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
^ Disgusting misrepresentation of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does not mean honor killings or terrorism or ethnic hatred or intolerance is tolerated; in fact it's the exact opposite. Tolerance has to be mutual.
 
Watching that video has affirmed my belief that multiculturalism haters are all either crazy contrarians or haters of something else that's a little harder to sell.
 
^ Disgusting misrepresentation of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does not mean honor killings or terrorism or ethnic hatred or intolerance is tolerated; in fact it's the exact opposite. Tolerance has to be mutual.

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?
 
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?
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.
 
Thanks for sharing. Illustrates how people first have to redefine the term multiculturalism before they think the arsegravy they are spouting actually makes sense.
Who died and left you with monopoly on defining multiculturalism?
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.
When everyone is perfectly integrated into a single society, how is that still multiculturalism?

EDIT: haven't watched the video.
 
Who died and left you with monopoly on defining multiculturalism?
Ok, I'm sorry I looked up the definition.

I do sincerely apologize for not letting people define terms however the hell they want to. In fact, I'm going to define it as chocolate cake and claim that multiculturalism is awesome with whipped cream.
When everyone is perfectly integrated into a single society, how is that still multiculturalism?
Boggles the mind doesn't it?

I always wondered this as well with regard to M&M's. If they are all M's how come they have 5 different colours?
 
Ok, I'm sorry I looked up the definition.
So would you kindly point us to where you looked it up?:rolleyes:
EDIT: I just googled "multiculturalism" + phrase "different cultures living in one society" and received zero results. Strangely, I didn't even find your post in this thread.
 
So would you kindly point us to where you looked it up?:rolleyes:
That would be me imposing a definition upon others wouldn't it?

I'm not going to fall for that and be blamed for claiming a monopoly on definitions. I say it's chocolate cake and to deny me that definition would be to deny the principles of free market.
EDIT: I just googled "multiculturalism" + phrase "different cultures living in one society" and received zero results. Strangely, I didn't even find your post in this thread.
First I'll send you to look for the definition of the term "paraphrasing".
 
Yeekim just as a note you seem to have overlooked or not quite understand how Google or similar search engines work - they often fail to find specific long phrases in quotations and that's on purpose.
 
That would be me imposing a definition upon others wouldn't it?
No, it would merely be proving you weren't completely bluffing by saying you "looked it up".

In fact, if you had actually done that, you sure as hell would have noticed that the term has "a number of different meanings" (first sentence of wiki article) and that you can't find two dictionaries that define it alike, not to mention often no "definition" as such is provided at all.

EDIT: For instance Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy claims in its article about MC:

Multiculturalism is a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group differences is said to fall short of treating members of minority groups as equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights,” a term coined by Will Kymlicka (1995).
As you may see, it explicitly states that MC is not just a descriptive term about "different cultures living in one society".

@Earthling: Thanks. When is a phrase too long for Google to properly find it?
 
No, it would merely be proving you weren't completely bluffing by saying you "looked it up".
First hit on google: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/multiculturalism

mul·ti·cul·tur·al (mlt-klchr-l, -t-)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures.
2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

Pretty effing close to what I claimed now isn't it?
In fact, if you had actually done that, you sure as hell would have noticed that the term has "a number of different meanings" (first sentence of wiki article) and that you can't find two dictionaries that define it alike, not to mention often no "definition" as such is provided at all.
But I can conclude that even using the different definitions, the one given in the video is false, wrong, bunk, nonsense and arsegravy of the worst kind.
 
First hit on google: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/multiculturalism

mul·ti·cul·tur·al (mlt-klchr-l, -t-)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures.
2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.
"Multicultural" and "multiculturalism" are no more closely related than "social" and "socialism".
But I can conclude that even using the different definitions, the one given in the video is false, wrong, bunk, nonsense and arsegravy of the worst kind.
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?
 
Kymlicka has been criticised by multicultural thinkers for reasons related to what you're thinking of. What is needed is a conception of cultural citizenship that breaks down unitary or oppositional categories, that does not valorise difference or sameness in any 'objective' or political way, but allows for subject-determined differences that do not have hegemonic tendencies. In other words, multiculturalism really is and should be about 'live and let live'.

I don't know of any significant current of multicultural thinking that either seeks to undermine individual rights in favour of group rights or to promote cultural segregation. Until I see some evidence of that, I'm not going to give all this hysteria about multiculturalism any credence. But I'm sure this has been said again and again.
 
Back
Top Bottom