Multiculturalism

[LordRahl]

Winner, can you stop pussyfooting around my simple and direct question.

What have you got to say about countries such as Canada where multiculturalism has been practised sucessfully for decades; where "pseudo-liberal babble" about living in peace, mutual tolerance, and prosperity has proven to be true despite the fact that the country is one of the most ethnically diverse in the world and contains lots of cultures that do battle against each other on other sides of the globe; and where the country is still internally cohesive, with an overarching set of values accepted by practically all of the citizens.

All of this being achieved without assimilation. How can you reasonably say that multiculturalism cannot work when it is working beautifully right here? Riddle me that.

Here's a riddle:

a father in Toronto killed his five-year-old daughter because she was the child of his first wife and another man.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001085.php

Western Culture is incompatible with barbaric customs still practiced in many "third world" cultures (honor killings, female genitalia mutilation, forced religious conversions, beheadings etc...). Despite what hippies of the 60's would like you to believe - all cultures were not created equal. There is a reason why some are dominant...

 

[Goonie]

Because deranged killers of any culture exist only in multicultural societies...

33 dead in 'horrific' campus shooting in Virginia

EDIT: the point of this post is this. A few whackjob killers do not disprove the sucess of Canada's policy of multiculturalism. The United States has a far higher murder rate. Does this disprove the melting pot as an effective integrative tool? No, of course not. Just like this singular example does not disprove multiculturalism effectiveness at integrating (please note that integration and assimilation are two different concepts).

 

[jeps]

Argument to PROVE multiculturalism to any skeptical torontonian or who has visited Toronto: SEA HI.

Thats right, Sea Hi.

ONLY IN TORONTO: Can you go to a famous chinese food place, and on the same menu have chicken sticks wrapped in bacon and Manishewitz (kosher) Wine. (and TONS of people order both.)

 

[Winner]

Winner, can you stop pussyfooting around my simple and direct question.

What have you got to say about countries such as Canada where multiculturalism has been practised sucessfully for decades; where "pseudo-liberal babble" about living in peace, mutual tolerance, and prosperity has proven to be true despite the fact that the country is one of the most ethnically diverse in the world and contains lots of cultures that do battle against each other on other sides of the globe; and where the country is still internally cohesive, with an overarching set of values accepted by practically all of the citizens.

One thing: it's the past.

All of this being achieved without assimilation. How can you reasonably say that multiculturalism cannot work when it is working beautifully right here? Riddle me that.

Again the same mistake: it works in your quiet and safe corner of North America, so it ought to work elsewhere too.

Alright, let's use your wonderful logic: Eskimos can build a snowman who will not melt and who will last for the rest of the year, so the Italians should be able to do that too!

I'll repeat what I've said before:

Multiculturalism is a transitory state, assimilation is natural. But if the government intervenes in order to artifically preserve cultural diversity, it leads to an internally fragmented and inherently unstable society, which is not able to survive under external pressure.

Moreover, multiculturalism as an ideology needs tolerant cultures, who are willing to participate. If you try to form a multicultural state somewhere, where one of the cultures is intolerant and plainly unwilling to take part in it, multiculturalism cannot work. See Bosnia or Kosovo to see what I mean.

In order to have stable, balanced and strong country, you need a strong and unifying primary culture to support it. Multicultural states, when confronted with external pressure or internal turmoil, don't survive, as history has shown so many times.

 

[Tee Kay]

In order to have stable, balanced and strong country, you need a strong and unifying primary culture to support it. Multicultural states, when confronted with external pressure or internal turmoil, don't survive, as history has shown so many times.

Correction: NO states, whether multicultural or homogenous, can survive forever. Whether a state survives is not so much a matter of being culturally homogenous or diverse, but of the skills of those in government.

Your ideal state (culturally homogenous, etc etc) doesn't work as well in the modern world where globalisation and cultural exchange is the order of the day. I agree not every country can become multicultural, but assimilation doesn't work for every country either. Multiculturalism can work where assimilation failed, and vice versa.

 

[Winner]

Correction: NO states, whether multicultural or homogenous, can survive forever. Whether a state survives is not so much a matter of being culturally homogenous or diverse, but of the skills of those in government.

Skills of those in government are not enough, when the people simply can't get along.

Our goal should be to form a state which can survive, and culturally homogenous are usually better in that.

Your ideal state (culturally homogenous, etc etc) doesn't work as well in the modern world where globalisation and cultural exchange is the order of the day.

And you base this opinion on what exactly? Country, which is culturally homogenous, can take part in globalization like any other country. Globalization doesn't need multicultural countries.

I agree not every country can become multicultural, but assimilation doesn't work for every country either. Multiculturalism can work where assimilation failed, and vice versa.

Assimilation is primarily a matter of countries, which have been traditionally culturally homogenous and now deal with increasing immigration (US is a good example of that - it managed to assimilate many waves of immigrants [although the present challenges might prove to be beyond its capacity to assimilate the newcomers] without losing its national identity).

On the other hand, countries which have been born multicultural (like Canada, Belgium, Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq etc.) must find some way how to accomodate all segments of the society. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. And if one of the segments is really unwilling to accept the status quo, bad things happen (see Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq...).

 

[Tee Kay]

Skills of those in government are not enough, when the people simply can't get along.

Our goal should be to form a state which can survive, and culturally homogenous are usually better in that.

Well, Russia was pretty much homogenous when the civil war broke out...

History have proved that a multicultural country can last. The different nationalities in the Ottoman Empire lived in relative peace for a couple of centuries. The USA have lasted 100 years as multicultural society and is now the world's only remaining superpower.

And you base this opinion on what exactly? Country, which is culturally homogenous, can take part in globalization like any other country. Globalization doesn't need multicultural countries.

No, but it helps. Multicultural societies tend to tolerate other cultures better than homogenous societies.

On the other hand, countries which have been born multicultural (like Canada, Belgium, Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq etc.) must find some way how to accomodate all segments of the society. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. And if one of the segments is really unwilling to accept the status quo, bad things happen (see Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq...).

Countries like Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon are artificial creations. The people of these countries were forced by colonialism to live together. Problem is you can't force anyone to be multicultural, same as you can't force people to assimiliate.

 

[Winner]

Well, Russia was pretty much homogenous when the civil war broke out...

The fact even homogenous countries can collapse in civil war does not mean that heterogenous countries are not more prone to such development.

And on a side note, Russia was never homogenous.

History have proved that a multicultural country can last. The different nationalities in the Ottoman Empire lived in relative peace for a couple of centuries.

Sure, because any rebelion was drowned in blood. Arabs have never accepted the Turkish rule, that's why they teamed up with the British/French to get rid of them.

The USA have lasted 100 years as multicultural society and is now the world's only remaining superpower.

Contrary to what you may think, the US has not been a tradtionally multi-cultural country. Until the 2nd half of the 20th century, it vigorously assimilated all the immigrants who came there. Assimilation was almost mandatory in the 19th and early 20th century.

No, but it helps. Multicultural societies tend to tolerate other cultures better than homogenous societies.

You're mixing it up. Globalization is mostly about international trade relations and communication. Internal factors (except the economy) play little role, as is demonstrated by China or Japan.

Countries like Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon are artificial creations.

As well as Canada, the US, Belgium etc.

The people of these countries were forced by colonialism to live together. Problem is you can't force anyone to be multicultural, same as you can't force people to assimiliate.

Wrong. You can force people to assimilate, the US, France or Germany proved that a long time ago. Send immigrant children to your schools, educate them in a proper way, and assimilation will follow quickly.

On the other hand, if you give up on assimilation and rather support cultural diversity, you make assimilation much more complicated. As a result, you have a diverse, incoherent society, which is often paralysed by inter-ethnic strife.

 

[Tee Kay]

The fact even homogenous countries can collapse in civil war does not mean that heterogenous countries are not more prone to such development.

And vice versa.

Sure, because any rebelion was drowned in blood. Arabs have never accepted the Turkish rule, that's why they teamed up with the British/French to get rid of them.

Well, any rebellion anywhere at anytime in history was drowned in blood. This is not a unique situation for the Ottomans or multicultural societies. And the Ottomans proved that with capable governments multiculturalism can succeed. The Ottoman decline is due to inept governments and that is what caused rebellions.

Contrary to what you may think, the US has not been a tradtionally multi-cultural country. Until the 2nd half of the 20th century, it vigorously assimilated all the immigrants who came there. Assimilation was almost mandatory in the 19th and early 20th century.

I think we should really define "assimilate". The migrants certainly weren't forced to give up their religion or customs.

You're mixing it up. Globalization is mostly about international trade relations and communication. Internal factors (except the economy) play little role, as is demonstrated by China or Japan.

Exactly! "Globalization is mostly about international trade relations and communication." Cultural understanding is central to achieve this goal.

As well as Canada, the US, Belgium etc.

Wrong. You can force people to assimilate, the US, France or Germany proved that a long time ago. Send immigrant children to your schools, educate them in a proper way, and assimilation will follow quickly.

On the other hand, if you give up on assimilation and rather support cultural diversity, you make assimilation much more complicated. As a result, you have a diverse, incoherent society, which is often paralysed by inter-ethnic strife.

And today the US, France and Germany are all successful multicultural societies (in a sense), with a stable government and are major players on the world stage.

Multiculturalism does not always promote instability or inter-ethnic strife. It really depends on the willingness of the population and how the government went about applying its policies.

 

[Goonie]

One thing: it's the past.

Wrong. It is Canada's present.

Again the same mistake: it works in your quiet and safe corner of North America, so it ought to work elsewhere too.

Alright, let's use your wonderful logic: Eskimos can build a snowman who will not melt and who will last for the rest of the year, so the Italians should be able to do that too!

Perhaps the stupidest analogy I have ever had to suffer through. Italy does not have snow; but it has humans. If it wanted to, it could make multiculturalism work.

I'll repeat what I've said before:

Multiculturalism is a transitory state, assimilation is natural. But if the government intervenes in order to artifically preserve cultural diversity, it leads to an internally fragmented and inherently unstable society, which is not able to survive under external pressure.

Wrong.

Canada's multiculturalism is not transitory at all.

Do you even know anything about Canada? Have you ever studied Canada's multiculturalism... or even Canada for that matter?

Moreover, multiculturalism as an ideology needs tolerant cultures, who are willing to participate. If you try to form a multicultural state somewhere, where one of the cultures is intolerant and plainly unwilling to take part in it, multiculturalism cannot work. See Bosnia or Kosovo to see what I mean.

The first part of your statement is correct. Multiculturalism depends on the willingness of the people in that society. Most major multiculturalism scholars agree that intolerance should not be tolerated. This is nothing revolutionary.

Bosnia and Kosovo are not examples of multiculturalism. Those are examples of ethnic conflict. To confuse the two simply demonstrate how ignorant you really are on the subject of what multiculturalism really is.

In order to have stable, balanced and strong country, you need a strong and unifying primary culture to support it. Multicultural states, when confronted with external pressure or internal turmoil, don't survive, as history has shown so many times.

Real life examples indicate otherwise Winner. Canada is stable, balanced and more prosperous than your country, yet is multicultural.

You fail to understand that a policy of multiculturalism is still a tool for integration. Simply because a society does not assimilate does not mean that they are not integrating.

 

[Goonie]

On the other hand, countries which have been born multicultural (like Canada, Belgium, Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq etc.) must find some way how to accomodate all segments of the society. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. And if one of the segments is really unwilling to accept the status quo, bad things happen (see Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq...).

Canada was not born multicultural. It was adopted in the 1970s. The first Western government to adopt such a policy.


Pick up "White Canada Forever" for some backround reading on pre-Multicultural Canada.


EDIT: again looking at the list of countries you have listed, you are confusing states that are marred by ethnic conflict with states that have a policy of multiculturalism. Yes, Lebanon practises consociationalism to a certain degree; this does not make them multicultural. Belgium, Bosina, and Iraq also do not practise policies of multiculturalism. Belgium, Bosnia, Lebanon, and Iraq are not examples of multiculturalism!

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

multiculturism forces me to abandon my culture, These days Swedish culture is kust one of many cultures in this country. I want a traditional Swedish lifestyle, I can't have that now.

 

[Azale]

multiculturism forces me to abandon my culture, These days Swedish culture is kust one of many cultures in this country. I want a traditional Swedish lifestyle, I can't have that now.

So they DO exist outside of the American south!

What does this traditional Swedish lifestyle entail, and why are you suddenly barred from it because immigrants and peoples of different cultures come along?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

So they DO exist outside of the American south!

What does this traditional Swedish lifestyle entail, and why are you suddenly barred from it because immigrants and peoples of different cultures come along?

Because it separates me from the main stream. I want to live in an area where every one has the same culture, the Swedish one. No I am not allowed to have that. Instead I get Islam and people strait from the jungel.

 

[Gogf]

For some reason we are very hated, I ink it as to do with that the people who are openly neo nazi seem to allways be our most extreme and weird members, and also the mdia is against us.

Um, no, I think it has more to do with what happened the last time a Nazi had any actual power.

 

[Goonie]

multiculturism forces me to abandon my culture, These days Swedish culture is kust one of many cultures in this country. I want a traditional Swedish lifestyle, I can't have that now.

Actually that is the anti-thesis to multiculturalism; it forces no one to abandon their culture.

I'm curious, does the Swedish government have an official policy of multiculturalism?

 

[Azale]

Because it separates me from the main stream. I want to live in an area where every one has the same culture, the Swedish one. No I am not allowed to have that. Instead I get Islam and people strait from the jungel.

That's unfortunate. I guess you will have to learn tolerance now.

 

[Mott1]

Mott1 - The U.S.A is not and has never been an example of practised multiculturalism.

Wrong country to look at if you want to study an example of multiculturalism

I am not looking to the examples of America to substantiate the fallibilty of multiculturalism, the concept of multiculturalism contradicts itself. Charles Taylor (whom you refer to as a scholar multiculturalism) argues that multiculturalism is incompatible with the ideals of liberalism, and so he proposes an alternate model of liberalism to accomadate the dichotumous concept of multiculturalism. He introduces the idea of group rights to offset individual rights which in effect compromises his core thesis on human-identity formation.
You state:

Multicultrulalism is all about making reasonable accomodations so that cultures are not threatened and are allowed to prosper should they so choose.

Can you elaborate on what "reasonable accomodations" entails? What are the limits to cultural prosperity? What you are essentailly proposing is a paradox, by accomodating one culture you will exigently compromise the prosperity of another.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I want to post, but I don't understand... can't somebody WIPE (Write in Plain English) that??Please??

 

[jeps]

Canada is a very recent multicultural country
LOOK AT
Komagata Maru
Residential Schools
Head Tax
White Canada Policy
internment camps

etc.

multiculturalism is RECENT, but working. My area is incredibly multicultural, with many Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Persians, Arabs (all over, both Christian and Muslim), Jews, Greeks, Macedonians, Turks, and many other cultures. WASPs are a minority. We do not have fights between racial groups, nor do they inhibit who you are friends with/talk to or where you go.