Multiculturalism?

[Mowque]

Reading a article in a magazine for class. Maybe it can start a debate/discussion?

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2488 (that is the article, i'll quote the 'better' parts here.

Multiculturalism threatens the existing order not only because it can create a breeding ground for terrorists, but because the political state depends on a reasonably tight cultural consensus. British prime ministers believe in a common culture-but what they mean is that everyone should share their own beliefs so that they won’t end up bombing London Underground stations. The truth, however, is that no cultural belief is ever extended to sizable groups of newcomers without being transformed in the process. This is what a simpleminded philosophy of “integration” fails to recognize. There is no assumption in the White House, Downing Street, or the Elysée Palace that one’s own beliefs might be challenged or changed in the act of being extended to others. A common culture in this view incorporates outsiders into an already established, unquestionable framework of values, leaving them free to practice whichever of their quaint customs pose no threat.

 

[RedRalph]

Have whatever culture you want, once it is legal, and that includes things like discrimination etc etc. If your cultural practice is against the law then tough luck.

 

[Mowque]

Have whatever culture you want, once it is legal, and that includes things like discrimination etc etc. If your cultural practice is against the law then tough luck.

But does it weaken the state or not?

 

[warpus]

Multiculturalism threatens the existing order not only because it can create a breeding ground for terrorists,

FAIL

.......

 

[Mowque]

FAIL

.......

I personally think it's a crock as well, but care to further elucidate your thoughts warpus?

 

[RedRalph]

But does it weaken the state or not?

It depends. the US stae is pretty stong, and its multicultural. TBH, I think more challenges come form religion than culture, and the state tends to be embarassingly weak in the face of them.

 

[Greizer85]

Well, when you are in Rome...

A common culture in this view incorporates outsiders into an already established, unquestionable framework of values, leaving them free to practice whichever of their quaint customs pose no threat.

This is how it should be imo. It's either assimilation or ghettoization, or the gradual transformation of the 'host' country's own culture. Not that all such cultural transformation is bad, but for example some of the muslim culture regarding women is something that I would not like to see in my country (or theirs, for that matter).

As for the 'state is weakened' issue: I have my concerns about the intentions of e.g. the muslim minority of Finland once it gets large enough to affect things by voting. Muslims in particular tend to be very uniform and rather firm in their opinions. They already tried to start their own party here in Finland. So they could affect the country's laws in the (very) long run. Still, what can you do though? No country is built to stay the same forever. I just hope we won't see mandatory praying and female circumcisions here in my lifetime.

 

[warpus]

I personally think it's a crock as well, but care to further elucidate your thoughts warpus?

Multiculturalism isn't inherently a breeding ground for terrorists.

That's just a stupid thing to say.

 

[Greizer85]

Multiculturalism isn't inherently a breeding ground for terrorists.

That's just a stupid thing to say.

It does say that multiculturalism can create a breeding ground for terrorists, not that it always does. The more cultures the more different ways of thinking, some of which might be radical. I think it's pretty logical.

 

[Ecofarm]

1. (Introduction paragraph) Multiculturalism is social biodiversity; it adds resilience to a system by providing options for adaptation.
a. It provides perspective.
b. It provides understanding regarding our human, ecologic, economic and spiritual condition.
c. It increases our awareness.
Transition to next paragraph (body of essay): It is necessary or intregral for social evolution.

2. Perspective
a.
b.
c.

3. Understanding
a.
b.
c.

4. Awareness.
a.
b.
c.
Transition to conclusion: Awareness is the path of evolution.

5. Conclusion paragraph
a. Perspective blabla
b. Understanding blabla
c. Awareness blabla.
Closing sentence.


There's your 5 paragraph essay, almost. I suppose I'd fill in the a. b. c. of the body (proof) paragraphs with social, ecologic and economic for each. Perhaps leave spiritual out entirely.

 

[warpus]

It does say that multiculturalism can create a breeding ground for terrorists, not that it always does. The more cultures the more different ways of thinking, some of which might be radical. I think it's pretty logical.

1. Multiculturalism
implies
2. Different ways of thinking
implies
3. A potential for radical schools of thought
implies
4. People blowing stuff up

You're reaching for straws there, dude

I could make an equally effective argument that the availability of double pepperoni pizzas can create a breeding ground for poets.

 

[Greizer85]

1. Multiculturalism is social biodiversity.

a. It adds resilience to a system by providing options for adaptation.
i. It provides perspective.
ii. It provides understanding regarding our human, ecologic, economic and spiritual condition.
b. It increases our awareness.
c. ?

All that is very nice and very true. It does bring some problems with it too, as demonstrated by the ethnic/religious tensions in various European countries. I do think that the gains outweigh the bad sides though.

Transition to next paragraph: It is necessary or intregral for social evolution.

Of this I'm not so sure. You should fill in your essay. What exactly should we adapt to, culturally? Why is 'social evolution' necessary? And couldn't it also take a 'wrong turn' somewhere (doesn't happen in biological evolution, at least not in the short term)?

@warpus: I like my straws now give them back thank you very much.
(I don't really think it causes a serious threat... It's just that the potential is there; in a country with a homogenous (peaceful) culture you're bound to see less 'terrorism' than in a multicultural one, no matter if it's an insignificant amount. And like I said the good sides outweigh the bad ones. Btw poets don't usually like pizzas since they usually hate consumer culture, at least here in Finland... So that comparison doesn't really work. )

Edit: Let me be clear on this. People should assimilate when it comes to the more 'radical' sides of their cultures. Basically the article's "unquestionable framework of values"=law + some core cultural values; what those 'core values' are is ofc a tough question and up to debate.

 

[warpus]

in a country with a homogenous (peaceful) culture you're bound to see less 'terrorism' than in a multicultural one

peaceful is the key word here, not multiculturalism.

 

[Ecofarm]

What exactly should we adapt to, culturally?

Economic, social and ecologic pressures. I'd throw spiritual in there too, but not for school.

And couldn't it also take a 'wrong turn' somewhere (doesn't happen in biological evolution, at least not in the short term)?

Missing links haven't stopped us yet. In biological evolution, the 'wrong turns' are only short term and rather insignificant. In fact, we cannot even find them because they are so few and far between. It is not biological 'wrong turns' that lead to extinctions - those are environmental results, not biological.


@Warpus: Thinking critically? You should get to university if you're going to be doing that just for fun. They'll give you credit/credentials for it.

 

[Greizer85]

peaceful is the key word here, not multiculturalism.

Multiple cultures = conflicting (radical) values; conflicting radical values -> terrorism.
If there is a generally peaceful multicultural country and a generally peaceful culturally homogenous one, then I'd say that in the multicultural one more 'terrorism' would be seen, even if the total sum of it would be very low. However such a study is impossible to conduct since you'd have to do it with the same country in both cases; there is also the not-very-easy matter of defining 'terrorism' for this particular experiment... So yes, if we don't want to spend the next decade on it, I'd say we agree to disagree and give it a rest.

@Eco: Those aren't really cultural issues though. I mean, sure culture touches them, but you don't really need to know, say, a Kenyan who tells you how to survive if your country suddenly becomes savannah; you can read about it in a book or on the net. Surely we could use some vegetarian values from China or India though... I see what you're after; peer pressure (or impression even) is a powerful force indeed. Sometimes I forget that humans are social creatures first and foremost, since I myself tend to be rather asocial.

 

[Ecofarm]

conflicting radical values -> terrorism.

I'm not convinced of this.

 

[Winner]

Multiculturalism as an ideology is the greatest threat to Western civilization today. It is based on premise which has been proven wrong many times.

State needs a primary culture that creates bonds between its inhabitants. Simple political ideology is not enough.

 

[Berzerker]

Multiculturalism isn't inherently a breeding ground for terrorists.

That's just a stupid thing to say.

Is Saudi Arabia multi-cultural?

 

[Greizer85]

I'm not convinced of this.

Well, not necessarily. Depends on how the values conflict, and how well their possessors tolerate conflict. But it is a distinct possibility. I'd say 'terrorism' is a bit too strong word to use here though; let's just say 'violence'. (It might just become a truism then, but if we are to understand 'terrorism' as bomb attacks etc., then it is indeed a ridiculous stand to take and undermines the credibility of the whole article.)

 

[Ecofarm]

Intellectual violence is a good thing.

Let's intellectually cage-match and figure stuff out. Let's not fear change, even rapid change.