What is Multiculturalism and why it's bad

[aelf]

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.

A lot of that is probably just a knee-jerk reaction (hey, you probably don't need me to bring up other examples of knee-jerk reactions). But it's also a legitimate issue - it could be a byproduct of the deeply-instilled imperative to assimilate to a dominant culture.

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.

No, what I was referring to was a situation in which a minority member does not share the minority group's beliefs. Since the suggestion was that multiculturalism frowns upon that or something.

 

[Borachio]

Oh right? That's a bit of an obscure point. I'll have to think about that one. I guess it's valid, though. I'm not sure why anyone would expect every member of a minority to share the whole corpus of its beliefs. Or even whether such a corpus exists. I didn't realize any culture was that monolithic.

Still, monoculturists aren't renowned for their perspicacity (if it's a matter not so much of the culture itself as perceptions of that culture), so who knows?

 

[luiz]

A lot of that is probably just a knee-jerk reaction (hey, you probably don't need me to bring up other examples of knee-jerk reactions). But it's also a legitimate issue - it could be a byproduct of the deeply-instilled imperative to assimilate to a dominant culture.

Which is another of my problems with the ideology multiculturalism as practiced in the New World. Blacks are not some alien culture which will either get assimilated or be preserved as "separate". They're very much part of the general American culture. Their skin color does not make them culturally different. Culturally a black person from Massachusetts has far more in common with his white neighbors than with some black guy in Louisiana.

 

[cardgame]

Your phrasing, aelf, suggests that the need to assimilate is the real issue.

Are you suggesting the current alternative to the "dominant culture" is the ideal?

 

[Old Hippy]

Your phrasing, aelf, suggests that the need to assimilate is the real issue.

Are you suggesting the current alternative to the "dominant culture" is the ideal?

it really depends how you define dominate culture, here in Australia the dominate culture was white, but the moves to introduce multiculturism were made (and were successfull vote getters) by people who listen to Greek and Italian communities that did not want to be defined as white 'Anglo Saxon'
everyone assimilates, now we have an abundance of very good coffee shops (from the days when they were very 'ethnic') but their is only one good tea shop in all of Melbourne, so I have had to assimilate into Multicultural Australia...

and my life is vastly better because the dominant culture here is Multicultural... my partner was turkish and islamic, but she is True Blue Aussie...

 

[aelf]

Which is another of my problems with the ideology multiculturalism as practiced in the New World. Blacks are not some alien culture which will either get assimilated or be preserved as "separate". They're very much part of the general American culture. Their skin color does not make them culturally different. Culturally a black person from Massachusetts has far more in common with his white neighbors than with some black guy in Louisiana.

You're assuming a lot of things, and that's probably the problem. There's nothing I said which suggests that black people's skin colour makes them culturally different. But 'black' and 'white' can be broad cultural groups which overlap with but are not equivalent to the respective skin colours.

Does it make sense to say that someone is "acting white"? In some ways, I think so. There may be certain behaviours that white people somewhere are prone to exhibit as a group, although not all of them necessarily do. This means there is some basis for thinking of 'white' as a cultural grouping in that place, which is influenced by a skin colour but is not determined by nor limited to the skin colour.

Your phrasing, aelf, suggests that the need to assimilate is the real issue.

Are you suggesting the current alternative to the "dominant culture" is the ideal?

The operative word is "imperative". Monoculturalists or plain prejudicial people have held sway for a long time in some societies.

 

[luiz]

You're assuming a lot of things, and that's probably the problem. There's nothing I said which suggests that black people's skin colour makes them culturally different. But 'black' and 'white' can be broad cultural groups which overlap with but are not equivalent to the respective skin colours.

Does it make sense to say that someone is "acting white"? In some ways, I think so. There may be certain behaviours that white people somewhere are prone to exhibit as a group, although not all of them necessarily do. This means there is some basis for thinking of 'white' as a cultural grouping in that place, which is influenced by a skin colour but is not determined by nor limited to the skin colour.

And that's the thing, I disagree. There is no "black culture" or "white culture". There is, say, a subculture in the Bronx which is primarily but not exclusively shared by black people. There is another, very different, New Orleans créole subculture which is likewise shared by lots of blacks but also many whites. There is a Mississippi Delta subculture. In the Rio Grande Valley in Texas you have a subculture which is shared a by a largely Mexican population, but the whites who live there also share it (and they speak Spanish and have huevos rancheros for breakfast). And so on and so forth.

What exactly would be "acting white"? Or "acting black"? I guarantee any answers to those questions other than "there's no such thing" will be quite racist.

 

[cardgame]

I don't know what you mean by monoculture, but I doubt such a thing exists except perhaps in the minds of old geezers who want to return to the 50s when social issues were their way or the highway, and there really was only one very dominant culture, and if you didn't subscribe to it you were a total outcast or deviant.

I don't think such a thing can be said in 2014.

 

[Tee Kay]

And that's the thing, I disagree. There is no "black culture" or "white culture". There is, say, a subculture in the Bronx which is primarily but not exclusively shared by black people. There is another, very different, New Orleans créole subculture which is likewise shared by lots of blacks but also many whites. There is a Mississippi Delta subculture. In the Rio Grande Valley in Texas you have a subculture which is shared a by a largely Mexican population, but the whites who live there also share it (and they speak Spanish and have huevos rancheros for breakfast). And so on and so forth.

My impression from all the way over here is that in the United States cultural divides more closely follow the divides of race than they do in Latin America, due to the specific history of race relations in the United States, where different races were/are segregated to a much greater extent than elsewhere on the continent. So for instance while there's an urban subculture that is not necessarily explicitly racial, it is de facto primarily shared by black urbanites.

Elsewhere on the continent cultural and racial identities may overlap due to the power structures of a particular country; generally the whiter you are the higher you are in the social hierachy, and there's bound to be cultural differences with belonging to a different socioeconomic class. But the connection between racial and cultural isn't as strong as in El Norte; and what luiz is complaining about is lefty academics influenced by the American situation trying to paint it otherwise.

How correct or incomplete is my impression?

 

[luiz]

My impression from all the way over here is that in the United States cultural divides more closely follow the divides of race than they do in Latin America, due to the specific history of race relations in the United States, where different races were/are segregated to a much greater extent than elsewhere on the continent. So for instance while there's an urban subculture that is not necessarily explicitly racial, it is de facto primarily shared by black urbanites.

Elsewhere on the continent cultural and racial identities may overlap due to the power structures of a particular country; generally the whiter you are the higher you are in the social hierachy, and there's bound to be cultural differences with belonging to a different socioeconomic class. But the connection between racial and cultural isn't as strong as in El Norte; and what luiz is complaining about is lefty academics influenced by the American situation trying to paint it otherwise.

How correct or incomplete is my impression?

Yes, applying the USAmerican racial politics and "sociology" to Latin America is beyond stupid. And the problem is not only the academics painting the situation wrongly - the problem is they won political support in several countries and are now enforcing that nonsense in an attempt to create "racial dynamics" where none existed.

So that's definitely part of what I was talking about.

But the other part is that even here in Yankland there is no such thing as "white culture" or "black culture". There are several "subcultures" in which a majority of participants may be black or white (or Mexican and etc). But here are the two key caveats:

a)They're never exclusively white, black or Mexican;
b)They're different from other predominantly white, black or Mexican subcultures that exist throughout the country.

 

[aelf]

And that's the thing, I disagree. There is no "black culture" or "white culture". There is, say, a subculture in the Bronx which is primarily but not exclusively shared by black people. There is another, very different, New Orleans créole subculture which is likewise shared by lots of blacks but also many whites. There is a Mississippi Delta subculture. In the Rio Grande Valley in Texas you have a subculture which is shared a by a largely Mexican population, but the whites who live there also share it (and they speak Spanish and have huevos rancheros for breakfast). And so on and so forth.

What exactly would be "acting white"? Or "acting black"? I guarantee any answers to those questions other than "there's no such thing" will be quite racist.

So you're saying that there can never be 'black culture' or 'white culture', no matter how limited?

Now who's being rigid?

I don't know what you mean by monoculture, but I doubt such a thing exists except perhaps in the minds of old geezers who want to return to the 50s when social issues were their way or the highway, and there really was only one very dominant culture, and if you didn't subscribe to it you were a total outcast or deviant.

I don't think such a thing can be said in 2014.

Not true. Few people may actually openly hold such views now, but their effects and implications are still with us.

 

[warpus]

It would be very tough to have white culture, IMO, since there are so many different white cultures all over the planet. As such, it seems that it' be incredibly hard to try to get all those white people all around the world to eat the same kind of food, wear the same kind of silly hat, and so on.

American white culture though, that's different, although still not possible. Irish Americans and white Kazakhstani Americans are parts of different cultures.

It'd be far more easy to try to define White Anglo-protestant American culture. Now that is definitely a culture.

 

[aelf]

It would be very tough to have white culture, IMO, since there are so many different white cultures all over the planet. As such, it seems that it' be incredibly hard to try to get all those white people all around the world to eat the same kind of food, wear the same kind of silly hat, and so on.

American white culture though, that's different, although still not possible. Irish Americans and white Kazakhstani Americans are parts of different cultures.

It'd be far more easy to try to define White Anglo-protestant American culture. Now that is definitely a culture.

Well, that's the thing. Cultural categories can be relative and don't have to be universal. 'White culture' in a small town somewhere might mean something, while 'white culture' applied to an entire country or region might make no sense.

 

[warpus]

Well, that's the thing. Cultural categories can be relative and don't have to be universal. 'White culture' in a small town somewhere might mean something, while 'white culture' applied to an entire country or region might make no sense.

Yeah.. I sort of agree. It doesn't really make sense to say "white culture", unless you specify that you mean some small town with 500 people in it who are all Scandinavian or something.

But why say white culture then when it would be far more correct and descriptive to say Scandinavian culture, in that scenario?

"White culture" to me implies that the label could apply to white people anywhere, which it doesn't.

 

[luiz]

So you're saying that there can never be 'black culture' or 'white culture', no matter how limited?

Now who's being rigid?

Yep, there is no such thing as white culture or black culture. If you disagree, define it in a non-trivial and relevant manner.

 

[Traitorfish]

It would be very tough to have white culture, IMO, since there are so many different white cultures all over the planet. As such, it seems that it' be incredibly hard to try to get all those white people all around the world to eat the same kind of food, wear the same kind of silly hat, and so on.

American white culture though, that's different, although still not possible. Irish Americans and white Kazakhstani Americans are parts of different cultures.

It'd be far more easy to try to define White Anglo-protestant American culture. Now that is definitely a culture.

In an American context, at least, it may be worth remembering the traditional distinction drawn between "white" and "white ethnic", which suggests that "white culture" isn't taken to be the culture of all people who would be identified as racially white. And if it's not a given that racial whiteness participation in "white culture", then it may not be a given that racial non-whiteness prohibits it. Cultural whiteness becomes a norm or perhaps ideal which is understood to be typified by a certain set of white people, rather than something inherent to white people. One can certainly imagine that an African-American or Asian-American with the manners and attitudes of an upper-class white American may be considered in a cultural sense more "white" than somebody fresh from Sofia or Beirut.

I'm not entirely sold on that reasoning myself, because the "white/white ethnic" distinction seems a bit dubious, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect how people think these things work.

 

[luiz]

In an American context, at least, it may be worth remembering the traditional distinction drawn between "white" and "white ethnic", which suggests that "white culture" isn't taken to be the culture of all people who would be identified as racially white. And if it's not a given that racial whiteness participation in "white culture", then it may not be a given that racial non-whiteness prohibits it. One can certainly imagine that an African-American or Asian-American with the manners and attitudes of an upper-class white American may be considered in a cultural sense more "white" than somebody fresh from Sofia or Beirut.

I'm not entirely sold on that reasoning myself, because the "white/white ethnic" distinction seems a bit dubious, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect how people think these things work.

But if you take two German-Americans (who aren't exactly "white ethnic"), one from Crockett, Texas and the other from Manhattan, their cultures are likely to be pretty distinct. That German-American New Yorker will probably have far more in common with his "white ethnic" and indeed non-white neighbors than with the rural Texan.

 

[aelf]

Yeah.. I sort of agree. It doesn't really make sense to say "white culture", unless you specify that you mean some small town with 500 people in it who are all Scandinavian or something.

But why say white culture then when it would be far more correct and descriptive to say Scandinavian culture, in that scenario?

"White culture" to me implies that the label could apply to white people anywhere, which it doesn't.

Because the nature of identities is amorphous and malleable? This is what a lot of liberals do not seem to understand, thinking of them as some kind of scientific category (in the tradition of racial thinking).

It's all about perception. If 'whiteness' is perceived to be a unifying factor in some place, then it can constitute a cultural group through a shared identity. This is not in and of itself problematic. The problem comes with othering and when a culture group imposes a hegemony in society.

 

[Old Hippy]

Yes, applying the USAmerican racial politics and "sociology" to Latin America is beyond stupid. And the problem is not only the academics painting the situation wrongly - the problem is they won political support in several countries and are now enforcing that nonsense in an attempt to create "racial dynamics" where none existed.

So that's definitely part of what I was talking about.

But the other part is that even here in Yankland there is no such thing as "white culture" or "black culture". There are several "subcultures" in which a majority of participants may be black or white (or Mexican and etc). But here are the two key caveats:

a)They're never exclusively white, black or Mexican;
b)They're different from other predominantly white, black or Mexican subcultures that exist throughout the country.

c) the US does not actually have a defined national policy of multiculturalism so when you mention multiculturalism you are actually talking about civil rights

Spoiler :

Multiculturalism is the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity. As a descriptive term, multiculturalism is the simple fact of cultural diversity and the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometimes at the organizational level, e.g., schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations. As a prescriptive term, multiculturalism encourages ideologies and policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization. In this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”[1]

Multicultural ideologies or policies vary widely,[2] ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to.[3][4]

Two main different and seemingly inconsistent strategies have developed through different government policies and strategies. The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. Interactions of cultures provide opportunities for the cultural differences to communicate and interact to create multiculturalism. This approach is also often known as interculturalism. The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness. Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity.[5][6] A common aspect of many policies following the second approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as central.[7]

Multiculturalism is often contrasted with the concepts of assimilationism and has been described as a "salad bowl" or "cultural mosaic" rather than a "melting pot"

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

 

[luiz]

c) the US does not actually have a defined national policy of multiculturalism so when you mention multiculturalism you are actually talking about civil rights

Indeed, the US is a pretty assimlationist country. But that has little to do with the points I was making, which were not about new immigrant communities (nobody denies new immigrant communities have a distinct culture).

And I don't see what Civil Rights have to do with anything. I'm certainly not opposed to them...