What is Multiculturalism and why it's bad

[luiz]

In Quacker's British Multiculturalism thread, he argued that the presence in a country of several distinct ethnic groups, if none of them comprises an overwhelming majority, is harmful for the social fabric of the country, and could ultimately lead to conflict and instability. He called that Multiculturalism.

I disagree on both points: I don't think that's harmful at all, and I don't consider the mere presence of different ethnic groups to mean a "Multicultural Society", as I understand it.

The Multiculturalism I'm addressing can best be described as an ideology, an odious ideology, and it has nothing to do with simply embracing a multiracial society. It is about treating the nation not as composed of equal citizens (who may have whatever skin color, religion or sexual orientation), but rather as composed of many "communities", usually with antagonistic interests, and defined by arbitrary traits. I'll expand, and ask for forgiveness for using my country of birth repeatedly as an example. That's both because I'm more knowledgeable in what is going on there and also because it is probably one of the countries taking Multiculturalism the closest to its sinister logical conclusion.

First I'll address the arbitrariness in the way such "communities" are divided, which follows no historic development but rather came out of the blackboards of humanity courses and and were propagated by NGOs. Who is a black Brazilian? Less than 10% of the population self-identifies as such. Yet the self-appointed (and obviously unelected) "leaders" of the "black community" claim they actually represent more than half of the population. The trick is to add the roughly 7.5% of the population that declares itself to be black with the approx. 43% that declares to belong to one of the countless categories (over 1,000 believe it or or not) that the Census takers group as "pardo", which roughly translates to "brown" - multiracial people. So these "pardos" don't consider themselves to be black, and in fact they might even not have any black ancestry, since a person of mixed white and indian ancestry would also fall under the pardo category. But they are still claimed by the "leaders" of the "community", and used as justification for the promotion of all sorts of racialist policies, the most striking one being racial quotas on universities and the civil service. Note that the quota system is way more extreme than the racial AA that is adopted in the US and was claimed as inspiration (nobody mentioned that quotas were considered illegal by the US Supreme Court).

The quotas for all sorts of artificial communities are one of the logical conclusions of Multiculturalism: citizens shouldn't compete as equals for spots in Universities or the Civil Service, but rather each community should have a certain quota dedicated to it and members of said communities compete among themselves. Blacks (who aren't really black), indians (who aren't really indians), the poor, people who studied in public schools, the disabled... they all already have federally-mandated quotas. There are proposals for quotas for homosexuals, transgendered people and, believe it or not, in one state it was even proposed the adoption of quotas for drug addicts (I kid you not).

Going back to the arbitrariness. We already established that most claimed as Black aren't actually black, and don't think of themselves as such. So let's call them non-whites. How exactly are they, over 50% of the population, a community? How are they a distinct culture? Yes, because the self-appointed "black leaders", generously funded by foreign and domestic NGOs and emboldened by braindead sociologists and anthropologists, constantly pressure the government into more funding for "black culture". What the hell is that? It is obvious for anyone with a pair of eyes that the mulattoes and blacks from Rio, for example, share the same culture as me, a white guy from Rio. They do not share the same culture of a black guy from the South, or a half-indian pardo from the North. There is no such thing as black Brazilian culture (or even more absurd, a non-white Brazilian culture). There is a broad Brazilian culture, and several regional subcultures, which were influenced by all sorts of people, including Africans, to various extents depending on the region (the South is culturally pretty much entirely European, while in Bahia the African influence was huge). But the color of one's skin does not determine, at all, the cultural subgroup one belongs to.

I'm focusing on the "black community" because that is supposedly the biggest of the "cultural groups", but in reality the arbitrariness and sheer ridiculousness of other groups, such as the "indians", is even bigger. And also has additional dark consequences, such as the push for ever-increasing indian reservations (indians represent less than 0.5% of the population but their reservations occupy over 12.5% of the land). On one of the most grotesque episodes, thousands of poor farmers (who were ethnically indians as well!) were forcibly removed from lands their families had legally occupied for over 100 years to make way for a few dozen "indians", who look exactly the same as the farmers, but belong to one of the strongest community pressure groups. Of course these "indians" refuse to work or even to hunt (hahahahaha) to feed themselves or their kids, leading to great poverty and complete dependency on government aid.

This may seem like one big rant against harmless nonsense from stupid sociologists, but in reality this ideology of Multiculturalism is a potent attack on democracy and indeed even Republicanism as understood in Brazil. These self-appointed and unelected "community leaders" are hijacking powers that rightfully belong to the people's elected representatives, and have already triumphed in forcing through extremely harmful legislation like the quote system, which is anathema to the very principles of the Brazilian Republic, principles which were not violated even during the undemocratic regimes. Today the Brazilian Government at all levels is forced to constantly negotiate and appease these "leaders", be them of the "black", "indian", "gay" or whatever community.

The culmination of the Multicultural project is that one day they hope there shall be no such thing as a "Brazilian", but only "Afro-Brazilians", "Guarani-Kaiowas" (yes the "indian leaders" reject the Brazilian label entirely), "Transgendered-cocaine-addicted-Brazilian" and so on and so forth. No more equality between all citizens, only within each community. No more representatives for the whole Brazilian people, only for each community.

That is what I view as Multiculturalism, and it is by no means exclusive to Brazil. It is an abomination and a disgrace. I hope one day it's crushed, but for the moment I concede defeat to the enemies of Democracy and the Republic and have left the country.

 

[Gucumatz]

Going back to the arbitrariness. We already established that most claimed as Black aren't actually black, and don't think of themselves as such. So let's call them non-whites. How exactly are they, over 50% of the population, a community? How are they a distinct culture? Yes, because the self-appointed "black leaders", generously funded by foreign and domestic NGOs and emboldened by braindead sociologists and anthropologists, constantly pressure the government into more funding for "black culture". What the hell is that? It is obvious for anyone with a pair of eyes that the mulattoes and blacks from Rio, for example, share the same culture as me, a white guy from Rio.

How many Orishas do you celebrate? Ever perform Capoeria on the streets? What about language - you certainly have a different accent than other demos. There are tons of substratas of culture within any society. Whether its conducive to national "stability" is another matter altogether, but seems silly to deny that culture isn't uniform as some like yourself claim.

 

[Evie]

The notion that people who possess certain distinctive trait and share them between each other aren't going to have certain shared experience that form a deeper bond between several of them (not all of them, but several of them) than between them and people with whom they don'T share this is a risible notion in and of itself.

If that deeper bond exist between a large enough group, then yes, a distinct community exist within the state.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think really this should be called 'multiculturalism', since people are bound to confuse with the presence of many cultures as a matter of fact and then oppose it, which is I think you would agree constitutes a bad thing.

This is part of a much larger ideology of what I would call petty pseudo-egalitarianism and also includes affirmative action programmes (mentioned by you as examples already) and radical feminism and a fetish for every a political movement that is perceived as 'anti-colonial' (i.e. everything that is Anti-Zionist and Anti-Western). I wouldn't really call it left-wing, because despite their left-wing self-indentication, not all left-wingers sympathise with such ideas, and arguably rightly so, given that such sentiments belong to the utter political fringes.

How many Orishas do you celebrate? Ever perform Capoeria on the streets? What about language - you certainly have a different accent than other demos. There are tons of substratas of culture within any society. Whether its conducive to national "stability" is another matter altogether, but seems silly to deny that culture isn't uniform as some like yourself claim.

I think luiz has made it clear he doesn't oppose cultural diversity, merely the forceful endorsement of things that superficially appear as such by government.

 

[classical_hero]

Thee is always going to be one culture that dominates a country, so trying be multicultural is pointless, but that doesn't mean people of various backgrounds can't come together under this one culture.

 

[luiz]

color any Orishas do you celebrate? Ever perform Capoeria on the streets? What about language - you certainly have a different accent than other demos. There are tons of substratas of culture within any society. Whether its conducive to national "stability" is another matter altogether, but seems silly to deny that culture isn't uniform as some like yourself claim.

I don't worship any orisha, but neither does the vast majority of blacks from Rio. A lot of white people from bahia do worship or at least revere them, though. It has nothing to do with skin color, all to do with geographic subculture.

And I went to a capoeira school as kid, I still know some moves. Again, regional subculture, not color.

 

[Evie]

I love it when members of a local majority try to tell the world what cultural diversity is.

More often than not it consist of encouraging theme park, for show versions of the local culture while saying everyone should live like they do with the same values they have, rather than worrying whether other cultures are enabled to live their life in the ways of their own culture, if they so chose.

 

[luiz]

I love it when members of a local majority try to tell the world what cultural diversity is.

More often than not it consist of encouraging theme park, for show versions of the local culture while saying everyone should live like they do with the same values they have, rather than worrying whether other cultures are enabled to live their life in the ways of their own culture, if they so chose.

What I'm saying is that one's culture is not determined by one's color, gender, sexual orientation or etc. I have far more culturally in common with a black gay carioca than with a straight white gaucho.

Those who want to turn the whole country into a theme park, or rather a zoo, are the multiculturalists

 

[JollyRoger]

Do you share enough in common with the so-called fascists in Brazil to not need separate cages in the zoo?

 

[Evie]

What I'm saying is that one's culture is not determined by one's color, gender, sexual orientation or etc. I have far more culturally in common with a black gay carioca than with a straight white gaucho.

Those who want to turn the whole country into a theme park, or rather a zoo, are the multiculturalists

But does the black gay carioca has more in common with you or with another black gay carioca?

That's the core problem here. It's very hard from the outside to see how much difference some physical or similar differences can make. You think they don't because to you, as a member of the majority on most of these issues, it doesn't differentiate you from anything. But while I can't comment on the difference race or sexual oritentation does, I can state without any shred of a doubt that being part of a linguistic minority makes a huge difference.

Mind you, most of my best friends are *outside* my cultural group. I identify with them a lot, and we have lots in common. They're my group. But they'r enot my culture. Whenever we're together, I'm painfully aware that many of their cultural references point - the books they read in their childhood, the TV shows they watched, the movies they watched - are very often things I had no contact with. What we share in terms of culture is mostly a third culture (American, with some British stuff thrown in), where they know little about what my culture (Québécois) produces and I know little about what their (English Canadian) produces. (And even with American stuff, in a lot of cases we have different understandings of it and different references from it, because they saw the English version and I the French one). This applies likewise to the meaning and importance of different holidays, and to a hundred other little things.

It goes beyond TV and books. It colors our entire world view. Not define it (one can have political ffiliations regardless of culture), but it colors it, by shaping our points of reference.

(And there is, of course, the fact that I have to speak a second language to interact with them at all (and frequently get teased for my accent about it). Not an issue, but something that constantly remind me that no, they aren't "like me". Or I'm not "like them".

Differences always appear smaller when you're part of the "norm" of a society or group than when you're outside that norm.

 

[warpus]

Canada is a very multicultural country and is sort of dominated by Anglo-saxon folk.

It's funny, people tend to assume that I am a part of this majority. I'm a minority dammit, a part of a smaller subculture that eats Polish food and drinks vodka.

Anyway, not much in that Quackers' thread was worthy of contemplation from what I could see, but it should also be noted that each part of the world might have its own experience with "multiculturalism". I'm not surprised that some people associate it with something negative.

 

[Evie]

Canada is a very multicultural country and is sort of dominated by Anglo-saxon folk.

It's funny, people tend to assume that I am a part of this majority. I'm a minority dammit, a part of a smaller subculture that eats Polish food and drinks vodka.

This, so much. Even if *could* pass for English Canadian (and with my accent I can't), I wouldn't want to.

I am who I am, including al the cultural minority cues, and I want recognized as such.

 

[luiz]

But does the black gay carioca has more in common with you or with another black gay carioca?

That's the core problem here. It's very hard from the outside to see how much difference some physical or similar differences can make. You think they don't because to you, as a member of the majority on most of these issues, it doesn't differentiate you from anything. But while I can't comment on the difference race or sexual oritentation does, I can state without any shred of a doubt that being part of a linguistic minority makes a huge difference.

Mind you, most of my best friends are *outside* my cultural group. I identify with them a lot, and we have lots in common. They're my group. But they'r enot my culture. Whenever we're together, I'm painfully aware that many of their cultural references point - the books they read in their childhood, the TV shows they watched, the movies they watched - are very often things I had no contact with. What we share in terms of culture is mostly a third culture (American, with some British stuff thrown in), where they know little about what my culture (Québécois) produces and I know little about what their (English Canadian) produces. (And even with American stuff, in a lot of cases we have different understandings of it and different references from it, because they saw the English version and I the French one). This applies likewise to the meaning and importance of different holidays, and to a hundred other little things.

It goes beyond TV and books. It colors our entire world view. Not define it (one can have political ffiliations regardless of culture), but it colors it, by shaping our points of reference.

(And there is, of course, the fact that I have to speak a second language to interact with them at all (and frequently get teased for my accent about it). Not an issue, but something that constantly remind me that no, they aren't "like me". Or I'm not "like them".

Differences always appear smaller when you're part of the "norm" of a society or group than when you're outside that norm.

Culturally there's no reason to assume one black gay carioca is closer to another black gay carioca than to my white straight self. The opposite could easily be true!

I think it's fair to say the Quebecers are a distinct cultural group within Canada (though of course I wouldn't support quotas for them in Universities or the Civil Service if I was Canadian, but that's another matter). But would a black or gay Quebecer belong to a distinct culture, just because of that? I say no (of course they might, but not necessarily).

Also note that my opposition to Multiculturalism is threefold:

-I oppose the creation of artificial communities where they don't exist;
-I oppose the notion we ought to treat people as members of their "cultural communities" as opposed to regular citizens, and that people are represented by "community leaders" as opposed to elected representatives;
-I oppose the illegitimate influence that self-appointed "community leaders", who in reality just lead fringe pressure groups, have over the government.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is your elected representative/community leader distinction an artificial construct that really has no need to exist in terms of people voicing their opinion over policy? Should you even be posting your opinion if you are not an elected official?

 

[luiz]

Is your elected representative/community leader distinction an artificial construct that really has no need to exist in terms of people voicing their opinion over policy? Should you even be posting your opinion if you are not an elected official?

Everyone can voice their opinion. What is not legitimate is claim the weight of millions of people, of real or imagined communities, behind those words.

So if instead of presenting the OP as my personal opinion I had claimed "this is the view of White Brazil! Accept it or face the wrath of 100 million people!" that would be quite illegitimate. Because:

a) There is no such thing as "the view of White Brazil"
b) Even if there was, 100 million white Brazilians have note elected me their representative, and I have no mandate to speak on their behalf.

 

[Evie]

The thing though is that you act like either there is no black or gay community, or else everyone is in it. But that's not how communities work.

A community is formed by people who, becaused of shared experience, often shaped by the way in which they were different from the majority (because being different from the majority will shape you). That doesn't mean everyone who share their difference has shared their experiences; or that everyone who has shared their experiences identify with them.

What it does mean is that there are group of people who, because of shared experience and identity, form a single community with which they identify. That shared experience is often going to be used as a distinctive trait of the community.

When one talks about "The gay culture" or "The Black culture", they don't mean every last black or gay in the country. They mean a group who identify with one another largely on the basis of their being black, or gay, and the shared experiences that come with growing and living that way.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

It is an ideology which is inferior to internationalism and fake. Which has been used to counter internationalism, to control and restrain internationalist cravings of masses.

 

[luiz]

The thing though is that you act like either there is no black or gay community, or else everyone is in it. But that's not how communities work.

A community is formed by people who, becaused of shared experience, often shaped by the way in which they were different from the majority (because being different from the majority will shape you). That doesn't mean everyone who share their difference has shared their experiences; or that everyone who has shared their experiences identify with them.

What it does mean is that there are group of people who, because of shared experience and identity, form a single community with which they identify. That shared experience is often going to be used as a distinctive trait of the community.

When one talks about "The gay culture" or "The Black culture", they don't mean every last black or gay in the country. They mean a group who identify with one another largely on the basis of their being black, or gay, and the shared experiences that come with growing and living that way.

Again, there are legitimate minority culture groups. And in countries of recent immigration, that might overlap to some degree with ethnic divides (Ie I think it's fair to talk of a Turkish culture in Germany, which overlaps with ethnic Turks, or Pakistani in the UK, and etc).

But there's no such thing as "black culture" in Brazil, because there are no shared experiences based on that, anymore than there is a "fat culture" or "tall culture". Same for gays.

I really don't see how blacks form a community. They are spread through all the country. They talk in accents similar to their neighbors of whatever skin color, and not at all similar to other blacks who live far away. They listen to music according to regional patterns, eat according to regional patters, vote according to regional and economic patterns. And yet I'm to believe that they actually belong to some invisible community with nothing in common but skin color? It's preposterous!

 

[Evie]

How would you know what experiences they have or not? Are you one of them?

Even if you are, the fact that some shared experiences are the result of being part of X group (black, gay, etc) doesn't mean it will be shared by *everyone* who is part of that group. Just that it's an experience shared by many member of that group and that generally resulted from being part of that group.

 

[Gucumatz]

@ Aleksey

You can call it fake as much as you wish - but its still a real force. These are things that occur naturally within communities, not things that are manufactured by politicians or whatever "masterminds" you think are creating this "fake" identity Aleksey.