Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Camikaze]

I got lost where BuckeyeJim seems to suggest that if we immigrated to, say, Saudi Arabia, it would be a failure of multiculturalism if we attempted to respect women within the bounds of Saudi law. Multiculturalism in the situation would allow for us to go there and not have to 'respect' that specific culture, whereas what BuckeyeJim seems to be proposing is that in such a situation the right thing to do is to do as the locals.

I also got lost when the claim was yet again made that multiculturalism somehow allows certain people to break local laws (specifically regarding rioting in the wake of cartoons), despite the point that illegal activities are still illegal being made multiple times.

 

[Arwon]

I think when certain law-breaking occurs, the idea is that it doesn't just reflect on the idiots involved, but on their entire ethnic group. Think Vietnamese or Lebanese gangs versus beardo bikie gangs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I know I'm going to get flamed by this, but I'll say it anyway: I'd really like to see how long the fondness for multiculturalism shown by some people would last if people with a really unpleasant culture moved next to their homes.

By far the worst culture in the county where I currently live is the white Aryan Nation / KKK one. I wouldn't like it one bit if they moved in next door. Blacks, Latinos, or Muslims from some other country? No problem. They would likely raise the intellectual and cultural level of my current neighborhood.

I got lost where BuckeyeJim seems to suggest that if we immigrated to, say, Saudi Arabia, it would be a failure of multiculturalism if we attempted to respect women within the bounds of Saudi law.

The subject bar is actually backwards. It isn't really multiculturalism which has failed at all. It is the forced adaptation to white European culture which has failed. Most of the people who claim multiculturalism has failed never wanted it in the first place and it is likely still alive and well in their countries.

I suspect most Saudis are much more tolerant of our cultural differences and the need to respect them, even if we lived in their own country, than many Europeans and Americans are of Muslim immigrants.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ever see that show where people from England move to Spain to start a new life there?

They gravitate around areas where more English people live. When they start a business often they get into trouble because a. they don't speak Spanish, b. they don't know about Spanish customs and rules. And when you hear them talking about it, it's the Spaniards' fault. They get upset when they can't find an English speaking official, as if it's the Spaniards' fault for not being able to communicate, or they roll their eyes about some stupid law they just discovered about. When they advertise their business they do it in English often on English radio stations and often targeting their fellow Englishmen.

So, don't give me the myth that only certain cultures are unwilling to accept and adjust to the culture they find themselves moving into, it's a human trait to stick to what you know when you arrive in uncertain conditions in another culture.

 

[Arwon]

Rich people who are somewhere by choice tend to be the worst adapters.

 

[Quackers]

Bleh, on a tangent I know some English people who live in Spain. They have lived their for 5 years and don't speak a word of Spanish. They need a good slap tbh.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

And my Mum lives in Northern Cyprus, doesn't speak Turkish (she knows a few swear words), and hasn't converted to Islam yet either! Luckily, religion isn't very important to the TRNCers.

She is going out with a Cypriot though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just image-googled Northern Cyprus. Looks nice.

 

[aelf]

I know I'm going to get flamed by this, but I'll say it anyway: I'd really like to see how long the fondness for multiculturalism shown by some people would last if people with a really unpleasant culture moved next to their homes.

On one level, I understand the "anti-anti-multiculturalism" here. If anti-multiculturalism means "no immigrants", it fails. There are immigrants who have distinct habits, "cultures" if you will, and are still perfectly good neighbors. But there are also those who are not. Those are the ones feeding the "anti-multiculturalism" reaction. And I also understand that reaction.

People have been arguing here for over 30 pages because they are using different definitions of "multiculturalism", and are now so deep into the argument that none will back off to review what "multiculturalism" really means! Instead we're having increasingly contorted attempts at defining "multiculturalism" in a way which supports each side of the argument over... multiculturalism! This is a waste of time. Words and concepts are tools for discussion, when people keep changing its meaning the discussion becomes void. Multiculturalism, liberalism, freedom of speech... intellectual masturbation!Any of these are weasel terms.

Slamming multiculturalism extends beyond slamming a few unpleasant cultures in the neighbourhood, no matter how you want to define multiculturalism (unless the definition is a manifestly stupid one that abuses the prefix 'multi' to conveniently refer to cultures that are disliked).

Notice how the argument about different definitions of multiculturalism is chiefly employed by those who are against multiculturalism? I'd venture to say that it's because they want to be able to use it as a nice term to express displeasure over some cultures while at the same time be able to promote an agenda of cultural homogeneity based on the assertion of 'Western liberalism' (multiculturalism is a useful catch-all term like that). Just look at the history of this thread to see what I mean.

 

[Arwon]

Or they just don't like foreigners/migration.

 

[innonimatu]

Notice how the argument about different definitions of multiculturalism is chiefly employed by those who are against multiculturalism? I'd venture to say that it's because they want to be able to use it as a nice term to express displeasure over some cultures while at the same time be able to promote an agenda of cultural homogeneity based on the assertion of 'Western liberalism' (multiculturalism is a useful catch-all term like that). Just look at the history of this thread to see what I mean.

I agree, I wouldn't be one to start an argument saying "multiculturalism is bad". I already dislike the concept of "culture" for being too vague, but at least that one is useful. So imagine what I feel about "multiculturalism".
But I don't think that the therm "multiculturalism" was invented by "anti-multiculturalists". So don't be so fast to blame them, they're just reacting against the "pro-multiculturalism" absurdity. This whole abstract discussion is absurd.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

First, I think everyone needs a good lesson in mature debate and discourse. Here's a good start that I read last night: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283166 Here you will find a great discussion about not paying attention, and the difference between stipulations and hypothetical examples. After reading this opening post you should be able to understand this post.

I got lost where BuckeyeJim seems to suggest that if we immigrated to, say, Saudi Arabia, it would be a failure of multiculturalism if we attempted to respect women within the bounds of Saudi law. Multiculturalism in the situation would allow for us to go there and not have to 'respect' that specific culture, whereas what BuckeyeJim seems to be proposing is that in such a situation the right thing to do is to do as the locals.

No. What I was talking about about was a hypothetical example to underscore the importance of respecting law when you go to another country regardless of what your culture is. So, if I willfully go to Saudi Arabia, even though I disagree with their laws and culture, I will still uphold their laws and culture. This leads to your next statement:

I also got lost when the claim was yet again made that multiculturalism somehow allows certain people to break local laws (specifically regarding rioting in the wake of cartoons), despite the point that illegal activities are still illegal being made multiple times.

This is a stipulation attached to immigration that seems to be something we all agree on. If you immigrate to a nation, you obey its laws and you respect its culture. You don't finance terrorism, you don't infibulate your daughter, you don't commit violence, and you don't get all violent over simple expressions of free speech. If I should go to Saudi Arabia I will follow the law whether I believe it is just or not. And if you guys immigrate to another nation for whatever reason, you will too. The stipulation is that you agree to follow law. So when you have multicultural policies that are opening the door to admitting people who don't care about your laws because their culture supersedes your law, there will be problems.

Yeah, no. There's a pretty consistent basis for the delineation, actually: Victimless, culture-enforcing laws shouldn't exist. It sucks that some other countries have them. But they shouldn't exist here. If people want to personally live an illiberal lifestyle, that's their prerogative inasmuch as it doesn't conflict with others' rights. It shouldn't be enforced on everyone else. If people want to wear head coverings, or not, that's their business, but the state shouldn't bloody well be telling them they either must or can't. Stunning, I know.

I have not said that they should. Here are my notes on this topic.

1. I am not familiar with what specific laws, aside from Laicite, are victimless and are culture enforcing in the countries in question. What are they?
2. Even if they do exist, it is the immigrants responsibility to still follow them.
3. If you talk to a French person they will tell you that Laicite exists to protect people and encourage individualism. It is the reverse situation of what you say. If a woman doesn't want to wear a head covering it is impossible for the paternal authority of the family to enforce it against her will. So again, there is no moral absolutism when it comes to these laws. Nations should have the latitude to create any laws they want, and immigrants have the obligation to follow them. Therefore there is no excuse, justification, policy, or law that is responsible for violence and failures associated with these multicultural policies. It is the people who are willfully choosing to put their culture ahead of law that are responsible for these issues.

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,634

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckeyeJim View Post
I really don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but it isn't my logic that is inconsistent. It is yours. You are the one trying to play two sides of a coin where in one situation we can't have laws, but in the other we can.
Yeah, no. There's a pretty consistent basis for the delineation, actually: Victimless, culture-enforcing laws shouldn't exist. It sucks that some other countries have them. But they shouldn't exist here. If people want to personally live an illiberal lifestyle, that's their prerogative inasmuch as it doesn't conflict with others' rights. It shouldn't be enforced on everyone else. If people want to wear head coverings, or not, that's their business, but the state shouldn't bloody well be telling them they either must or can't. Stunning, I know.

All you're telling me is that it sucks when people from illiberal cultures move to liberal places. But so what? That's a collective judgement based on some crude half-cocked cultural essentialism, which simply does not recognise the two-way influence cultures have when they interact. I mean christ, if that was true, the Italians and Greeks here would still be enclaves of superstitious peasants. For this to actually be a problem, you'd have to show me that the children of migrants and even most migrants themselves don't, essentially, turn out like everyone else, as individuals, containing various hybrid permutations of their own background and the culture(s) they have contact with (if given the chance). Aside from delusional Eurabia mumblings, nobody has ever managed to demonstrate an actual problem.

No, I do not have to show you that the children of migrants and even most migrants themselves, don't, essentially, turn out like everyone else, as individuals. First, I said earlier that the problem isn't necessarily the kids. It is primarily the young adults, and to a certain extent the current migrant generation of adults that represent the problem. You are creating a strawman argument by pretending I can only justify my claims that I have to prove there is an issue with the next generation. And that is because the problem was clearly on display with the current generation when a Danish Cartoonist committed blasphemy. I'm not sure if tens of thousands of protesters rejecting simple freedom of speech constitutes "most migrants," but I do know that it is clearly enough of to justify the claim that there is a problem. An extremely significant problem.

Or they just don't like foreigners/migration.

If it is humanly possible for natives to not like foreigners and migration, is it possible for immigrants to not like natives?

 

[Arwon]

Sure it's possible to dislike the natives. I lived in the US for two years, a lot of the people there were fairly unpleasant. Then again, we were all teenagers.

And as I say, the worst migrants as far as respecting and adapting to local culture are often the rich who are there by choice.

Also: No no no, you're confusing the descriptive for the normative. Of course countries are capable of passing laws against victimless crimes. That's things like religiously-motivated laws in conservative countries, and hell, we have plenty of victimless crimes on the books in the West, too - drug policies, your dry counties, restrictions on gay marriage, obscenity laws. Of course people should follow laws if they're in a country, that's just common sense and self preservation. But I'm saying such things shouldn't exist, and people shouldn't be put in the position of having to obey stupid culture-enforcing laws. Liberalism, yo.

Just like countries shouldn't attempt the segregationy guest-worker keep-the-foreigns-at-arms-length approach to migration. If you've migrated somewhere, have lived there for a long time, you should be able to get permament residency and then eventually citizenship. Nobody should be prohibited from being a citizen and a full participant in the society of the place they call home just because some state wants to engage in some misguided attempt to preserve a monoculture. The fact that retrograde polities like the UAE or Saudi Arabia do it is so far from the point it might as well bein a different thread.

And I'm really not sure why you're all het up about protests against the Danish newspaper's Muhammad trolling. The issue there, in as much as there was one, was the violence and the property damage and about a fairly small group of political extremists. Muslims are perfectly entitled to hold protests about things (they get to have free speech, right?). If you're serious about free speech as a value to be protected, then doesn't it have to extend to what are essentially an Islamic BNP? Or do we kill free speech it in order to save it?

Nations should have the latitude to create any laws they want, and immigrants have the obligation to follow them. Therefore there is no excuse, justification, policy, or law that is responsible for violence and failures associated with these multicultural policies. It is the people who are willfully choosing to put their culture ahead of law that are responsible for these issues

Which violence and failures are those which are specifically assoicated with multicultural policies? Can we have some concrete examples? "Immigrants sometimes commit crimes" is not a failure of multiculturalism. "Muslims are sometimes very conservative" is not a failure of multiculturalism. "Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state" is not a failure of multiculturalism.

 

[aelf]

I agree, I wouldn't be one to start an argument saying "multiculturalism is bad". I already dislike the concept of "culture" for being too vague, but at least that one is useful. So imagine what I feel about "multiculturalism".
But I don't think that the therm "multiculturalism" was invented by "anti-multiculturalists". So don't be so fast to blame them, they're just reacting against the "pro-multiculturalism" absurdity. This whole abstract discussion is absurd.

No, of course I'm not implying that they invented multiculturalism. Heck, I'm studying multiculturalism now, and you know what? On the face of it, I don't agree with some conceptions of multiculturalism. I'm particularly dissatisfied with viewpoints that talk about cross-cultural dialogue and assert the primacy of the subject without discussing structural issues with socio-political institutions or coming up with a good account of subject/object relations.

Nevertheless, I'd say that most of the accusations being made against multiculturalism here are groundless. As I said, it's one thing to be repelled by some admittedly unsavoury practices from other cultures (I also note that the term 'culture' is often totalising and essentialising of difference), but it's another to engage in hyperbole and declare that multiculturalism has failed. It's generally not true that the law gives certain groups a free pass, and it's also fallacious to generalise some groups of people as never being able to adapt to new surroundings. So if the anti-multiculturalists fail to come up with a general picture of just how multiculturalism has failed, I don't see how they can simply write it off.

 

[Camikaze]

No. What I was talking about about was a hypothetical example to underscore the importance of respecting law when you go to another country regardless of what your culture is. So, if I willfully go to Saudi Arabia, even though I disagree with their laws and culture, I will still uphold their laws and culture. This leads to your next statement:

The point is that, yes, you obey the law. But you do not have to respect the culture. In this situation, I would most certainly not expect you to respect the culture. In fact, I would expect you not to respect the culture.

All within lawful bounds.

This is a stipulation attached to immigration that seems to be something we all agree on. If you immigrate to a nation, you obey its laws and you respect its culture. You don't finance terrorism, you don't infibulate your daughter, you don't commit violence, and you don't get all violent over simple expressions of free speech. If I should go to Saudi Arabia I will follow the law whether I believe it is just or not. And if you guys immigrate to another nation for whatever reason, you will too. The stipulation is that you agree to follow law. So when you have multicultural policies that are opening the door to admitting people who don't care about your laws because their culture supersedes your law, there will be problems.

No multicultural policies open the door for law breaking. They open the door for lawful immigrants of any background. Those that act unlawfully are liable to deportation (prior to obtaining citizenship) or just as much punishment as anyone else who breaks the law (after obtaining citizenship). Most importantly, multiculturalism does not make some grand assumption that there is a correlation between those that act unlawfully and particular cultures.

 

[wolfigor]

Nevertheless, I'd say that most of the accusations being made against multiculturalism here are groundless.

Do you mind to explain your point of view a bit more?

declare that multiculturalism has failed. It's generally not true that the law gives certain groups a free pass, and it's also fallacious to generalise some groups of people as never being able to adapt to new surroundings.

Maybe they will succeed to integrate in a few hundreds generation, but still today we can arguably say that some groups had much more difficoult time to integrate themselves and there is no visibility on when and how to do so.

So if the anti-multiculturalists fail to come up with a general picture of just how multiculturalism has failed, I don't see how they can simply write it off.

For some people in this thread, and according to the words of ministers in several Europeans countries, multiculturalism has failed in terms of seamless integration between local people/economy/culture and several groups of immigrants.
Considerable percentages of immigrants (not only 1st generation) was not able to integrate themselves into their hosting country.
All policies in Europe have failed to a different degree, even if they adopted very different strategies.
Even countries like Sweden that adopted the most liberal approach and devoted very large resources to the issues, failed to integrate some groups.

What we can see is that some goups/cultures are easier to integrate than others, and the main fallacy of "muticulturalism" (or at least the way many people see it) was that it would be possible to integrate any group at the same time.

Probably one of the lessons to get from the European experience is that we need to be much more explicit about what is the "pact" between host country and immigrants, what each party is supposed to expect.
Probably countries are better off if they have a much more selective approach to immigration preferring immigrants that are easier to integrate, progressing step by step in a very controlled manner.

The subject bar is actually backwards. It isn't really multiculturalism which has failed at all. It is the forced adaptation to white European culture which has failed. Most of the people who claim multiculturalism has failed never wanted it in the first place and it is likely still alive and well in their countries.

You have for sure a good point here.
Legal (and sometime illegal) immigrants in Europe have a rather clear path to formal citizenship.
What was not really well planned was the fact that in Europe, the "locals" expected their guests to adapt to the local laws and cultures, maybe not totally but to a very large degree.
Unfortunately this was never an explicit "requirement" that people has to subscribe to.

Going to the example of UAE and KSA, the expectations for immigrants are rather clear.
They are far from what any European country will ever impose (too discriminatory) but they have the advantage of being crystal clear.
In UAE (the most liberal of gulf states) you have no chance to become a real citizen.
Forget about drugs, politic, or religion: all of these are not subject to discussion in any form.
In public you have to follow some specific rules of behaviour, again, no space to discussion.
Whoever decide to move to UAE knows these rules and accepts them before moving there.
Failure to comply means at least prison (drug possession can easily lead to death penalty) and deportation.

(by coincidence I came back home just yesterday from a business trip in KSA and UAE)

Those that act unlawfully are liable to deportation (prior to obtaining citizenship)

This is true in theory but not in practice (at least in Europe).
Deportation is extremely difficoult in every case and practically impossible when the person has to be deported to a country that does not respect human rights (a very long list indeed).

This is also one of the many complaints that EU citizens have, and that increase the perception that immigrants get a kind of free pass over many laws (especially for small crimes).

 

[Arwon]

DFor some people in this thread, and according to the words of ministers in several Europeans countries, multiculturalism has failed in terms of seamless integration between local people/economy/culture and several groups of immigrants.
Considerable percentages of immigrants (not only 1st generation) was not able to integrate themselves into their hosting country.

What percentage? And by what measure?

 

[Camikaze]

This is true in theory but not in practice (at least in Europe).
Deportation is extremely difficoult in every case and practically impossible when the person has to be deported to a country that does not respect human rights (a very long list indeed).

This is also one of the many complaints that EU citizens have, and that increase the perception that immigrants get a kind of free pass over many laws (especially for small crimes).

Refugees are a completely different kettle of fish, and you can have no complaints over them. There is an obligation to accept them, simple as that. That is independent of multicultural policy.

 

[wolfigor]

Refugees are a completely different kettle of fish, and you can have no complaints over them. There is an obligation to accept them, simple as that. That is independent of multicultural policy.

It's not about refugees.
Even other types of immigrants can come from countries that have minimal respect for human rights and thus cannot be deported (*).
Other cases apply when the country of provenience do not accept the deported: it's often quite hard to deport people in Europe.

//OFF TOPIC
(*) It's however "interesting" how we consider some countries legitimate "partners" for commerce and political relations but at the same time we consider them too dangerous for their own citizens (e.g. Libya as member of human right council in UN).

 

[Camikaze]

Regardless, people are still not allowed to break the law, and attempting to blame it on multiculturalism as opposed to socioeconomic differences or even simply immigration in general is missing the point.