Do you agree with multiculturalism?

[Tosh5457]

Mass immigration from third-world countries to Europe and USA, in my opinion, damages the countries that receive the immigrants. Many immigrants can't integrate in our society and can't assimilate our culture. Multiculturalism in my opinion is viewed by many as something that can't fail and must happen. But I think we must stop and think: Can it really work? Isn't a multicultural society an utopia? Can there be a successful multiculturalist society?
Many immigrant populations have not integrated well in Europe. It explains why far-right parties are gaining power in many european countries: http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8086-europes-biggest-far-right-parties"

I don't think being against multiculturalism is being racist or xenophobic, it's just accepting that in some cases, different cultures can't live together and it damages the society and the country. It's not immigrants' fault, the fault is of politicians that maintain open-borders and don't realize its consequences.

Do you agree with multiculturalism?

 

[Ken Natton]

Firstly, Tosh5457, I might accept your assertion that a philosophical opposition to multiculturalism is not necessarily founded on racism or xenophobia, but it remains a problem requiring great caution in dealing with this that the kind of arguments that would support an opposition to multiculturalism are ones with which the racist and the xenophobic would tend to align themselves. If you say that you are not simply racist and that you are not simply xenophobic, then I must take that at face value. But you and I and any other contributor to this discussion must remain very sensitive to the unavoidable overtones.

So, what if we take a purely hypothetical situation, that the world was a place where wealth and prosperity, and access to decent living standards were more evenly distributed among the whole population, but yet that the demarcation of different peoples and different cultures remained very well defined. Is it a better world that those lines of demarcation are maintained? Is it better that each of those different cultures remain isolated and isolationist? I would strongly suggest to you that the lessons of history would tend against that idea. Nations that have tried to maintain an isolationist stand have not prospered. Quite the reverse. In fact, you might argue that only way that the hypothetical scenario could exist would be if the even distribution of wealth and prosperity took the form of universal poverty.

And the truth is that the even distribution of wealth and prosperity is not the actual situation. So an argument against multiculturalism, even if it is not racist or xenophobic, might nonetheless be seen as arguing for a status quo that advantages you. Perhaps you will have less of a problem with your argument being seen in that way, but it doesn’t seem a very strong position to argue from to me.

Your first assertion is the one with which I would disagree directly and completely – that ‘mass immigration from third-world countries to Europe and USA … damages the countries that receive the immigrants.’ Again, history strongly suggests that vibrant immigrant communities tend to contribute strongly to the economies of the countries in which they settle. It is obviously much more subjective whether or not you see the cultural cross fertilisation as a good thing or not, but a good example would be the way in which modern historians trace the roots of modern popular music culture to the melting pot of cultures that rubbed up against each other in early twentieth century USA.

But my final point, Tosh5457, is actually the most important, that for me, sweeps all the other points aside. The growth of human technology and global communications means that the gelling of the world’s population into a single global community is a reality that is coming. For you, or any politician or anyone else to attempt to fight against that absolutely is a modern case of King Cnut and his waves.

 

[mege]

I think multiculturalism comes down to how it's implemented. Using a broad stroke of 'multiculturalism: good/bad?' missing the points of how it works great in some situations, and fails in others. Right now, for Europe, they're realizing their post-Iron Curtain/uptopia-wanting mistakes of open borders. Many communities are becoming havens for refugees from the former Soviet Bloc countries and the middle east. This extreme influx of new people, culture, etc - contributors to the societies or not - have shocked cities and towns throughout Western Europe.

I think slowly adding new immigrants can definitely help integrate new cultures into the accepted paradigm. When a culture obtains a 'shock' of immigrants (or has a slow migration go on for too long) is when 'multicultural backlashes' occur.

 

[arildno]

Did European mass immigratuion help the indigenous population of the Americas back in the 16th-19th centuries?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think that's not a simple question. If you were Montezuma, certainly not. If you were slated for being their next human sacrifice, certainly. There were winners and losers.

 

[arildno]

I think that's not a simple question. If you were Montezuma, certainly not. If you were slated for being their next human sacrifice, certainly. There were winners and losers.

True enough.

If you were a Sioux, Pueblo, Mohican, Irokese or Apache, though, chances are you'd end up a loser..

 

[Ken Natton]

Did European mass immigratuion help the indigenous population of the Americas back in the 16th-19th centuries?

I think that's not a simple question. If you were Montezuma, certainly not. If you were slated for being their next human sacrifice, certainly. There were winners and losers.

True enough.

If you were a Sioux, Pueblo, Mohican, Irokese or Apache, though, chances are you'd end up a loser..

I'm not at all sure whether or not we are meant to take that seriously. Are you putting forward these examples as an argument against multi-culturalism? Are you suggesting that these cases indicate that insular isolationism can be good for a people?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The migration of Europeans to the Americas were certainly not examples of multiculturalism! The principle behind MC is to foster a society whereby many different cultures exist (ideally) synergistically. This avoids the establishment of a monoculture (which could cause stagnation) and encourages individuals of the society to be more tolerant of others.

 

[arildno]

"This avoids the establishment of a monoculture (which could cause stagnation) "

Really?

Isn't that just a fantasy on your part?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"This avoids the establishment of a monoculture (which could cause stagnation) "
Really?
Isn't that just a fantasy on your part?

How so? I'm not suggesting that a society where everyone was of one culture would stagnate, merely that I think it would be easier for such a society to remain as it is.

 

[arildno]

How so? I'm not suggesting that a society where everyone was of one culture would stagnate, merely that I think it would be easier for such a society to remain as it is.

And, what would be morally wrong with a stable society?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

And, what would be morally wrong with a stable society?

Not necessarily anything if it was already a utopia but all societies have room for improvement. Having a diverse mix of cultural backgrounds in my experience and opinion makes the inception and development of innovation (both culturally and physically) quicker and easier. Thus a multicultural society could, in my opinion, develop new ideas and implement them naturally faster than a monocultured one. This could be especially true of matters pertaining to civil rights and equality as people raised in a multicultural society are likely to have higher levels of tolerance for other people.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think it depends on what you mean by multiculturalism. that is, a multi-monoculturalism, or a multi-biculturalism ? the question seems to be whether a state can exist where there is no nationalism (everybody rooting for the same football team). nationalism is a requirement for cohesiveness in a multi-bicultural society, if you expect some sort of secular cohesiveness. otherwise, you're going to default to cohesiveness based on something else, like religion or ethnic identity. and in a nation of multiple religions and ethnicities, those two options will lead to internal strife.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i think it depends on what you mean by multiculturalism. that is, a multi-monoculturalism, or a multi-biculturalism ? the question seems to be whether a state can exist where there is no nationalism (everybody rooting for the same football team). nationalism is a requirement for cohesiveness in a multi-bicultural society, if you expect some sort of secular cohesiveness. otherwise, you're going to default to cohesiveness based on something else, like religion or ethnic identity. and in a nation of multiple religions and ethnicities, those two options will lead to internal strife.

Unless one holds not one but multiple aspects of different cultures. Assume there was no nationalism (perhaps because there is only one nation) people within it could still have great differences but not be easily divided into sub-communities. For instance Alice could be of ethnicity X, religion Y and football team Z, Bob could be of ethnicity X, religion Y and football team R, Claire could be ethnicity Y, religion T and football team Z. I guess what I am trying to say is that is is potentially possible (and appealing to me) to have a multicultural society where the lines between people are heavily blurred and society resembles a messy Venn diagram rather than a pie chart.

 

[arildno]

Not necessarily anything if it was already a utopia but all societies have room for improvement. Having a diverse mix of cultural backgrounds in my experience and opinion makes the inception and development of innovation (both culturally and physically) quicker and easier.

Any actual EVIDENCE for that?

You see, sources for invention are not just from the "outside", but every new generation is ALSO sources for invention.

The largely mono-cultural Germany, France and Great Britain were far more innovative in the realms of science than, say, multi-ethnic colossi like the Habsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire or the Russian Empire.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Any actual EVIDENCE for that?

You see, sources for invention are not just from the "outside", but every new generation is ALSO sources for invention.

The largely mono-cultural Germany, France and Great Britain were far more innovative in the realms of science than, say, multi-ethnic colossi like the Habsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire or the Russian Empire.

Which is why I was careful to point out "in my experience" as well as clarifying societal change as well as scientific. I am not claiming this as gospel but a personal observation.

 

[Proton Soup]

Unless one holds not one but multiple aspects of different cultures. Assume there was no nationalism (perhaps because there is only one nation) people within it could still have great differences but not be easily divided into sub-communities. For instance Alice could be of ethnicity X, religion Y and football team Z, Bob could be of ethnicity X, religion Y and football team R, Claire could be ethnicity Y, religion T and football team Z. I guess what I am trying to say is that is is potentially possible (and appealing to me) to have a multicultural society where the lines between people are heavily blurred and society resembles a messy Venn diagram rather than a pie chart.

yes, I'm taking the simplistic approach that one of the cultures in bicultural individuals is the "national" culture. i know it's not that simplistic, but you've got to have enough cohesiveness to a national identity to keep things together, i think. otherwise, you get balkanization.

 

[arildno]

Have you personally observed if the fiercely monocultural Japanese have failed in developing a modern society?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Have you personally observed if the fiercely monocultural Japanese have failed in developing a modern society?

For a start we haven't established a good method of measuring how multicultural a population is (I don't think this is as simplistic as ethnicity or religion). Yet again I am not saying this is absolutely true. The OP was not "does multiculturalism make a country more prosperous" it was "do you agree with multiculturalism". In my opinion a system where the majority of people only experience a monoculture (difficult these days as it is near impossible for a country to be isolationist) is less desirable than one that is multicultural.

 

[arildno]

Unless the vast majority of the population in a country ascribes to the same system of values in how to elect leaders, what constitutes legality and so on, you can't have a functional democracy.

In that sense, every functional democracy requires a type of political monoculturalism or consensus, if you like.

You can, of course, have functional multi-cultural non-democracies with for example, as in the Ottoman Empire largely autonomous sub-cultures centered about religious identity, but that wasn't quite the point, was it?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Unless the vast majority of the population in a country ascribes to the same system of values in how to elect leaders, what constitutes legality and so on, you can't have a functional democracy.

In that sense, every functional democracy requires a type of political monoculturalism or consensus, if you like.

I think you are being quite liberal with the term monoculture here. The United States has quite a large http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states" thanks to highly different cultures occupying the same country. However I wouldn't refer to the US (in general) as multicultural because of the geographic segregation of these cultures, it's more like a few monocultures occupying the same country.

I do agree that for a functional nation there is a limit to how diverse the culture can be, there is likely to be a lot of social friction if the groups are widely separated but the biggest minority keeps getting it's leaders elected.

 

[Proton Soup]

Have you personally observed if the fiercely monocultural Japanese have failed in developing a modern society?

japan is pretty monoethnic. I'm not sure that's the same as monocultural.

http://www.debito.org/roguesgallery.html


they do tend to absorb elements of other cultures that they like.

 

[arildno]

I think you are being quite liberal with the term monoculture here. The United States has quite a large http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states" thanks to highly different cultures occupying the same country. However I wouldn't refer to the US (in general) as multicultural because of the geographic segregation of these cultures, it's more like a few monocultures occupying the same country.

I do agree that for a functional nation there is a limit to how diverse the culture can be, there is likely to be a lot of social friction if the groups are widely separated but the biggest minority keeps getting it's leaders elected.

To take one of the purported blessings of "multi-culturalism":
The willingness to eat different types of food or dishes.
Chinese one day, shish kebab the next, Norwegian salmon the next and so on.

Isn't this wonderfully "multi-cultural"?

Only if the vast majority of the population does not entertain silly ideas that some food is halal, other types haram (or kosher/non-kosher), i.e do not perform MORAL evaluations of others for their food choices!

But THAT means that precisely those sub-cultures that DO have such ideas of (ritually) clean food/unclean food will basically destroy the superficial "multi-culturality" of value-neutral food habits.

And, it so happens that outside of the Christian/European secularist culture, such ideas of clean vs. unclean food ARE widespread.

Thus, a fully functional&harmonious multi-culturalism places strictures and demands upon how people should regard the eating habits of others:
namely as a matter of taste nobody else is entitled to censure him or her for.

And, because such "multi-culturalism" demands cultural consensus on this point in order for it to work, we may regard it as a..mono-cultural construction.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

One could argue whether "multiculturalism" is something tolerated (in the best sense of the word) by the predominant culture, or describes a country where more than one culture exists on an equal basis. Belgium definitely fits the latter and frankly, it's not working very well at the present time. In Canada, this works a bit better, but it is a source of national angst and has threatened the nation's unity in the recent past. However, in Switzerland it works just fine, possibly because Switzerland began as a voluntary confederation of cantons, united against Hapsburg domination.

The USA is an example of the former. It was founded by Anglo-Saxon protestants and this remains the predominant culture. Only one US president was not a protestant, and nearly all have had Anglo-Irish surnames (with the exception of a few Dutch, one German and one Kenyan).

One could argue otherwise, but I think the US would have very big problems if it did not have one national language and one set of laws based on the values set forth in its founding documents. Beyond that, I think people should be free to express and enjoy their cultures provided they learn the national language and obey the laws which reflect the founding culture.

 

[arildno]

It is not sufficient that citizens "obey" the laws, rather, they must INTERNALIZE their commitment to the core principles of their constitutions.
USAns have been very good at requiring this type of internalization of core principles, that's why it can have a healthy surface multi-culturalism.

because that multi-culturalism remains..superficial.

Democracies cannot exist unless the populace has internalized the core values.
Non-democracies, of course, are in no need to inculcate such values in their citizens, the lash is sufficient to keep society moving along fairly peacably.

 

[arildno]

Where did I say "forced" internalization?

It has to do, for example, with maintaining a sense of national pride.

Europeans are effectively forbidden to be patriotic, being branded as racist Hitlerites if they try.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Where did I say "forced" internalization?

USAns have been very good at requiring this type of internalization of core principles, that's why it can have a healthy surface multi-culturalism.

We could split hairs about the difference between "force" and "require" but the point is, neither would be voluntary. We can require children to go to school and learn things, but we can't "require" that people "internalize" anything.

EDIT: I somehow deleted the post you were referring to, but the reference was to my statement that a democracy cannot force people to internalize core values.

 

[arildno]

Social ostrazisation of individuals belittling the US Constitution is one of the ways people are "required" or informally forced to develop at least an outward averment of their allegiance to it.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Social ostrazisation of individuals belittling the US Constitution is one of the ways people are "required" or informally forced to develop at least an outward averment of their allegiance to it.

Well, I have criticized parts of the US Constitution (on the Article Two provisions regarding how the US president is elected) right here in PF. Only Russ Watters objected. I am a US citizen by birth and served in the military in wartime.

 

[arildno]

Is criticizing a particular provision within the Constitution the same as "belittling"?

I think you'd need to be a European to see how patriotic, and enmeshed in national pride most USAns actually are (or, at least, seem to be from a European perpective)..

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Is criticizing a particular provision within the Constitution the same as "belittling"?

I think you'd need to be a European to see how patriotic, and enmeshed in national pride most USAns actually are (or, at least, seem to be from a European perpective)..

Perhaps, but go to any number of American universities, and it's the native students who are "enmeshed in national pride" that are ostracized. By the way, I'm a little confused about your position which I thought was that national cultures should be preserved.

 

[arildno]

Perhaps, but go to any number of American universities, and it's the native students who are "enmeshed in national pride" that are ostracized. By the way, I'm a little confused about your position which I thought was that national cultures should be preserved.

Yes it is.
It is a healthy sign in a society if oikophobics become ostracized.
In moderate measure, that is, for example by a sharp rebuttal or ridicule.

 

[Ken Natton]

What on earth…? Well it is probably pointless now. There was a serious worthwhile discussion here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the colonial era, the notion that the historical events of European colonisation of the Americas bears any relation to the issue of multiculturalism in early 21st century Europe and the USA is patently ridiculous. For the record, the examples of insular and isolationist nations that I was thinking of were Albania and North Korea. And in contrast, I would forward modern day Britain, for all our difficulties and failings, as a fine example of the positive possibilities of cultural cross fertilisation.

And I have to make an expression of frustration at what I can only see as inconsistent moderation. The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question that warranted a serious response. How the nonsense that followed bears any more relation to social science than it does to politics and world affairs is beyond me.

 

[arildno]

Yes, Anjem Choudry is SUCH a cultural enrichment for Great Britain, isn't he?

 

[Evo]

My two cents, in modern society, the immigrants need to fit in with the predominat existing culture. That is the way it is in successful countries. You fit in the public culture, then you can practise your religious/unusual practices in private in your home, or wrongly protected religious establishment.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is the general consensus then that Canada is doing a poor job of multiculturalism?

Surely it is possible to have a country where all religions and ethnicities have equal status regardless of something as unimportant as their sheer number.

This is not to say it is problem-free in practice, but surely it works in principle.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What on earth…? Well it is probably pointless now. There was a serious worthwhile discussion here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the colonial era, the notion that the historical events of European colonisation of the Americas bears any relation to the issue of multiculturalism in early 21st century Europe and the USA is patently ridiculous. For the record, the examples of insular and isolationist nations that I was thinking of were Albania and North Korea. And in contrast, I would forward modern day Britain, for all our difficulties and failings, as a fine example of the positive possibilities of cultural cross fertilisation.

And I have to make an expression of frustration at what I can only see as inconsistent moderation. The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question that warranted a serious response. How the nonsense that followed bears any more relation to social science than it does to politics and world affairs is beyond me.

I believe you are referring, at least in part, to my post 24 although you didn't observe the courtesy to quote it. Just what exactly do consider "ridiculous" or "nonsense" ?

In post 24 I was attempting to be clear about the term "multiculturalism". It can mean countries that have been historically bi/multicultural like Belgium, Canada or Switzerland. This is contrasted to countries like the USA which have been historically been monocultural but which are open to immigration. By the way, there is no compulsion for any nation to be open to immigration under International Law except perhaps in a limited sense for humane reasons.

I suggested that if a country chooses to be open to immigration, it has a right preserve its culture as it chooses. You may be of a different opinion, but that does not permit you to assign opinions (or facts) epithets such as "ridiculous" or "nonsense" because you don't agree with them. This is a violation of PF rules as I read them. If you want to quote specifics and offer a reasoned critique, then do so. Otherwise keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[lisab]

Is the general consensus then that Canada is doing a poor job of multiculturalism?

Surely it is possible to have a country where all religions and ethnicities have equal status regardless of something as unimportant as their sheer number.

This is not to say it is problem-free in practice, but surely it works in principle.

I think Canada does a good job with multiculturalism, myself. But face it, the Anglo-Canadian culture (is that the correct term?) and Quebecois culture aren't radically different.

What if the immigrant and host cultures diverge on things like women's rights? Like, having multiple wives, or allowing a woman to choose her husband. Kind of tough to find middle ground on some issues. I think on most sticky issues like this, the immigrant culture must be the one to bend to match the host culture.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Is the general consensus then that Canada is doing a poor job of multiculturalism?

Surely it is possible to have a country where all religions and ethnicities have equal status regardless of something as unimportant as their sheer number.

This is not to say it is problem-free in practice, but surely it works in principle.

It is certainly possible as far as immigration goes and there are a number of countries where it works reasonably well, including afaik, Canada. However, Canada has two official languages of equal status nationally. This is the historic bicultural divide that, you must admit, has caused problems in the recent past. Are you fluent in French? If you aren't, can you spend more than a few days in Montreal without being severely inconvenienced?

Among the three historically bi/multilingual countries that I mentioned, Switzerland seems to doing the best, while Canada has had some difficulties and may have more in the future. Belgium is essentially three countries now (including the small German Community) each of which has its own language, government, TV/radio stations, and institutions and where there is increasing resistance for members of one community to learn the others' language.

As far as immigration goes, which language do most new immigrants learn first in Canada?

 

[Ken Natton]

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. What I will definitely not do is involve myself in a pointless, sniping exchange. With a heavy heart, I feel that I must defend myself, at least as far as attempting to correct mis-readings of what I meant. In apparent response to my claim that history indicates the problems of insularity and isolationism and suggests the advantages of openness to the broader outside world, there were those who cited European colonisation of the Americas as a historical event that contradicted that idea, and they did so in ironic tones. That appears to me to have been the trigger for the thread to have gone off in a direction that does not seem to me to be in the OP’s question. I stand by my assertion that such a notion is ridiculous. The first key difference is that at the time that Europeans began colonising the Americas, the world’s population was about 500 million. Now we are fast approaching 7 billion and although some suggest that the rate of growth is slowing, we still seem to be a long way from reaching the peak, and that has to be a cause of concern to all of us. It certainly imposes realities on all of us that we may like or not, but that we are stuck with, and the idea that you can avoid the problem by attempting to turn your back on it does not seem to be particularly constructive to me.

When I referred to a section of this thread as nonsense, I was not thinking about the actual content of the posts as such, but about the self-indulgent, sniping nature of them and what appeared to me to be their lack of regard for what I had taken to be the OP’s intention. The moving of the thread from Politics and World Affairs to Social Science I had taken, perhaps wrongly, to be in response to the turn the thread had taken, and that did not seem to me to serve the OP either.

If I have breached any PF rules than I apologise unreservedly for that, that was never my intention. Believe me I fully understand that the high quality of these forums is very difficult to maintain – goodness knows I have seen how so many forums degenerate into something that is of no use to anyone – and that PF’s success depends heavily on the way it vigorously defends the scientific integrity of its scientific threads and the broader intellectual integrity of all of its threads. An important part of that approach, it seemed to me, is the vigorous defence of the OP’s intentions on all threads and it did not seem to me that events on this thread had met that normal standard. That’s all.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In apparent response to my claim that history indicates the problems of insularity and isolationism and suggests the advantages of openness to the broader outside world, there were those who cited European colonisation of the Americas as a historical event that contradicted that idea, and they did so in ironic tones. That appears to me to have been the trigger for the thread to have gone off in a direction that does not seem to me to be in the OP’s question. I stand by my assertion that such a notion is ridiculous. The first key difference is that at the time that Europeans began colonising the Americas, the world’s population was about 500 million. Now we are fast approaching 7 billion and although some suggest that the rate of growth is slowing, we still seem to be a long way from reaching the peak, and that has to be a cause of concern to all of us. It certainly imposes realities on all of us that we may like or not, but that we are stuck with, and the idea that you can avoid the problem by attempting to turn your back on it does not seem to be particularly constructive to me.

Do you know how to use the quote feature? If you are going to criticize, do it openly and quote the item that bothers you.

In post 24 I referred to the fact that the USA was founded by Anglo-Saxon protestants and this remains the predominant culture. By opening itself to immigration and adopting a constitution that encouraged a pluralistic society, the USA has integrated many diverse elements into a national culture with one national language and one set of core beliefs about individual rights and responsibilities in a democratic society. This may or may not be your idea of multiculturalism. Nevertheless it is a fact. There is broad latitude to express one's culture freely in the USA provided one keeps to its core values. You cannot have four wives or stone a woman to death because she was raped, but can't provide the four male witnesses to prove it.

EDIT: You keep referring to the OP and how this thread is somehow going off topic. The OP asked if we agree with "multiculturalism" without defining exactly what is meant by the word. He/she expressed some reservations about the concept and the inability of some immigrants to integrate into a democratic pluralistic society with certain core values. Posters are expressing their thoughts. How is this thread going off topic? Please quote the relevant posts to support your claim.

 

[Ken Natton]

My central difficulty, SW VandeCarr, is that though being ‘off-topic’ is very definitely not the criticism I was levelling, for me to engage in this personal exchange with you is a case of me engaging in precisely the kind of thing I was criticising. So clearly, my contributions are not serving the OP either and no-one is interested in what I have to say. I shall back out of this thread all together and say no more. Does that satisfy you?

 

[DaveC426913]

...the Anglo-Canadian culture (is that the correct term?) and Quebecois culture aren't radically different...

However, Canada has two official languages of equal status nationally.

I was referring more to the diversity of cultures living together - Asian, S. Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I was referring more to the diversity of cultures living together - Asian, S. Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc.

I'm still not clear on what people are talking about when they use the term "multiculturalism". To allow free expression of cultural norms that are consistent with the law does not seem to be, in itself, a problem for most people in countries with a liberal tradition of immigration. I think the problem arises when religious law is allowed to be substituted for secular law. This happened in the province of Ontario when, in 1991, religious courts were allowed to settle certain matters, mostly in family law. They were supposed to operate within secular law and appeal to secular courts was to be always available. Apparently it didn't always work out this way. In fact immigrant Muslims were among the most prominent protesters. Many of them came to Canada to get away from Shariah Law. These courts have subsequently been shut down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm an American of Russian Jewish descent with a Chinese wife. The problem with the war on multiculturalism is that there is too much fraternization with the enemy.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm an American of Russian Jewish descent with a Chinese wife. The problem with the war on multiculturalism is that there is too much fraternization with the enemy.

Yes, of which you and your wife are most guilty. This seems to be more an example of "transculturalism" or the "melting pot" idea. People of many backgrounds come together, intermarry and after a few generations we have just "regular Americans" or whatever. Nothing wrong with that either IMO. In a true democracy, who you marry is your choice, not that of the family or a religious court.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm still not clear on what people are talking about when they use the term "multiculturalism". To allow free expression of cultural norms that are consistent with the law does not seem to be, in itself, a problem for most people in countries with a liberal tradition of immigration. I think the problem arises when religious law is allowed to be substituted for secular law. This happened in the province of Ontario when, in 1991, religious courts were allowed to settle certain matters, mostly in family law. They were supposed to operate within secular law and appeal to secular courts was to be always available. Apparently it didn't always work out this way. In fact immigrant Muslims were among the most prominent protesters. Many of them came to Canada to get away from Shariah Law. These courts have subsequently been shut down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

i don't think we've got anything approaching that yet. the closest you might get are some insular religious communities like some fundamentalist mormon sects, or a couple of the ultraorthodox jewish communities on the east coast. if sharia gains traction in the US, i suspect it would be along the lines of these pre-existing models. leaders cut followers ties to the outside world, and what you end up with are people that don't even know what their rights and options are. this is the sort of thing i mean when i say a multi-monoculturalism. it leads to a separation of peoples and less national cohesiveness. we just don't notice it so much because it's such a small fraction of american society.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

this is the sort of thing i mean when i say a multi-monoculturalism. it leads to a separation of peoples and less national cohesiveness. we just don't notice it so much because it's such a small fraction of american society.

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.

 

[seeeker]

Response to the OP's question:

Re: "Mass immigration to USA damages the countries that receive the immigrants."

Agree that Europeans have damaged American culture. As a 'full-blooded' Native American, I must mention that the correct name for America is Turtle Island and the culture that has been nearly destroyed is indigenous culture on Turtle Island.

Re: "Many immigrants can't integrate in our society and can't assimilate our culture."

Strongly disagree with the "our" society and "our" culture part. Your society is in Europe. Your culture is in Europe. What you Europeans have destroyed is indigenous cultures. The true local culture is indigenous culture which Europeans have nearly destroyed, although there are still 566 sovereign nations within the United States, like the Navajo Nation, the Lakota Nation, etc and many more tribes that are federally not "recognized."

Re: "Can there be a successful multiculturalist society?"
Have you looked at India? It was a very successful multiculturalist society in terms of assimilation, living together peacefully and other cultural parameters until the 500-year British rule destroyed everything with their divide and conquer policies.

I won't be debating anyone any further or even clarifying any misconceptions about Native Americans in this thread.
Thank you.

 

[Evo]

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.