What is Multiculturalism and why it's bad

[luiz]

Just to be clear, the "multiculturalism" I was discussing in this thread is not the cohabitation of genetically or linguistically different populations in the same country. I have no problem with that.

I was talking about the ideology of multiculturalism, which holds that someone's culture is defined by their "racial group".

So a discussion of the genetic variability of each region has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[warpus]

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.

Your first sentence was tough to parse, but I think I agree with you.

I don't care to force the Chinese Canadian community to watch more hockey and eat more bacon. If they all want to live close to eachother (in some scenarios, a la Chinatown), have a whole bunch of stores that sell things they're interested in near eachother, and so on, all the power to them.

I think it would be weird if a bunch of Polish people immigrated to the same city in Canada and didn't at some point agree to open a store that sells Polish bread and other foodstuffs, maybe a Polish school, church, and so on. Canada is a land where you're free to do what you want, within reason. Of course people are going to do things like that.

Is it hurting Canada? In some cases, maybe, but in most, nope. I would say in most cases it enriches the country.

The problem is that most people have an 18th/19th century nationalistic type opinions on what a country should be. So then they look at a country like Canada, and can't figure out how ethnic "enclaves" might be beneficial at all. Well, they can be, and in a lot of cases they are.

What's important to remember is that the kids born to people who come over here and maybe don't even learn English, those kids integrate with Canadian society very well. They are more "Canadian". For the most part.

We don't have much ethnic violence either.. it's not a problem.

 

[Domen]

those kids integrate with Canadian society very well. They are more "Canadian". For the most part.

So there is no multiculturalism if they integrate well. Integration is turning multiculturalism into monoculturalism.

========================

Or wait, according to Anthony Giddens there are three types of integration:

- assimilation
- melting pot
- pluralism

Which type do you mean, Warpus?

So a discussion of the genetic variability of each region has nothing to do with this thread.

I did not post any data on genetic variability in this thread. I posted data on ethno-linguistic variability.

 

[luiz]

I did not post any data on genetic variability in this thread. I posted data on ethno-linguistic variability.

Also not relevant here, my friend. I'm talking about the ideology, not diversity itself.

 

[warpus]

So there is no multiculturalism if they integrate well. Integration is turning multiculturalism into monoculturalism.

Slowly, over time, over generations, people tend to move towards a sort of Canadianness, that you would not really be able to describe. The thing is that they bring new things, new experiences, new foods, and so on, and they stitch it into the Canadian fabric of Canadianness as they do so. So on one hand you have these ethnic enclaves of sorts (Chinatown, little portugal) due to the slow nature of "integration".. but at the same time these enclaves are a part of Canadian identity.

That's a part of the reason why Canadian identity is so hard to define.. It seems like a paradox.. yet it's working out for us very well.

In my opinion in the future we are going to need to look to the Canadian model (and others as well), to learn how to live together .. better. So many places around the world get it so wrong. We're lucky more than anything up here, things work here so well due to a big part to historical accidents.. but there's also been a push from our governments and the people of Canada.. so it's not fully due to our amazing planning skills or anything like that, but we do deserve a bit of credit for it I think.

 

[Tahuti]

Slowly, over time, over generations, people tend to move towards a sort of Canadianness, that you would not really be able to describe. The thing is that they bring new things, new experiences, new foods, and so on, and they stitch it into the Canadian fabric of Canadianness as they do so. So on one hand you have these ethnic enclaves of sorts (Chinatown, little portugal) due to the slow nature of "integration".. but at the same time these enclaves are a part of Canadian identity.

That's a part of the reason why Canadian identity is so hard to define.. It seems like a paradox.. yet it's working out for us very well.

Well, I always sense 'Germanness', 'Dutchness', 'Belgianness' and 'Frenchness' among other things. Local identities are like religion: You have to believe and experience it, you can't describe them in rational terms. I have same thing with individual towns and regions within the aforementioned countries.

 

[Domen]

Well, I agree with the OP that introducing quotas is a bad idea.

Slowly, over time, over generations, people tend to move towards a sort of Canadianness, that you would not really be able to describe. The thing is that they bring new things, new experiences, new foods, and so on, and they stitch it into the Canadian fabric of Canadianness as they do so.

Yes, the same which happened in the Old World long time ago, will happen in the New World (and already is happening).

Nations emerge. How do you think did nations emerge in the Old World? From multiple tribes and ethnic groups, of course.

Currently in Papua New Guinea there are 820 languages in use, none of which is spoken by more than 1% of the population.

L. Krzywicki's book "Primitive Society and its Vital Statistics" says that there existed at least 123 aboriginal tribes in Australia:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=15

For North America, Krzywicki enumerates by name 502 tribes, 185 of which were very small. Some of them formed tribal unions.

That's a part of the reason why Canadian identity is so hard to define.

No surprise, Canadians are a very young nation. Europe was on the same stage of nation-building processes already 1000 years ago.

In my opinion in the future we are going to need to look to the Canadian model (and others as well), to learn how to live together

This model is not Canadian. I guess that it is originally either Mesopotamian or Chinese. China has implemented it with greatest success:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

 

[warpus]

Don't the Han Chinese just sort of settle everywhere and displace the people who used to live there? Haven't they been doing that for a while now?

 

[bhsup]

Humans displaced... humans.

 

[timtofly]

Culture differs according to isolation, and there is nothing wrong with isolation. There is also no problem in removing such isolation and coming together as one. The trouble begins with western idiocy that if you are not like us, then we reject you. That produces the mindset that multiculturalism is bad. That and the deep seated fear of things that are foreign to one's own experiences. That is the hardest hurtle to get over in accepting the human race.

 

[bhavv]

I actually find the idea of multiculturalism racist.

It fosters the belief that people of different racial backgrounds also automatically follow different cultural / religious identities which is completely false.

I embrace multi racial societies, but I do not support the idea that 'people that look a certain way follow the same culture', which is precisely what multiculturalism tries to promote.

 

[timtofly]

Culture is not about the skin color though. That is racism. Culture is not even about judging a people group either. That is still racism.

I would not say that attempting to connect with one's roots as in seeking out their cultural heritage is multiculturalism and thus wrong. Learning new cultures even if they are from the past is not being forced on people. It would seem that they are free to do so.

 

[Borachio]

In my opinion in the future we are going to need to look to the Canadian model (and others as well), to learn how to live together .. better. So many places around the world get it so wrong. We're lucky more than anything up here, things work here so well due to a big part to historical accidents.. but there's also been a push from our governments and the people of Canada.. so it's not fully due to our amazing planning skills or anything like that, but we do deserve a bit of credit for it I think.

I think you're right. I honestly don't know all that much about Canada, but it does seem a highly attractive, low problem kind of culture.

A bit like New Zealand, but with much more snow. Oh yeah... and bigger.

People do seem to like to emigrate to Canada. Despite the cold.

 

[aelf]

I actually find the idea of multiculturalism racist.

It fosters the belief that people of different racial backgrounds also automatically follow different cultural / religious identities which is completely false.

I embrace multi racial societies, but I do not support the idea that 'people that look a certain way follow the same culture', which is precisely what multiculturalism tries to promote.

It's actually explicitly the opposite.

 

[luiz]

It's actually explicitly the opposite.

Nope, what they try to tell us is that "racial communities" share a unique culture among themselves, and with their next door neighbors who happen to have a different skin tone. It's sickening.

 

[aelf]

I have never met an advocate of multiculturalism who minds if a member of a minority group does not share the beliefs of his or her group. There may often be the assumption that a member of a group shares the beliefs of the group as a matter of course, and that is indeed not a very good assumption, though one that almost everyone is prone to making. However, that is miles better than people who advocate monoculturalism, who think that other groups should assimilate or leave, assuming they think these people can assimilate at all.

 

[Borachio]

I have never met an advocate of multiculturalism who minds if a member of a minority group does not share the beliefs of his or her group.

Doesn't that depend on the belief? If the belief is, for a random example, that the minority group should take over the native culture lock, stock, and barrel, and impose their beliefs on the host, wouldn't the most ardent advocate of multiculturalism balk just a little?

But if it's something that doesn't really "matter", like not eating certain kinds of meat, or not drinking alcohol, for instance, then sure, I agree. Absolutely. And yet then so would all but the most die-hard monoculturists, I think.

 

[aelf]

Again it's the opposite. An advocate of multiculturalism could never coherently support such a stance and would therefore, if not stupid, certainly not mind if someone doesn't share such beliefs.

 

[luiz]

I have never met an advocate of multiculturalism who minds if a member of a minority group does not share the beliefs of his or her group. There may often be the assumption that a member of a group shares the beliefs of the group as a matter of course, and that is indeed not a very good assumption, though one that almost everyone is prone to making. However, that is miles better than people who advocate monoculturalism, who think that other groups should assimilate or leave, assuming they think these people can assimilate at all.

Oh, I have met plenty of advocates of multiculturalism doing just that. Accusing a certain black person of "acting white" (whatever the hell that means - I don't think a white New Yorker and a white Mississippian act the same), or of being a sell-out to his "race" and etc etc.

 

[Borachio]

An advocate of multiculturalism could never coherently support such a stance and would therefore, if not stupid, certainly not mind if someone doesn't share such beliefs.

Golly! I had to think about that one. No, I meant the belief held by the minority members. Does that make sense?

On reflection, I can see how you might think I meant the belief held by the host. My mistake.