Do you agree with multiculturalism?

[Astronuc]

Seeeker, European countries were constantly invaded, inhabitants killed, run off, or taken into slavery, for all history until relatively recently.

For the purpose of this thread, we will assume that we are referring to modern day countries and modern day immigration and cultures.

Adding to Evo's comment, I enjoy different cultures. As for history, one will find the indian tribes in the Americas engaged in inter-tribal conflict, as much as European, Asian and African tribes engaged in conflicts/war. Those peoples with advanced technological development tended to take their militance further.

I recommend Susan Wise Bauer's The History of the Medieval World.

As for present, I enjoy traveling to different countries, learn some of the language, enjoy the indigenous food, and share interesting experiences with various peoples.

I think I'm a nomad at heart, but I'm rather settled because of my family.

I don't particularly fit into anyone culture, and I don't particularly care for 'pop' culture in any nation.

 

[Proton Soup]

I agree, when you define multiculturalism that way. If you try to enforce this across generations by restricting marriage choices and otherwise trying to limit choices, it becomes repressive and antidemocratic. I'm not sure what people like Richard Fidler (see above link) are thinking. Do they want maintain distinct communities in their country by government policy? The view of many academics on this issue is that multiculturalism is opposed to assimilation. To me neither should be an issue of government policy, but a result of a free choice.

The US has been an example of assimilation since it's founding and has not embraced multiculturalism in the isolating sense. Allowed free choice, assimilation seems to occur naturally after 2 or 3 generations. However, there are exceptions and these should be tolerated (in the best sense of the word) provided the free choice of adults (18+) is not abridged. Frankly, I don't see any alternative in a democratic society which is open to immigration. The state should not delegate its public functions to non government entities where individual rights and freedoms are concerned.

well, it's one kind of multiculturalism, tho the minority in the USA, i think. and probably the kind that those academics are thinking about that opposes assimilation.

the majority, in the USA, is the multi-biculturalism. it is the less isolationist type, and i think it is primarily driven by the public education system. it's central tenet is tolerance, and it has always been used as a vehicle to push http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I" as the second culture immigrants are expected to adopt. how free this choice is is somewhat debatable, i think. if school vouchers were to become the norm, you'd see less of this type of multiculturalism, and more of the former.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

well, it's one kind of multiculturalism, tho the minority in the USA, i think. and probably the kind that those academics are thinking about that opposes assimilation.

the majority, in the USA, is the multi-biculturalism. it is the less isolationist type, and i think it is primarily driven by the public education system. it's central tenet is tolerance, and it has always been used as a vehicle to push http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I" as the second culture immigrants are expected to adopt. how free this choice is is somewhat debatable, i think. if school vouchers were to become the norm, you'd see less of this type of multiculturalism, and more of the former.

When you talk about "multi-biculturalism" I assume you mean intermarriage among diverse groups. This is, of course, a big part of the process of assimilation. I would suppose that the academics who oppose assimilation would logically oppose intermarriage, but then my experience with left wing academics is that their thinking has little to do with logic.

The other major part of assimilation is education. Here we get into a "sticky wicket". On one hand, the state should not interfere (IMO) with child raising except when civil or criminal law is involved (abuse, deprivation, custody,etc). In many democratic countries both public or private educational opportunities, which meet legal requirements, are available. In the US, home schooling is also allowed in many states (subject to state regulation and requirements). Obviously children can be indoctrinated according the wishes of their parents (or legal guardians) both in the home environment and by the choice of educational programs. That choice is not usually made by the children themselves. So this will tend to promote either assimilation or self sustaining cultural communities depending on the choices made. However, given the rebellious nature children tend to exhibit as they grow older, such attempts at "enculturalization" probably backfire as often as they succeed.

 

[Evo]

Minorities now officially out number non-minority Americans.

The title of the article shows the ignorance of the writer because *hispanics* are white. Hispanic is an ethnic group, not a race. So, minorities are now the majority? This is so twisted. Do Polish immigrants register as a minority and demand concessions? How about the French, Italian, German, Norwegian, and on and on and on? How has this utter nonsense come about? If I refuse to blend into the American culture I am due extra benefits? Because the ethnic groups that do conform don't get perks.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-census-estimates-show-minority-babies-now-outnumber-062345954.html

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Minorities now officially out number non-minority Americans.

The title of the article shows the ignorance of the writer because *hispanics* are white. Hispanic is an ethnic group, not a race.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-census-estimates-show-minority-babies-now-outnumber-062345954.html

There are several overlapping definitions of "Hispanic". Different US government agencies have different definitions. For example, some include Portuguese ancestry, others don't. Some exclude Spanish (from Spain) ancestry. In general, the term includes people with Latin American ancestry regardless of race.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hispanic

In the past, public schools were engines of assimilation for the children of immigrants to the US. Today, in many states, Hispanics predominate in urban public schools. Children grow up in Spanish speaking neighborhoods, speak Spanish among themselves in school and in many cases are taught in Spanish in the lower grades. There is no doubt that Spanish is the de facto second language in the US and the number of speakers whose first language is Spanish is growing.

To the extent that Hispanics represent isolating cultural communities in the US, it represents a problem. It's as much of a problem for the members the communities themselves as it is for the country as a whole. Hispanics have been here well before the nation was founded and expanded to include Hispanics. Most have assimilated and still maintained their cultural identity. However, I do believe the current wave of mostly illegal immigration is creating a new situation. It exists because it benefits many non-Hispanic interests. It is deemed essential to the nation's vast agricultural industry and is a source of cheap labor for other industries such as food processing. Clearly, the immigrants themselves are exploited and deprived of rights they would enjoy if they were in the country legally.

If the grand plan of multiculturalism is to establish and maintain isolating cultural communities, how does that benefit anyone? If the grand plan of multiculturalism to is integrate diverse elements of the population into a working society where everyone is free to express their own culture within the legal and economic framework of the host country, how is that different from assimilation?

EDIT: One of the mainstays of assimilating into the legal and economic framework of democratic host nations is tolerance. So in promoting multiculturalism as opposing assimilation, logically one is opposing tolerance. But again, logic is not the strong suite of the academic left, unless of course they do oppose tolerance.

 

[Proton Soup]

When you talk about "multi-biculturalism" I assume you mean intermarriage among diverse groups. This is, of course, a big part of the process of assimilation. I would suppose that the academics who oppose assimilation would logically oppose intermarriage, but then my experience with left wing academics is that their thinking has little to do with logic.

no, i do not mean intermarriage. tho, it may/will lead to that. the typical immigrant gets his one culture from his country of origin. and assuming he doesn't get cloistered away on some commune in the dessert, a second culture of "americanism". this culture comes at him through the television, newspapers, public education, etc. one aspect of americanism is that it is teaching "multiculturalism" in the form of tolerance. and tolerance is absolutely necessary if you expect people to live in close proximity without fighting. but the other thing about close proximity is that you are now unable to shield children, or even the adult members of your group, from ideas that pollute your original culture.

The other major part of assimilation is education. Here we get into a "sticky wicket". On one hand, the state should not interfere (IMO) with child raising except when civil or criminal law is involved (abuse, deprivation, custody,etc). In many democratic countries both public or private educational opportunities, which meet legal requirements, are available. In the US, home schooling is also allowed in many states (subject to state regulation and requirements). Obviously children can be indoctrinated according the wishes of their parents (or legal guardians) both in the home environment and by the choice of educational programs. That choice is not usually made by the children themselves. So this will tend to promote either assimilation or self sustaining cultural communities depending on the choices made. However, given the rebellious nature children tend to exhibit as they grow older, such attempts at "enculturalization" probably backfire as often as they succeed.

yes, homeschooling is heading in the multi-monoculturism direction. it's a way for parents to shield children from a dilution of their culture. as for backfires, i think it has a lot to do with how overbearing the parenting is. some, like the amish, can be rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa" . and others, like a presby pastor i knew, will do crazy thing like trying to enforce curfews on their children away at college.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

yes, homeschooling is heading in the multi-monoculturism direction. it's a way for parents to shield children from a dilution of their culture. as for backfires, i think it has a lot to do with how overbearing the parenting is. some, like the amish, can be rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa" . and others, like a presby pastor i knew, will do crazy thing like trying to enforce curfews on their children away at college.

Well in many Amish communities, people who leave are shunned and can only return if they re-affirm Amish cultural isolation. Rumspringa is not universal and in any case, the youth are expected to marry and return to the traditional Amish life after they've sown their "wild oats'.

This article presents an interesting point of view. In this view, assimilation is the most tolerant of five categories of human inter-group relations which the author defines. It seems to me that in this view, the multiculturalist who opposes assimilation logically would oppose integration at all levels, from sharing certain common core beliefs and cooperating across cultural differences to intermarriage. Obviously, if intermarriage is the essence of tolerance, then the multiculturalist who opposes assimilation must oppose this since it inevitably leads to the dilution of cultural differences.

Again, I'm not against maintaining cultural distinctions (within the law) as long as it's a matter of the free choice of adults. But then we get into the issue of whether the choices made are really free of coercive influences and whether some of these influences are abetted by governmental or institutional policies.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8345700_five-patterns-intergroup-relations.html

 

[imiyakawa]

Mass immigration from third-world countries to Europe and USA, in my opinion, damages the countries that receive the immigrants.

Can you please define what you mean by this damage that you perceive is occurring. Further, can you provide any evidence that this damage is actually happening and provide any evidence as to the extent of this damage. You did mention an inability to assimilate, so perhaps this is what you meant by immigrants damaging their host countries.

My personal experience with immigration into Sydney, Australia, is mixed. On the one hand we have the Lebanese and Vietnamese immigrant populations who have over 2% of their adult male population in prison, in stark opposition to the white Australian population (source; Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime). On the other hand many of the hardest workers I know are Asian immigrants, many being 2nd generation immigrants. You go to an investment bank assessment centre where many of the best performing graduates end up... 90% Asian ethnicity.

Anyways I'm keen on hearing what exactly you mean by damage.

 

[Constantinos]

My thoughts on this:

First, a description of http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics" .

I believe these rights should be universal to human beings. Its a level of values that every nation should try to implement.

Above these rights, I believe that all cultures are welcomed to blend, so I support multiculturalism. As long as they respect these values, how are they doing any harm? On the contrary, it is a good thing for many cultures to blend together because through this cross-fertilization of ideas, new ideas are born which would never be born in an environment with only one culture. There are many ways a human can live his life.

But not all cultures respect these universal human rights unfortunately. Those that don't should not be allowed to blend in, if we are to maintain this basic framework. For example, if someone who practices Islam refuses to accept the freedom of someone to draw Mohamed, he shouldn't be allowed to live in a multicultural society as I have described it because he does not respect its basic framework. But what would be the problem if the cultures of, for example, Irish and Japanese would blend together? Don't both cultures respect human rights? Yes, so what would be the problem with that?

As for EU, I believe that all the citizens of Europe would benefit if the cultures of the member states blend together because all of them respect the human rights. And I too believe that illegal immigration is one of the worst problems for Europe right now. Although most of these people just want a better tomorrow, sometimes its just impossible to provide for everyone, or there won't be anything left to provide to anyone. There is a certain capacity of immigrants each country can support and it should be respected.