...>

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.

In my view you don't really describe multiculturalism but the assimilation of different cultures into another.
People immigrating into USA tended to leave good part of their cultural luggage at the door to dress the local suit of American culture.

In Europe each country has a very well establish set of tradition, mentality, and unwritten rules (aka national culture) to which everybody is supposed to adhere to.
Not all immigrants, in most of European countries, really merge into this common ground, and you have a flourish of cultural enclaves.

From this point of view many people says that "multiculturalism has failed", because the various states failed to assimilate the newcomers, and the newcomers failed to merge in the local culture.
This is the meaning of those words from European leaders.

Multiculturalism is a good thing

In general I agree with this statement, but I tend to be weary of axioms.
Why do you think that multiculturalism is a good thing?

Sarkozy's a douche

It's difficoult to don't agree on this statement.

So... leave them in isolated and deprived ghettos without the tools to gain greater access to society and establish themselves?

This is indeed a recipe to disaster, but hardly a correct picture of what happens in Europe.

You realise what you're proposing (bring people in but don't spend money to help them or welcome them or protect their communities) is essentially the failed model of non-multiculturalism used in places like Italy, Germany and France, right?

In some EU countries, like Germany, immigrations was mostly a case of guest workers that originally only planned a temporary stay, and the governments didn't really think to 2nd and 3rd generations.
Immigrants communities did not make a huge effort to merge into the local culture, and the local people/administrations did not a lot to help them to be assimilated.

However European countries indeed spend considerable amount of resources to support legal immigrants with a large number of programs that are generally available to local citizens.
Things like free heath care, free education, free housing, unemployment subsidies, language courses, etc.: With all the heavy weight of these social policies in Europe, to accept immigrants is a considerable burden for the state, and a very long term investment.

In Europe, especially here in the north, the mentality and culture of many immigrants is light years far away from the local one with the inevitable results of mutual incomprehension and isolation that makes problem more complicated to solve especially in the short term.

The fact that many immigrants into EU countries are poor and low-educated doesn't help and their communities tent to stick out in all stats about criminality and recipients of social welfare: It's more a "class" problem than racial or religious or cultural.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In my view you don't really describe multiculturalism but the assimilation of different cultures into another.

I think you can consider the buzzword "multiculturalism" to be the antonym of "assimilation", at least in regard to this discussion and others.

People immigrating into USA tended to leave good part of their cultural luggage at the door to dress the local suit of American culture.

I would contend that is simply not the case, and it never has been, at least to the level which some Europeans and Americans want it to occur. If you have ever visited NYC you would clearly see this. Even groups with essentially the same culture, e.g. European white Christians, tend to live in groups of others from the same nation, or even region. They even tend to further segregate based on religious sect. When they are in that group they typically speak their native language, unless people who only speak English are present and they don't want to be rude. In fact, a great number of recent immigrants can't speak English at all, and survive quite well as with the help of these friends. They eventually watch enough TV and interact with enough English-speaking people that they learn the language. Their kids learn English in the schools.

Even amongst 2nd or 3rd generation emigrants, you still often see them living in the same communities and embracing their anceetral roots, while still being "assimilated" in the sense of speaking English in the local dialect and understanding all the cliches they watch on TV. Most first generation immigrants can even typically "pass" for Americans. Does this mean they are "assimilated", even if their culture, traditions, and possibly even religion are quite different?

In Europe each country has a very well establish set of tradition, mentality, and unwritten rules (aka national culture) to which everybody is supposed to adhere to. Not all immigrants, in most of European countries, really merge into this common ground, and you have a flourish of cultural enclaves.

Is this such a bad thing? Should all Catholics renounce their religion if there are more Protestants in a given area, or vice versa? Should everybody forget their ancestors' roots when making decisions that personally affect them? Is this social communism?

From this point of view many people says that "multiculturalism has failed", because the various states failed to assimilate the newcomers, and the newcomers failed to merge in the local culture. This is the meaning of those words from European leaders.

You are right. That is exactly what they are saying. But I would contend that many of these leaders are bigots and racists for even making this an issue, or they are deliberately making concessions to these groups to gain their votes. Aren't these supposedly free secular governments which ostensibly promote democracy where the opinions of any citizen shouldn't be curtailed merely because it differs from the status quo?

The fact that many immigrants into EU countries are poor and low-educated doesn't help and their communities tent to stick out in all stats about criminality and recipients of social welfare: It's more a "class" problem than racial or religious or cultural.

I'm pretty sure most of the same group of people who claim that "multiculturalism has failed" would prefer to deport all the troublemakers if they could. This used to be quite popular in Europe, and it directly led to the colonization of much of Australia, the US, and even parts of South America. Eventually these deliberately displaced people "assimilated" into their own culture, and forced the indigenous population to either accept it or to flee into the bushes.

This "assimilation" thing seems to be a one-way deal for the most part. If these same people emigrated to another country, they would likely not make any effort to "assimilate" at all, other than eventually learning the local language perhaps.

 

[wolfigor]

I would contend that is simply not the case, and it never has been, at least to the level which some Europeans and Americans want it to occur. If you have ever visited NYC you would clearly see this. Even groups with essentially the same culture, e.g. European white Christians, tend to live in groups of others from the same nation, or even region.

Groups continues following most of their traditions and their own religion, but they all bow to the the law of USA, speak English (getting less true now), and in general being quite "American" in their culture.
In USA I get really the feeling that people coming from completely different cultures really share a very common culture... however most of the people you see around are not fresh immigrants, but 2nd or 3rd generation.

In Europe you get a much different "feeling", with a lot of hostility from recent immigrants against the host country, and quite a strong refusal again assimilation.

Is this such a bad thing? Should all Catholics renounce their religion if there are more Protestants in a given area, or vice versa? Should everybody forget their ancestors' roots when making decisions that personally affect them? Is this social communism?

Media tend to simplify and a lot of recent problems are centered around Muslim immigrants, but in Europe the problem is not about religion.

The problem is to adhere to established social convention and public behavior.
Economy differences (leading to segregation, concentrated criminality, etc.) tends to make things worst... in many European countries criminality has a very high incidence on immigrants population and that creates hostility.
At the same time, European tax-payers are less willing to spend resources to support the needs of immigrants and to pay to facilitate integration.

You are right. That is exactly what they are saying. But I would contend that many of these leaders are bigots and racists for even making this an issue, or they are deliberately making concessions to these groups to gain their votes.

It's mostly about following the moods of the voters.
A large number of people in Europe are getting uneasy with recent immigrants, the failure of integration policies, the raising criminality, and the absence of response from the politic bodies.
Now politicians see immigration issues and a very important focus point to steer their voters... and they ride the wave.

I'm pretty sure most of the same group of people who claim that "multiculturalism has failed" would prefer to deport all the troublemakers if they could.

They see that policies that favored immigration in the past have led to greater problems/costs than gains for most of the local population.
They also see that the integration of people from extremely different cultures is a much tougher problem than what it was initially expected, and taxpayers are not that much willing to foot the bill anymore.

It's important to say that not all cultures present the same issues for integration.
For example here in Norway the largest group of foreigner is Polish.
However, it's will be extremely rare to find anybody complaining about Polish immigrants (or even noticing them) regardless of different religion, language, culture.
Other ethnic groups, instead, more starkly collide with the local culture and behavior even if their numbers are, in absolute terms, smaller.

The cultural gap is very large and it's difficult to fix it in short time.
The integration of such groups have a considerable social and economical cost, many of the policies for integration have failed, and people are getting frustrated.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Groups continues following most of their traditions and their own religion, but they all bow to the the law of USA, speak English (getting less true now), and in general being quite "American" in their culture.

Are you suggesting that recent immigrants in Europe do not "bow" to the local laws?

What exactly is so hostile and forbidding with their culture compared to your own?

And what exactly is "American culture"? Isn't culture largely traditions and religious beliefs to a great extent? How different actually are the cultures of immigrants and the residents of a given area? Don't they typically believe in a religion that even features the same god? Don't they all have the same basic sense of morals? That murder and stealing are bad? That forgiving the sins of your neighbors is good? That everybody should work together to change the world for the better?

In Europe you get a much different "feeling", with a lot of hostility from recent immigrants against the host country, and quite a strong refusal again assimilation.

How much of that is a reaction to the xenophobic hatred and enmity of the locals? Don't you think there are similar groups in the US, and always have been?

Media tend to simplify and a lot of recent problems are centered around Muslim immigrants, but in Europe the problem is not about religion.

I agree it's not strictly religion. The Roma appear to be just as despised as the Muslims currently are. It used to be the Jews who didn't "assimilate" with the white Christians. Many of them probably still don't in the eyes of the anti-Semites.

The problem is to adhere to established social convention and public behavior.

In other words, keep a low profile and don't provoke the local rednecks?

Economy differences (leading to segregation, concentrated criminality, etc.) tends to make things worst... in many European countries criminality has a very high incidence on immigrants population and that creates hostility.

I think that is utter nonsense. Most, if not all, of these countries actually had more crime before Muslims started immigrating in larger numbers. Crime in general has decreased over time. Not the opposite.

What is different is that the cases involving immigrants typically get a lot more publicity. That's big news to those who have always opposed them and are looking for even more excuses to vilify them.

And, as others have pointed out, it is largely a class issue. Poor people tend to commit more blue-collar crime than rich people do. The latter typically prefers white-collar crime which goes largely unpunished.

It's mostly about following the moods of the voters.

Indeed it is. If you are a politician, you can't very well ignore the views of a large percentage of your supporters, even if they are prejudiced and largely based on irrational hatred of people they think are "different" than themselves.

It's important to say that not all cultures present the same issues for integration.
For example here in Norway the largest group of foreigner is Polish.
However, it's will be extremely rare to find anybody complaining about Polish immigrants (or even noticing them) regardless of different religion, language, culture.

Even though they likely commit the same amount of crime as any other immigrant group? But they just so happen to be white Christian Europeans instead of dark-skinned Muslim Africans or Asians?

Other ethnic groups, instead, more starkly collide with the local culture and behavior even if their numbers are, in absolute terms, smaller.

I agree the "starkly colliding" part is the issue. But I think it is caused far more by the lighter-skinned people than the darker ones. That has certainly been true in the US, for instance.

The cultural gap is very large and it's difficult to fix it in short time.
The integration of such groups have a considerable social and economical cost, many of the policies for integration have failed, and people are getting frustrated.

I would contend that most people who feel that way did so long before the first recent Muslim who decided to emigrate to Norway.

Once again, it is certainly true for the US which has been xenophobic ever since the first Pilgrims refused to assimilate with the local Indians. We have a long tradition of hating any new group of immigrants, occasionally even for hundreds of years.

 

[Yeekim]

You realise, don't you, that our world class university education is by a huuuuuuuuuge margin the number 1 route for non-EU immigrants to enter the UK, and to stay here after graduating?

Here's an article on it: http://www.economist.com/node/18184446?story_id=18184446
I hope you'll agree that the Economist isn't a rabidly idealistic left wing outfit looking to create a perfectly politically correct utopia.

Sure I do. I also realize that locally acquired university education is probably the best way for assimilating foreigners and reducing potential cultural friction. Not to mention it is profitable, as the article correctly describes.

So you discriminate equally against all blue-collar workers, even those who are successful businessmen who own their own companies? Or just Muslim ones?

Those who have their own companies (and thus hopefully create jobs) should be enticed with tax incentives. If only we didn't have 0% income tax for companies already....

But I believe he has indeed been quite outspoken in the "Muslims are causing troubles in Europe" threads. I really don't think he's talking about East German or Latvian emigration problems here. Just Muslim and perhaps Russian.

I refer you to my answer to Traitorfish in this post. Islam is not generally a problem per se. Rather, tribal customs and traditions are - and the thing they are generally much further removed from European ones than, say West and East German ones are from each other. The fact that many tribal societies are still Islamic can be regarded as an unfortunate coincidence.

How do you gauge how likely someone is to engage in a serious criminal act?

? I don't suggest predicting it beforehand, merely sanctioning such acts afterwards.

Okay, let's leave aside the finer points of argument and just say that your problem has nothing to do with multiculturalism or indeed with culture in the sense that we have been talking about. It seems to be a class issue.

Not really, I am just saying that cultural friction is usually amplified when parties are ill-educated and poor, as is usually the case with lower classes.

 

[Mise]

Sure I do.

So... you're basically pissing around the edges.

 

[Yeekim]

Now you lost me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I refer you to my answer to Traitorfish in this post. Islam is not generally a problem per se. Rather, tribal customs and traditions are - and the thing they are generally much further removed from European ones than, say West and East German ones are from each other. The fact that many tribal societies are still Islamic can be regarded as an unfortunate coincidence.

I would contend that you were couching your opinion that way to make it look like you have a valid rational reason for believing as you do.

The term "tribal society" typically refers to aboriginal groups like the American Indians. It isn't usually used to describe Muslims or Arabs. Are you suggesting that Muslims and Arabs are like them, or like any other aboriginal group, in some regard? That their own culture is primitive and backward compared to your own?

 

[Arwon]

IHowever European countries indeed spend considerable amount of resources to support legal immigrants with a large number of programs that are generally available to local citizens.
Things like free heath care, free education, free housing, unemployment subsidies, language courses, etc.: With all the heavy weight of these social policies in Europe, to accept immigrants is a considerable burden for the state, and a very long term investment.

In Europe, especially here in the north, the mentality and culture of many immigrants is light years far away from the local one with the inevitable results of mutual incomprehension and isolation that makes problem more complicated to solve especially in the short term.

The fact that many immigrants into EU countries are poor and low-educated doesn't help and their communities tent to stick out in all stats about criminality and recipients of social welfare: It's more a "class" problem than racial or religious or cultural.

None of this is particularly unique to Europe.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I would contend that you were couching your opinion that way to make it look like you have a valid rational reason for believing as you do.

The term "tribal society" typically refers to aboriginal groups like the American Indians. It isn't usually used to describe Muslims or Arabs. Are you suggesting that Muslims and Arabs are like them, or like any other aboriginal group, in some regard? That their own culture is primitive and backward compared to your own?

Even I'd say they have a modern tribal like culture in many areas where Islam is rampant.

Why this should surprise you, I don't know. Islam is a scourge that holds back an entire region the same way Christianity still has its fingers on the "West".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Even I'd say they have a modern tribal like culture in many areas where Islam is rampant.

Well, thanks for your personal opinion. But do you have any evidence of any actual scholars even suggesting this is the case? Or do you just have sites like these in which to refer?

Islam Watch: The Lethal Combination of Tribalism, Islam & Cultural Relativism

"Telling the truth about Islam"

Bare Naked Islam: FRANCE: Islamic Multiculturalism or Tribalism?

"It isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you."

Why this should surprise you, I don't know. Islam is a scourge that holds back an entire region the same way Christianity still has its fingers on the "West".

Perhaps I don't simplistically try to blame all the evils of the modern world on two well-respected religions with billions of adherants, instead of finding criticism with the fringe element fanatics which actually cause the vast majority of the problems?

 

[innonimatu]

Problem being the crux of what you are talking about has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

Immigration is not the only source of "multiculturalism", granted. But it is one source, and the one which was being argued over here. Class differences, religious conflict, etc, can arise without immigration and be said to have created different "cultures", but few people consider those (religious sectarianism, class conflict) good things, do they? Rather, they're seen as things to avoid by not allowing differences to arise to the point of necessitate a resolution through conflict! Likewise with "generation conflict", etc.

Bah. Population density is an infrastructure and planning issue. If you're sitting in a crowded bus in Western Sydney, with its decaying underfunded infrastructure and terrible State government, and you're going "bloody immigrants", you might be a bit of a racist.

No, it's not just that. You can't just dismiss the conflicts which arise in situations of poverty (competition for resources) as "racism is bad and should be ignored". Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, nor are the reasons "racism". It's competition for resources, with people forming competing groups around sectarian identities. "Race" has nothing to do with it. But it will be cultural. It might seem like a class conflict, nationality conflict, religious conflict, ethnic conflict, or yes, even "race" conflict, but it's really a cultural conflict, in the broad sense of culture as group identity. In a "less multicultural" country serious conflicts (changes in the political/economic situation requiring adjustments) will be resolved quickly; in a multicultural one they are more likely to drag on for decades, or lead to outright secession.
Not all suck conflicts are due to poverty. Sometimes it's the opposite: greed over the sharing of sudden wealth, for example. And it would certainly be better if those dealing with crisis and poverty worked together to get out of it, instead of attacking each other. But what do you serious expect that lo-killed workers will do it they are forced to face increased competition from immigrants "imported" in a logic of wage dumping? More often than not if they bother organizing politically, they'll seek a solution in "right-wing", anti-immigrant politics. And it does make sense, within the demand-and-supply system: restrict the supply of labor in competition and their problem is solved.
Nor will the problem remain mostly restricted to low-skilled workers for much longer.

As I specifically pointed out, multiculturalism carries little risk where the causes for serious division and conflict are absent - economic prosperity. Space (low population density in a country, not any specific city) is but one support for that, and a possible escape valve, as I mentioned. New York was the entry point for millions of immigrants, but most spread afterward, while the city itself got rich as economic capital of a country in expansion. Singapore has managed to be prosperous so far, and so never needed an "escape valve" for excess population during times of crisis. But when poverty strikes, as you observe yourself above, it'll happen.

Of course, you can still argue that multiculturalism has benefits which outweigh the risk or costs, but I don't think you can deny that risk.

Actually, I'd support that. That'd be great.

No, you don't. It might mean that the world would be run the way your county currently is, but it might also mean having Qaddafi or Mubarak run it whole.
More seriously, you might wish it, but people people in general don't want it. Large states ("empires") break all the time because one group of people doesn't want to share power with another group. It's been happening time and again since the notion that sovereignty rests with the people won. Since the declarations of independence by the american colonies (all tied to representation/liberalism), going through the more recent collapses of colonial empires (better to cut them lose than to grant them equal voting rights), to the recent abolition of the USSR and the still ongoing palestinian issue. I know that many people don't what to draw conclusions from past history, but when a political system keeps producing similar results (spread of liberalism and democracy -> multiplication of independent states) some conclusion should be drawn!

 

[Tee Kay]

No, you don't. It might mean that the world would be run the way your county currently is, but it might also mean having Qaddafi or Mubarak run it whole. More seriously, you might wish it, but people people in general don't want it. Large states ("empires") break all the time because one group of people doesn't want to share power with another group. It's been happening time and again since the notion that sovereignty rests with the people won. Since the declarations of independence by the american colonies (all tied to representation/liberalism), going through the more recent collapses of colonial empires (better to cut them lose than to grant them equal voting rights), to the recent abolition of the USSR and the still ongoing palestinian issue. I know that many people don't what to draw conclusions from past history, but when a political system keeps producing similar results (spread of liberalism and democracy -> multiplication of independent states) some conclusion should be drawn!

I don't need your realism.

 

[Yeekim]

I would contend that you were couching your opinion that way to make it look like you have a valid rational reason for believing as you do.

I am sorry to have disrupted your world by posing as if I might actually have valid(!) and rational(!) reasons for believing as I do.

The term "tribal society" typically refers to aboriginal groups like the American Indians. It isn't usually used to describe Muslims or Arabs. Are you suggesting that Muslims and Arabs are like them, or like any other aboriginal group, in some regard? That their own culture is primitive and backward compared to your own?

Did you just call American Indians "primitive and backward"? Grab your pitchforks, folks, we have a rasist to lynch!

But seriously, I was talking about Pashtuns. You can go and see for yourself. And it was Traitorfish who suggested that the objectionable customs I referred to were attributable to them essentially being a tribal society, rather than to them being Muslims - which I completely agreed with. Might be worth mentioning I even never brought up the fact they were Muslim in the first place.

And no, I am NOT saying that remaining tribal societies of the world are exclusively Muslim. Some are Christian (Southern Sudan anyone?) Some are Animist. Some are heck knows what. It might actually be a minority of them is Muslim. I honestly have not counted them.

Now would you kindly stop reducing this to some "Mooslems are teh evil!" argument?
EDIT: @innonimatu: thank you for inserting much needed sense into the thread!

 

[aelf]

In my view you don't really describe multiculturalism but the assimilation of different cultures into another.
People immigrating into USA tended to leave good part of their cultural luggage at the door to dress the local suit of American culture.

In Europe each country has a very well establish set of tradition, mentality, and unwritten rules (aka national culture) to which everybody is supposed to adhere to.
Not all immigrants, in most of European countries, really merge into this common ground, and you have a flourish of cultural enclaves.

From this point of view many people says that "multiculturalism has failed", because the various states failed to assimilate the newcomers, and the newcomers failed to merge in the local culture.
This is the meaning of those words from European leaders.

I'm sure we'll see just how useful/constructive such remarks are in achieving better integration and social harmony.

Not really, I am just saying that cultural friction is usually amplified when parties are ill-educated and poor, as is usually the case with lower classes.

So your anti-multiculturalist moral stance is not really about class, although class has something to do with it. It's not really about immigration either, although immigration has something to do with it. It's presumably also not about a pissing contest about whose culture should reign supreme nor about saving host country cultures that are somehow in danger of being wiped out.

Then what the heck is it about, really? And how is it relevant to real situations?

 

[Yeekim]

So your anti-multiculturalist moral stance is not really about class, although class has something to do with it. It's not really about immigration either, although immigration has something to do with it. It's presumably also not about a pissing contest about whose culture should reign supreme nor about saving host country cultures that are somehow in danger of being wiped out.

Then what the heck is it about, really? And how is it relevant to real situations?

First, where did you get "moral"? Did I ever mention "moral anywhere"? I don't think I have even considered any moral aspect of this, much less posted about it.
Second, what is it with all you folks trying to frame the argument so you could say; "oh, so this is about immigration!" or "oh, so this is about class!" or "oh, so this is about pissing about the edges!" (still not entirely sure what that means) or "oh, so you just hate Muslims and Russians!" (WTH) ?
If you want to know what it is about, then read what innonimatu wrote to Arwon and yourself above. He sums it up pretty well: risks which "multikulti" people prefer to pretend aren't there.

 

[aelf]

First, where did you get "moral"? Did I ever mention "moral anywhere"? I don't think I have even considered any moral aspect of this, much less posted about it.

It's a moral stance not because you explicitly brought any ethical framework into the picture, but because it's normative and driven by a sense of what is good/right. You're not merely describing an existing situation or expounding on an entirely emotivist position, are you?

Second, what is it with all you folks trying to frame the argument so you could say; "oh, so this is about immigration!" or "oh, so this is about class!" or "oh, so this is about pissing about the edges!" (still not entirely sure what that means) or "oh, so you just hate Muslims and Russians!" (WTH) ?
If you want to know what it is about, then read what innonimatu wrote to Arwon and yourself above. He sums it up pretty well: risks which "multikulti" people prefer to pretend aren't there.

If you can't define what exactly your position is about, then it's probably incoherent. The thing is everyone's been trying to locate the central thesis of the anti-multiculturalist argument, but all we've managed to get is paragraphs of apologetics that shift their focus from one social dimension to another, sometimes slipping out of the boundaries of cultural matters entirely. So the picture that emerges is that of a position with an ill-defined sense of the term multiculturalism and that is broadly anti-immigration, at times xenophobic and expressly middle class. I suspect that's the most succinct way it can be characterised.

 

[aelf]

By the way, the 'war against multiculturalism' in the UK also seeks to cap the number of students coming to the country and taking up jobs after graduation. So I guess anti-multiculturalism applies to the educated as well? Otherwise, why aren't the moderate anti-multiculturalists condemning the extremists?