I dunno, all these Europeans talking about how multiculturalism will never work sort of remind me of the guys running apartheid South Africa saying that a multiracial society would never work. The only thing that doesn't work is systematically excluding groups of people from participation in society on equal terms...all the complaints about "multiculturalism" are actually complaints about racism, but these racists have their heads so far up their rectums that their solution to racism is, unsurprisingly, more racism.
I dunno, all these Europeans talking about how multiculturalism will never work sort of remind me of the guys running apartheid South Africa saying that a multiracial society would never work. The only thing that doesn't work is systematically excluding groups of people from participation in society on equal terms...all the complaints about "multiculturalism" are actually complaints about racism, but these racists have their heads so far up their rectums that their solution to racism is, unsurprisingly, more racism.
Moderator Action: This thread is ostensibly about multiculturalism, not genetic intelligence or other race-baiting issues. Further digressions along these paths will be severely infracted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Well, I'm glad we're all now aware that "the problems of multiculturalism" are never anything but a trojan horse to talk about genetic intelligence and other race-baiting issues.
In East Asia, we have 'problems with multiculturalism' too.
Generally, people with that perspective dislike white people, who are regarded as having inferior intelligence, and are brash and hot-tempered. Basically, barbarians. They only have social clout because they're good at boasting, have no shame and they're still riding on widespread colonial mentality. They're badly-behaved as tourists and arrogant and unreliable as workers.
You seem to be having a very negative emotional reaction to this discussion. I'd like to think that we can have a civilized discussion about this. After all, facts are the basis of any successful policy, are they not?
Maybe. But if you start out from the position "brown/white people are congenital idiots" then it's hard to see how multiculturalism or assimilation are going to work, no matter how hard you try.
Same song, different verse: "Multiculturalism is a problem because we won't permit those people to become our people because they haven't been our people for the past 100 generations, so we will never accept them as part of us. Therefor they should all be kicked out and forced to go back wherever they came from".
Kicking people out or sending them back to wherever they came from is not something that I advocated for.
A society can do both, accept immigrants - even a lot of immigrants - and be against multiculturalism. You should have understood that, had you actually read my post, instead of just answering with your copy-paste post that completely missed the point. This thread is about the two major philosophies that you can adopt in how you treat immigrants, one is to just let them do their thing and accept that it will lead to whatever communities it leads to - multiculturalism - the other is to expect immigrants to integrate into your society.
This thread is exactly for people like you - people who blindly believe in multiculturalism and don't even understand that there are alternatives that don't consist of "Kick out all the brown people!" - but of course you would need to actually consider the alternatives to your limited world view.
None of these "Multiculturalism is a problem because..." people have ever identified any problem other than the racism of the locals. So I just have no sympathy here. So go ahead and die out as a people, but at least your bloodlines will remain pure. Until they are extinct, that is.
The grand irony is that you cause the fulfillment of the prophecy you rail against: Racism by whites will cause the replacement of whites by not-whites.
In my opinion, you're severely overplaying the "racism of white people" here, but yes, reservations and racism are also factors that are part of the things that prevent people from integrating. Being a stranger in a different culture is a downside in part because of the population that will generally treat you worse than the people they're familiar with, which is all the more reason that we should do the best we can to supply the newcomers with the tools that allow them to learn our language so they are able to become working citizens of our society - not just accept that they will settle in with people who are like them, who have already been declared what is basically a second-class citizen.
And at the same time, we must expect of them that they make use of those tools, because that's how we prevent parallel societies. That's how you prevent multiculturalism, and actually create one "united" culture that consists of all ethnicities that live there.
Those 12 months apply to unemployment benefits I. That one is really more like a compulsory insurance than welfare. What I explained are unemployment benefits II, a whole different game, and 100% welfare, and they kick in when unemployment benefits I do not or are too low.
There are further distinc social programs, for instance for housing, admistered by different agencies, but all I said and more is part of unemployment benefits II. Sorry to have to do this, but you will have to believe me over wikipedia, because I am right, I assure you, and I don't really care what wikipedia says about that. Because, man I am right. Realky really am. This is basic stuff I am not going to debate with some foreign dude on the internet (and it would probably be a hassle to find a proper English-speaking source)
I read that rent is really cheap in Germany because of strict German controls and the Germans dont invest in properties they prefer to invest in bank savings due to high age required for pension,
Well maybe by the standards of other countries, but rents have sharply risen in many cities and while there are mechanism in place to control prices, they have failed badly. Though where I live it is dirt cheap and fantastic Like when in other cities you still had to pay two-months-rent on top just to pay off the estate agent (doesn't work like that anymore, but just for illustrations' sake), where I live you got two months off just to attract people. Hahaha If you told that people from other cities their eyes grew as large as the hole in their pockets.
I think most dont want to work after aged 55 but there is no pension unit 67 so they need savings to survive because of the minimal welfare is not really enough.
There are schemes for retiring early (but it is gonna cost you - used to be a lot different, but changed when the SPD took over in 1999 and decided to slim down the social welfare state), but yeah, of course unemployment benefits II will in all but a small minority mean significantly less money, and on top of that, if you got more than 10000 in wealth, they will tell you to use that first, before you get benefits. But unemployment benefits are also not meant for early retirement at all (they kinda used to be, but as said, things changed a lot in 1999 and afterwards).
But the worst you can get still is the level of unemployment benefits II, well and if you got no serious pension to speak of and enter retirement age, another basic security program takes over, which works differently than unemployment benefits II, it is just money for one, more money, but at the bottom line, actually less. Which is pretty crazy and a travesty, but that is besides the point.
The whole public German retirement scheme is a very bad and bitter joke these days, but again, that is a different matter. And I got worked up enough over politics on one day. However, no one will have to be homeless or be threatened by starvation But some people will have to learn some real modesty and accounting.
Maybe. But if you start out from the position "brown/white people are congenital idiots" then it's hard to see how multiculturalism or assimilation are going to work, no matter how hard you try.
I was going to use my previous posts as a platform to argue why I do not think that systematic racism exists. However, I realize that such conversations may lead to uncomfortable avenues, and that this is a discussion that cannot be had, certainly not without infractions. Instead, I will concede all counter-points, I will take no position either way, and I will leave this thread.
Also, as for your jab about "brown/white people are congenital idiots", I do not think this is fair. This is not what I said, and it is not what I think. This is not how averages work, and I have nothing against other peoples. I realize that most of them are good people who only come to coutries like Germany to build a better life for themselves and everybody else.
Multiculturalism is an inherently flawed concept. It assumes that cultural identity is something clearly definable, with a solid, unchangeable core, which it is not. Cultural identity, like any other identity, is fluid, reciprocal, contextual and performative. Culture is not monolithic, culture is not defined at birth. Culture is, by definition, ever changing, because culture is just the totality of all the ways humans think and behave in a certain timespan. A person is not either "culturally Mexican" or "culturally WASP". One shares a certain amount of traits with one camp and a certain amount of traits with another camp. What and who is and has been considered white changes not only fundamentally with time, it also depends entirely on who you ask. There is no authority on cultural matters, because there is zero objectivity in cultural discourse. Multiculturalism is in its essence just microwaved tribalism, it is the distinction of human beings into entirely arbitrary categories for the sake of making useless generalizations. A devout catholic grandmother from rural Poland might share little to none with a sixteen year old wasp growing up in California, but they are both white and christian.
Now I will go even farther in my critique of multiculturalism and freely say that "culture" is simply a replacement for "race". It's the same old arguments, but for the sake of political correctness people chose a different word, culture is being weaponized, with huge success. People are talking about how different cultures are incompatible, because of their different ideals, without even realizing that a migrant coming from say Syria to Germany will inevitably change his behavior, voluntarily or not, subconsciously or not, because culture always mirrors the environment. Change is absolutely inevitable. Grandmothers and grandfathers die, traditions are forgotten, ritualized practices lose their symbolic importance. So the mere thought of cultures being incompatible reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of culture in and of itself. When two cultures "clash" they will influence each other, for the better or for the worse. In what way we influence each other is up to us.
In short: Anyone with a brain should reject theories of multiculturalism and/or assimilation, because they are built on a faulty premise. Countless, more sophisticated alternatives are out there, simply look for transcultural identity, cosmopolitanism, inclusion, they are out there. Multiculturalism has often been visualized as a salad bowl. Well, I don't want to god damn salad. I want a good, hearty, healthy stew. The meat is browned, the flavors meld, they mix, they carry each other, they highlight each others strength and weakness, they touch each other, they compose a symphony of culinary delight. I don't want parallel societies and for everyone to pick one team they root for. I want inclusion, not just based on faulty cultural identity, but inclusion for everyone. Inclusion for mentally and physically handicapped people, inclusion for lgbt people, inclusion for third genders, inclusion for weirdos and social rejects and bums and everyone else, too.
Many leading voices in the cultural sciences have long done away with the concept of multiculturalism. There are countless "leftist", if you have to call it that, critiques of multiculturalism, there are many post-structuralist critiques of multiculturalism, there is a whole world out there. Multiculturalism has a distinct scientific history, it is a concept indebted to 20th century liberalism, sociology and political science, it has little to nothing to do with actual cultural science. And if anyone here on this forum ever had to deal with 20th century sociology, he or she probably knows that a good part of it is utterly outdated, or, even more simply, bollocks. Further reading material, if anyone is interested:
Spoiler:
Bhikhu Parekh counters what he sees as the tendencies to equate multiculturalism with racial minorities "demanding special rights" and to see it as promoting a "thinly veiled racis[m]". Instead, he argues that multiculturalism is in fact "not about minorities" but "is about the proper terms of relationship between different cultural communities", which means that the standards by which the communities resolve their differences, e.g., "the principles of justice" must not come from only one of the cultures but must come "through an open and equal dialogue between them."[167]
Balibar characterizes criticisms of multiculturalism as "differentialist racism", which he describes as a covert form of racism that does not purport ethnic superiority as much as it asserts stereotypes of perceived "incompatibility of life-styles and traditions".[168]
In the name of "diversity." It's hilarious how the people who want to infest the board with their racist intolerance rely on that to keep them from getting kicked around for their trouble.
How much more fun it would be around here if all the people who cry "racist" at everything could get everything they disagree with shut down and banned. What a fun and vibrant place it would be.
Multiculturalism is an inherently flawed concept. It assumes that cultural identity is something clearly definable, with a solid, unchangeable core, which it is not. Cultural identity, like any other identity, is fluid, reciprocal, contextual and performative. Culture is not monolithic, culture is not defined at birth. Culture is, by definition, ever changing, because culture is just the totality of all the ways humans think and behave in a certain timespan.
I don't think it does assume that at all. Culture can change and evolve, but there are still separate and distinct cultures in existence. It isn't an either/or.
People are talking about how different cultures are compatible, because of their different ideals, without even realizing that a migrant coming from say Syria to Germany will inevitably change his behavior, voluntarily or not, subconsciously or not, because culture always mirrors the environment. Change is absolutely inevitable. Grandmothers and grandfathers die, traditions are forgotten, ritualized practices lose their symbolic importance. So the mere thought of cultures being incompatible reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of culture in and of itself. When two cultures "clash" they will influence each other, for the better or for the worse. In what way we influence each other is up to us.
Yes, a migrant will inevitably change his behavior. The question is, how will his behavior change, and what are the different outcomes of different approaches. Now again, I mostly know about Germany, so I can only talk about that perspective, but the difference between letting people just segregate themselves into their own communities (and subsidizing it via a cultural narrative of them not being welcome in "German society"), and integrating people in society is huge here.
The approach of multiculturalism has failed completely, as Merkel also said in the past. Communities that were left on their own have largely not managed to find a good place in German society, and over time degraded. This is not surprising given that people who never learned to speak German, or did learn just enough to communicate on a basic level, cannot get any well-pain job, if any job at all. With no money, there's no prosperity - most obvious equation of all time. And there is no end in sight for the people living in the places that can today correctly be described as German Ghettos.
The people who tried to integrate into German society, and the people in places that did not get enough immigrants to create segregated communities, have generally done just fine.
So yes, I very much agree with you, the environment is a large - probably the largest - part of the whole equation. I'm saying that we should do what we can to create an environment where people do not segregate into such communities, but instead do our best to foster an environment where everybody can (and has to) connect to the general German society. It's better for everybody - the romantic idea of multiculturalism has not allowed immigrants to find their place in German society, it has neglected huge numbers of them.
I don't think it does assume that at all. Culture can change and evolve, but there are still separate and distinct cultures in existence. It isn't an either/or.
There are not, nor have there ever been, seperate and clearly distinguishable cultures, ever. Culture does not work like a nation state, there is no clear border that can be drawn on a map. If you want to believe that there are, cool, be my guest.
If one believes that two cultures can be incompatible, that already implies that those cultures have a core that cannot change. Because if they didn't, it would only ever be a matter of time until cultures are compatible. This is why I made the assertion that cultural essentialism is one of the core beliefs of multiculturalism.
However there are many different assumptions that come with multiculturalism that simply do not sit well: Minority cultures need protection, preservation. Why? "A" culture can never die, it will never be "absorbed" into a "leading culture", it simply influences everything that is around. Thinking a certain way of thinking or acting is inherently worth to be preserved is just dumb, it is exactly as dumb as tradition for the sake of tradition is.
Yes, a migrant will inevitably change his behavior. The question is, how will his behavior change, and what are the different outcomes of different approaches. Now again, I mostly know about Germany, so I can only talk about that perspective, but the difference between letting people just segregate themselves into their own communities (and subsidizing it via a cultural narrative of them not being welcome in "German society"), and integrating people in society is huge here.
The approach of multiculturalism has failed completely, as Merkel also said in the past. Communities that were left on their own have largely not managed to find a good place in German society, and over time degraded. This is not surprising given that people who never learned to speak German, or did learn just enough to communicate on a basic level, cannot get any well-pain job, if any job at all. With no money, there's no prosperity - most obvious equation of all time. And there is no end in sight for the people living in the places that can today correctly be described as German Ghettos.
The people who tried to integrate into German society, and the people in places that did not get enough immigrants to create segregated communities, have done just fine.
So yes, I very much agree with you, the environment is a large - probably the largest - part of the whole equation. I'm saying that we should do what we can to create an environment where people do not segregate into such communities, but instead do our best to foster an environment where everybody can (and has to) connect to the general German society. It's better for everybody - the romantic idea of multiculturalism has not allowed immigrants to find their place in German society, it has neglected huge numbers of them.
You are essentially advocating for inclusion, so for the first time in what feels like eternity I guess we are on the same page. Nice. However you still seem to be stuck in the "Leitkultur" mindset where one culture "integrates" (really the word you mean is actually assimilate) into another.
So you wouldn't be able to distinguish between Aztec and Tibettan culture then? You don't think one of them practicing human sacrifice might cause problems with integration and essentially make them "incompatible"? I didn't say there were clear borders to be drawn on a map, in fact I said that that wasn't a requirement.
There are not, nor have there ever been, seperate and clearly distinguishable cultures, ever. Culture does not work like a nation state, there is no clear border that can be drawn on a map. If you want to believe that there are, cool, be my guest.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(and it would probably be a hassle to find a proper English-speaking source)
Like when in other cities you still had to pay two-months-rent on top just to pay off the estate agent (doesn't work like that anymore, but just for illustrations' sake), where I live you got two months off just to attract people. Hahaha If you told that people from other cities their eyes grew as large as the hole in their pockets.
