Multiculturalism

[Mott1]

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.

If it is working well, then it is an example of assimilation not multiculturalism.

 

[jeps]

how? we keep our individual cultures, but experience and work with others.

 

[Winner]

Wrong. It is Canada's present.

Don't smoke maple leaves so much

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.

The analogy is a good one - you're simply saying that if something works under an unique set of conditions, it should work elsewhere as well, even if the conditions are completely different. And that's obviously 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?

I don't care much about Canada (has Quebec seceded from your multicultural paradise already? ) - I know Europe and I see what is this subversive ideology doing with our societies. You may think that your nice corner of the world is safe and multiculturalism works. Fine, all people need to believe in something, I guess. The point is that it keeps failing everywhere else. Europe faces completely different situation than Canada.

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.

No, it proves that you know nothing about the situation in these countries. Both of them, after the end of the conflict there, are being forced by the international community to adopt a multicultural model of governance. And it is a complete disaster - like I said before, you need tolerant people.

Now we get to the main point: people coming to Europe are not tolerant. Muslims, mostly Arabs from North Africa, only abuse the opportunities given to them by their liberal helpers, and cause trouble. Multiculturalism is thus a synonym to appeasement of inadaptable minorities. Ask the Dutch, who were the first to find out that their precious multiculturalism has failed.

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

So why does Quebec talks about independence?

Canada has little culture to preserve. We do. I am certainly not looking forward to see the culture we've been protecting for thousands of years being dissolved in some multicultural nonsense. Europe should stay European.

(as for my country - you might want to try living under the Communist rule for a few decades, perhaps then you'll understand why has Canada had (and still has) favourable conditions to experiment with whatever it wants)

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.

No, you fail to understand it is a policy of disintegration. You're forming a society without the strongest of bonds - the same culture. The only reason why it hasn't failed in your country are the favourable conditions you have. Like the Eskimos.

 

[Mott1]

how? we keep our individual cultures, but experience and work with others.

The fact that you are sharing experiences and working together demonstrates a fluid process of integration which can be attributed to cultural homogeny or a willingness to adopt the social values and norms of the status quo. Sharing experiences and integrating will inevitabely result in the alteration of cultural identity. Cultural preserverance is antithetical to cultural integration.

 

[jeps]

If by homogeny you mean that I enjoy Japanese and Korean food?

I doubt it.

Assimilation is when MINORITIES ARE ABSORBED INTO THE MAJORITY.

This is when we SHARE cultures, but keep our own. If it were assimilation, we would be majorly WASPs, with that culture. We aren't, except in a few neighbourhoods, like on the Bridle Path.

 

[Inhalaattori]

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

Even today The Russian Federation is home to as many as 160 different ethnic groups and indigenous peoples. Several different religions: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/images/russia_languages-map.jpg

When civil war broke out, Russia was even much less homogenous.

In 9th century almost all of Russia was still inhebited by Finno-Ugric tribes like Permians and Veps.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Muromian-map.png

 

[Inhalaattori]

Personally I think the biggest problem is the untolerant version of Islam. Im talking about wahhabism. Should we tolerate the untolerant? I think we should understand that in many countries secular muslims are minority, not majority. We should support secular muslims in western countries, but we should not be tolerant towards people that preach nothing but hate.

Some good videos about Islam and wahhabism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1YBoMC-oE

Immigration By Numbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWKx0PerkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vqWvOEsIIo&mode=related&search=

 

[Mott1]

If by homogeny you mean that I enjoy Japanese and Korean food?

No, by homogeny I mean sharing cultural values, norms and institutions that do not conflict with the establishment.

Assimilation is when MINORITIES ARE ABSORBED INTO THE MAJORITY.

Assimilation can be described in the crude manner above, so what? Is it an atrocity for minority culture groups to be absorbed into a liberal establishment? I can also describe the concept of multiculturalism in a similar unrefined manner: The absorption of the majority into the minority establishments. Sound just as "vile" doesn't it?

This is when we SHARE cultures, but keep our own.

I've already explained how this is not possible. Sharing experiences will inevitably compromise cultural purity.

If it were assimilation, we would be majorly WASPs, with that culture. We aren't, except in a few neighbourhoods, like on the Bridle Path.

No, assimilation does not translate to the abandonment of cultural integrity. It only calls for the abrogation of certain cultural elements that conflict with the values, norms and institutions of the majority establishment.

 

[CanseiDeSerSexy]

Sure. It's great. Culture isn't something static that is to be preserved.

So I hear people from the jungel are pretty dumb.

 

[innonimatu]

Perhaps the first poser should have defined what he meant for "multiculturism"

Multiculturalism can work, provided there are no real incompatibilities between the cultures involved. Any big city in the modern world is home to several different groups, usually a lot of immigrant minorities mixed with a stable majority. And this usually works - minorities integrate in the sense that they learn and respect the local laws and customs, without necessarily dropping their own, and sometimes adding new ones to the larger community. I get the idea that London has absorbed a large indian comunity (indeed several ones!) without real problems. My own city (Lisbon) absorbed a first wave of african immigrans, then a more recent one of brazilians and eastern europeans without problems.
This not to mention migrants from inside the country itself. Even small countries can have regional differences. Peasants migration to my city in the 1950s had been more out of place at the time than the brazilians who have arrived recently!
Multiculturalism and integration can and do coexist, and are part of the same evolutionary process. They are necessary in any modern city.

But there are cases when the immigrants simply refuse to fit in, and actively refuse to take part in the life of the larger community, forming their own "ghettos". If multiculturalism means tolerating that, then it is a recipe for problems. I do believe there are problems in Holland and in other places with some minorities. That is no reason to simply condemn all and any forms of "multiculturism" - Canada does appear to be doing good.
And the problems where they exist today can be solved, with patience, good judgment and a lot time. Especially a lot of time. Once a group is identified as undesirable from its past actions it is a good idea to block any further immigration, not pretend there is no problem. But those already in place... well, the only solutions is to live with them and try to fit them in somehow, even if progress is very slow.

 

[bob bobato]

Of all the people who are against multiculturalism, I have a few questions:

1. What is your culture?
2. Do you live in a city, or in a rural area?
3. Do all the people in your area have the same culture as you?
4. Is your culture the same as your country's?
5. Do you believe in any racist (Doesn't have to be negative) stereotypes?

 

[Ecofarm]

If things are going so well in Canada, why does Quebec keep trying to seperate from the rest of the country? French + British hardly counts as multi-culturalism, anyway.


Sweden complaining about the Muslims is comical. As if you don't like having a Kabab resturant on every corner

I have an idea about how to deal with all those jungel people. Sweden's socialized geriatric care system is in shambles. There are not enough employees or funds to hire more. They were on strike while I lived there and I lived with a regional manager. So here's the idea: hire the jungel people to work in the geriatric hospitals. Those racist old bastards will love it.

If it wasn't for downtown Helsingborg, Malmo, and other places with ethnic stores, it would be impossible to find good food in Sweden (unless you like the "traditional" food - bland meat). Sweden is almost as bad as England in regard to cuisine, is in desperate need of outside influence, and the Kabab proliferation proves it.

Some of the nicest people I met in Sweden were Iraqi and Kurdish.

 

[Ecofarm]

Of all the people who are against multiculturalism, I have a few questions:

1. What is your culture?
2. Do you live in a city, or in a rural area?
3. Do all the people in your area have the same culture as you?
4. Is your culture the same as your country's?
5. Do you believe in any racist (Doesn't have to be negative) stereotypes?

5. According to Reggie White (a US football player/celebrity):

"Why did God create us differently? Why did God make me black and you white? Why did God make the next guy Korean and the next guy Asian and the other guy Hispanic? Why did God create the Indians?


Well, it's interesting to me to know why now. When you look at the black race, black people are very gifted in what we call worship and celebration. A lot of us like to dance, and if you go to black churches, you see people jumping up and down, because they really get into it.


White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization. You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature and you know how to tap into money pretty much better than a lot of people do around the world.


Hispanics are gifted in family structure. You can see a Hispanic person and they can put 20 or 30 people in one home. They were gifted in the family structure.


When you look at the Asians, the Asian is very gifted in creation, creativity and inventions. If you go to Japan or any Asian country, they can turn a television into a watch. They're very creative. And you look at the Indians, they have been very gifted in the spirituality.


When you put all of that together, guess what it makes. It forms a complete image of God. God made us different because he was trying to create himself. He was trying to form himself, and then we got kind of knuckleheaded and kind of pushed everything aside."


Remarks by Reggie White to the Wisconsin Assembly, 1998
http://my.execpc.com/~dross/aw/regwhite.html

 

[downtown]

Of all the people who are against multiculturalism, I have a few questions:

1. What is your culture?
2. Do you live in a city, or in a rural area?
3. Do all the people in your area have the same culture as you?
4. Is your culture the same as your country's?
5. Do you believe in any racist (Doesn't have to be negative) stereotypes?

I didnt bother to read the whole thread yet.

1. I don't understand exactly what this means. My "culture" is a mixture of all the things that I am...American, Brazilian, Ohioian, Mormon, a Musician, etc

2. I currently live in a small town of around 6,000 people. I'm far enough away from a major city (Columbus) that I'm not considered a suburb.

3. My town is very ethnically homogenous, and somewhat homosenous as far as religion goes. There are no other Brazilian families in town, and not all that many Mormons, so I suppose there are some culture differences. We have many similarities though, so we arent totally "different".

4. Its hard to make generalizations about all of America...its a diverse, huge country. I share many traits with my fellow Americans, and we're different in many ways.

 

[kuukkeli]

Sweden complaining about the Muslims is comical. As if you don't like having a Kabab resturant on every corner

I believe kebab is the most common spelling. Anyways, kebab restaurants have very little to do with radical islam that is the single largest problem in European multiculturalism.

In my town there are couple of dozen of kebab restaurants. Pretty much every one of them sell pizzas and I'm not aware of any that doesn't have pork available for pizza (years ago there was one) so not too radical I guess. Instead I know for sure that couple of them are/were run by christian people. After 9/11 owner of the one of my regular places commented that "it was those damn muslims!" So kebab != radical islam, or even islam at all.

To innonimatu, I mostly agree with your post. I'd just phrase it differently: multiculturalism does not work alone, it requires that the immigrating cultures are willing to assimilate to some degree. If the immigrating culture refuses to assimilate at all (or enough) it should not be tolerated. Unfortunately the current trend in European multiculturalism does not require any assimilation, instead it wants to call any criticism towards mass immigration racism and bends over to islam time after time again.

In Norway the university professor blames women who are raped by muslim for not wearing burqa and thus provocating muslim men, almost every politician in Europe condemned the Danish Muhammad cartoons but shut up about the muslim death threats, in Finland certain web sites are under police investigation for releasing crime statistics of Department of Justice that showed certain ethnic groups were commiting 10 to 100 times more crimes than the native population (they're blamed of racism, of course), the 2005 riots in France involved mostly muslims from North Africa... There are countless examples of how certain culture(s) are unable to co-exist peacefully among others. I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

 

[Goonie]

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.

I am not going to get into a squabble over variants of liberalism.

That is not what is being discussed. If you do not like the idea of certain variants of liberalism, argue against multiculturalism from that vantage point; do not argue it's effectiveness.
If you had read carefully enough however you would have noticed an important distinction that Taylor makes when characterizing group rights which in fact makes them fairly compatible with your vision of ideal liberalism.

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.

One example: FIFA ruled that women playing soccer can be allowed to wear headscarves for religious reasons. The no head wear during game rule was designed to protect individual players from the dangers of headwear that could cause serious injury (i.e. strangulation) during games. Since headscarves did not pose this threat, and allowed a group to observe their religion, headscarves were deemed legal. Soccer bodies in Canada have followed suit. This is a reasonable accomodation of a culture that allows it's continued existence and prosperity while allowing that culture to integrate into society.

For the millionth time... people need to remember that multiculturalism (just like assimilation) is an integrationist tool.

 

[Goonie]

If it is working well, then it is an example of assimilation not multiculturalism.

Wrong.

It is working well and it is multiculturalism, not assimilation.

The fact that you are sharing experiences and working together demonstrates a fluid process of integration which can be attributed to cultural homogeny or a willingness to adopt the social values and norms of the status quo. Sharing experiences and integrating will inevitabely result in the alteration of cultural identity. Cultural preserverance is antithetical to cultural integration.

Again a complete misunderstanding of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is a process of intergration. Integration does not equal assimilation or cultural homogeny.

Canada is called a cultural mosaic; an apt metaphor for its multiculturalism. Even the individual constituent parts of the mosaic (the individual cultures) are part of the mosaic as a whole (Canadian society). Just because another culture is integrated into the mosaic as a whole, does not mean that they have been asimilated.

You are thinking of the melting pot analogy, where integration is achieved through assimilation. Integration can and has been achieved through multiculturalism; again evidenced by Canada. Sharing experiences and living side by side in no way discounts Canada's multiculturalism. It is in fact the evidence of it's sucess as an integrative tool.

 

[Goonie]

Don't smoke maple leaves so much

Again, what studies have you done that involved Canada?

I don't care much about Canada (has Quebec seceded from your multicultural paradise already? ) - I know Europe and I see what is this subversive ideology doing with our societies. You may think that your nice corner of the world is safe and multiculturalism works. Fine, all people need to believe in something, I guess. The point is that it keeps failing everywhere else. Europe faces completely different situation than Canada.

The Quebec issue has little to do with the policy of multiculturalism and more to do with ideas and concepts of power sharing because of the majority they hold in their province. Do not confused the two types of issues.

There is a difference between saying "Multiculturalism cannot work" and "Multiculturalism cannot work in Europe." One sounds extremely stupid given the fact that there are real life examples of it working; the other only xenophobic and close minded.

No, it proves that you know nothing about the situation in these countries. Both of them, after the end of the conflict there, are being forced by the international community to adopt a multicultural model of governance. And it is a complete disaster - like I said before, you need tolerant people.

No, you are wrong. Again there is a difference between power sharing consociational techniques and multiculturalism. In fact, most power sharing methods of governance are assimilationist in that they dictate which groups will form government. If you are not a member of that group, then you are SOL.

Do not confuse policies of multiculturalism with societies that are comprised of multiple cultures. There is a distinct differnece.

As I said before; all prominent multiculturalism scholars agree that tolerant people are needed to make multiculturalism work. What you had in Bosnia, Lebanon, and Iraq was not and is not attempted multiculturalism. These are all examples of ethnic conflict and attempts at power sharing between specific groups. This is a case where you have multiple cultures or ethnicities in one state. This is not multiculturalism.

So why does Quebec talks about independence?

Quebec's dissatisfaction predates Canada's multiculturalism and is more prone to classification as an example of power sharing. Quebec has nothing to do with Canada's integrationist policy of multiculturalism.

I want to avoid a long history lesson, but it has to do with a belief about Confederation and a compact. I'll leave the studying to you should you choose to pursue it.

Canada has little culture to preserve. We do. I am certainly not looking forward to see the culture we've been protecting for thousands of years being dissolved in some multicultural nonsense. Europe should stay European.

Further displaying your lack of knowledge and study about Canada.

No, you fail to understand it is a policy of disintegration. You're forming a society without the strongest of bonds - the same culture. The only reason why it hasn't failed in your country are the favourable conditions you have. Like the Eskimos.

Again you are wrong. People smarter than you or I all agree that multiculturalism is an integrationist tool; they may argue however over its effectiveness.

It's Inuit.

 

[Goonie]

Should we tolerate the untolerant?

Multiculturalist scholars, and many of the world's multiculturalist policies say no.

Perhaps the first poser should have defined what he meant for "multiculturism"

Multiculturalism can work, provided there are no real incompatibilities between the cultures involved. Any big city in the modern world is home to several different groups, usually a lot of immigrant minorities mixed with a stable majority. And this usually works - minorities integrate in the sense that they learn and respect the local laws and customs, without necessarily dropping their own, and sometimes adding new ones to the larger community. I get the idea that London has absorbed a large indian comunity (indeed several ones!) without real problems. My own city (Lisbon) absorbed a first wave of african immigrans, then a more recent one of brazilians and eastern europeans without problems.

Do not confusing multiculturalism with cosmopolitanism.

But there are cases when the immigrants simply refuse to fit in, and actively refuse to take part in the life of the larger community, forming their own "ghettos". If multiculturalism means tolerating that, then it is a recipe for problems. I do believe there are problems in Holland and in other places with some minorities. That is no reason to simply condemn all and any forms of "multiculturism" - Canada does appear to be doing good.
And the problems where they exist today can be solved, with patience, good judgment and a lot time. Especially a lot of time. Once a group is identified as undesirable from its past actions it is a good idea to block any further immigration, not pretend there is no problem. But those already in place... well, the only solutions is to live with them and try to fit them in somehow, even if progress is very slow.

As you point out, multiculturalism does require integration and participation within the larger society, and does not tolerate intolerance. Going back to the mosaic metaphor...

If things are going so well in Canada, why does Quebec keep trying to seperate from the rest of the country? French + British hardly counts as multi-culturalism, anyway.

You hit the nail on the head. The problem is more related to the creation of our country than it is our current multicultural policies.

 

[Winner]

Again you are wrong. People smarter than you or I all agree that multiculturalism is an integrationist tool; they may argue however over its effectiveness.

And others say the same thing I do.

You simply ignore the obvious truth:

when you want to have a society which is cohesive, you need to have some sort of a bond that holds it together. The strongest of bonds is culture: values, traditions, way of life etc.

Multiculturalism removes this bond, because it's proponents don't think it is necessary. They believe people will stick together because of some vague sense of multicultural solidarity.

This is what is totally wrong, it is not based on anything, just on an irrational belief it will work.

And before you come up with Canada again, read this all over again and explain to me what is going to hold the society together if not the same culture. History shows, that states build on political ideas (like communism) tend to end in turmoil, which is caused by friction between the cultural groups.