Multi-culturalism [Archive]

Duke Malcolm

10-28-2005, 16:41

We (in Britain, at least) are constantly told that multi-culturalism is a good thing. Now, I would have no problem with that, if only it could explain to me why. Millions, if not thousands of millions of public money is spent on schemes promoting the concept of multi-culturalism (not that this does anything, though, except perhaps make some already liberally-minded people violently anti-racist).
I do not see an advantage in it, since it dilutes our own culture, and makes people feel extraordinarily and unreasonably guilty for the Empire.
I believe, that while keeping some of their own culture, immigrants should generally integrate with the nation that they are moving to, and that the nation should not adapt itself too much for the immigrants.

What do the Orgahs (which seems to be the commonly accepted term for the subjects of TosaInu) think of multi-culturalism?

Some links:

One Scotland (http://www.onescotland.com/onescotland/osmc_display_home.jsp;jsessionid=F08DB3962752CC3B3B4C9C88FB0E08F8?p_service=Content.show&pContentID=3&p_applic=CCC&)

Wikipedia Definition thereof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism)

TinCow

10-28-2005, 16:44

Learning someone else's culture allows you to understand that person better. It allows you to better imagine yourself in their shoes and thus to approach problems with that person from a better baseline. This will in turn reduce misunderstandings and generate a more tolerant society. At least, that's my opinion.

Goofball

10-28-2005, 16:57

I believe, that while keeping some of their own culture, immigrants should generally integrate with the nation that they are moving to, and that the nation should not adapt itself too much for the immigrants.

That's more or less what multiculturalism is. There's nothing saying that the incumbent culture should have to adapt itself to the new culture; that's just the way the intolerant try to portray multiculturalism to try to turn people against it.

Multiculturalism should be many cultures existing peacefully together and being able to experience the better points of each other's customs, foods, celebrations, philosophies, etc, without necessarily blending together.

But I agree with you to the extent that where aspects of the immigrant culture are unacceptable to the incumbent culture (i.e. Islamic extremists beating their wives or Sikhs carrying bloody great swords around in public), those aspects of the immigrant culture must be left behind.

Lazul

10-28-2005, 17:06

Normally I wouldnt touch this subject with a 5 feet stick, atleast not in Sweden, but seeing as im on the org atm, I guess i can give it a shot.
The problem in Sweden concerning multi-culturalism is that "the once in charge" spend so much energy to integrate foriegn culture into our own that the "swedish culture" as a cultural being is fading in the eyes of the people.
Now one thing everyone have to have in mind is that every culture through out history is a mix of lesser cultures and is in constant change allways.

But to focus on what the little man feels about his culture being in change, what he fells aout it. I mean here in Sweden when i was younger and was in the earlier stages of school (public) we had many albanians, serbs etc in our classes. At first, nobody had any problem with it, I personally thought it would be fun to get to know someone who wasnt swedish by birth.

BUT, since politicians on all levels tend to be retards they had to think about what they could do "fix the racial issue" bla bla bla. The amount of flags being waved around diminished, then we were not allowed to sing our national anthem in school, not even during graduation.
Im not even a nationalist, atleast I dont call myself that, but I still felt hurt by the changes and so on.

I think, that if politicans dont interfer, dont make cultural borders and national identity a big issue, the people wont make it a big issue either. If the people are left alone to deal with cultural issues the world will take a more "regional" shape instead of "national". in other words, regional identity (seeing myself as a part of Halland or Halmstad first, Sweden second) will be more important then national.

solypsist

10-28-2005, 17:09

why multiculturalism is important: since when is knowing less a favorable option?

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 17:19

Multiculturalism, as supported by the left in America is bad. It is not about 'knowing more' or any other such nonsense. It is used as yet another oppurtunity to destroy American culture as some bad evil monster and portraying the immigrant's culture as perfect. We have to change anything that might be offensive. They encourage people not to assimilate into the country but stay in isolated cultural groups.

Crazed Rabbit

TinCow

10-28-2005, 17:32

It is used as yet another oppurtunity to destroy American culture as some bad evil monster and portraying the immigrant's culture as perfect.

I understand what you are saying, but American culture in particular IS immigrant culture. Nearly all of our most popular foods are slightly altered versions of other nations' traditions. Our art, our vehicles, our architecture and even our language are heavily based upon foreign influence. I think this domestic dilution of the native culture can certainly be a problem in places like Sweden, France and Italy. However I think the US is very different in these regards and can't quite be discussed in the same way.

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 17:38

I understand what you are saying, but American culture in particular IS immigrant culture. Nearly all of our most popular foods are slightly altered versions of other nations' traditions. Our art, our vehicles, our architecture and even our language are heavily based upon foreign influence. I think this domestic dilution of the native culture can certainly be a problem in places like Sweden, France and Italy. However I think the US is very different in these regards and can't quite be discussed in the same way.

Right you are. And I'd love other immigrants adding to the national culture we have here. But multiculturalism isn't that. The leftists want american culture to fold in completely whenever its different from an immigrant culture.

Crazed Rabbit

solypsist

10-28-2005, 17:39

the irony of this statement against multiculturalism is delicious, indeed.

They encourage people not to assimilate into the country but stay in isolated cultural groups.

Crazed Rabbit

English assassin

10-28-2005, 17:47

Multiculturalism as it has been practiced in the UK is not a good thing IMHO. We do need a bedrock of shared common history and values, which, by all means, can then be overlaid with engaging cultural differences. (Yes yes, I know, its the ethnic restaurant school of multiculturalism). But not teaching British history or literature in favour of teaching some sort of global mish mash is a mistake: its exactly the immigrant populations who most need that sort of teaching. If someone says (as they do) isn't London terrible and violent, if you have read Dickens or studied the victorians you will know that the answer is "not any more its not." No disrespect to African history or what have you but it doesn't give you that sort of useful background to life in the UK.

And permitting immigrant communities to, say, keep their wives and daughters in subjugation, not learning English, not working and so on, that was not a very good idea.

Goofball

10-28-2005, 17:49

the irony of this statement against multiculturalism is delicious, indeed.
They encourage people not to assimilate into the country but stay in isolated cultural groups.

Exactly. That's not multiculturalism.

CR, who exactly are the "they" that you are referring to?

TinCow

10-28-2005, 17:50

Right you are. And I'd love other immigrants adding to the national culture we have here. But multiculturalism isn't that. The leftists want american culture to fold in completely whenever its different from an immigrant culture.

Crazed Rabbit

I'm not quite sure I know who you're referring to. I'm pretty liberal as are many of my friends and I don't know anyone who actively wants to substitute our culture with a foreign one. Like everyone else we have good and bad aspects.

However, regardless of who you are referring to, I do not believe it is something to be concerned about in the US. We actively absorb new cultures and integrate their traits into ours whether they like it or not. I can't imagine that any group of people would ever be able to overcome the well-established melting pot of America. Even the massive influx of Latin American immigrants over the past several decades has done little more than boost the consumption of salsa and given us some new blood in the entertainment and sports industries. The current prevalence of Spanish through the nation is simply the reflection of a new group that has yet to full assimilate. It took a few generations for the major influxes of Italians, Irish, Germans, Greeks, etc. to drop their languages as well.

If you want to see a nation that HAS lost their cultural identity, look at Singapore. They systematically knocked down nearly everything of any historical significance. The few old things that remain were preserved largely due to British influence rather than domestic. Singapore is now a soulless techno-city which I dare to say has no culture at all beyond capitalism.

Radier

10-28-2005, 18:07

I as a Swede can´t possible vote yes because the integration here is totally unmanagible because the system sucks and we take in so many immegrants every year. There are immegrants here who have lived here for years and don´t know a word swedish. This multiculturalism do more bad than good.

My friend gor robbed, my cousins friend grouperaped. My other cousine´s boyfriend was allmost beaten to death. One guy at work were stabbed in the back, and some guys stole my expensive bicykle a time ago. All these crimes where comitted by NON-europeans, mostly from the arabic countries. Why shall I be happy with multiculturalism? The only thing multiculturalism has brought to me are these things and the motivation too learn how to fight...

If I want polish culture I travel there. If I want algerian culture I travel there. How fun would the world be if there where the same mixed culture everywhere?

I have some immegrant friends who are fully integrated to the swedish society and our culture. That is million times better than the other nonintegrated immegrants I have met.

Those of you who voted yes, I would like to see you settle a year in the gettos of example Rosengård or Rinkeby in Sweden. Then we shall se what you think...

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 18:09

Exactly. That's not multiculturalism.

CR, who exactly are the "they" that you are referring to?

Its's how multiculturalism is supported in the US, by them, aka leftists-not liberals or democrats, but the very left wing radicals.

the irony of this statement against multiculturalism is delicious, indeed.

You don't understand the paradox of multiculturalism in the US, obviously.

We actively absorb new cultures and integrate their traits into ours whether they like it or not.

I know. My point is that the radical supporters of 'multiculturalism' don't want this to happen. They want our society to be a non-integrated one with multiple cultures. They are trying to prevent the assimilation.

Crazed Rabbit

solypsist

10-28-2005, 18:15

being blindly dismissive doesn't strengthen any argument.

You don't understand the paradox of multiculturalism in the US, obviously.

<<lives in NYC - I think I know a little about living around people with different cultures. That and my extensive world travel have informed me pretty well about integration of peoples in different (global) societies.

Duke Malcolm

10-28-2005, 18:25

solypsist

10-28-2005, 18:29

oh nevermind. kids.

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 18:30

being blindly dismissive doesn't strengthen any argument.

I've yet to see any argument at all from you.

Crazed Rabbit

Duke Malcolm

10-28-2005, 18:35

being blindly dismissive doesn't strengthen any argument.

oh nevermind. kids.

Hypocrisy is a terrible thing...

solypsist

10-28-2005, 18:35

my argument (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=969045&postcount=5) is that simpy keeping one's options narrow is not productive.

now i have to head to the airport - Portland to NYC, an all day trip. Sheesh.

have fun guys.

I've yet to see any argument at all from you.

Crazed Rabbit

Ser Clegane

10-28-2005, 18:43

One does not need to live in a multi-cultural society to learn about other cultures. There is such a thing as world travel, i.e. travelling across the world, experiencing other cultures. The simple argument of knowing more is weak in itself.

Actually not everybody can just jump on a planer and travel to experience whichever culture he/she is interested in - not a very realistic alternative in many cases.

Multi-culturalism means that I can go to the wedding of Turkish friends and experience a part of their culture because they do it "their way".
It means that I can enjoy the annual African/Carribean festival in our neighbourhood.

It does not necessarily mean that these people live in some kind of parallel societly that does not overlap with tha "native" society.

Integration is not equivalent to giving up your own culture - integration also requires both sides the "native culture" and the "immigrant culture" to be willing to integrate

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 18:45

why multiculturalism is important: since when is knowing less a favorable option?

my argument is that simpy keeping one's options narrow is not productive.

Looks like two different arguments to me. I'm all in favor of knowing a lot, but multiculturalism is not necessary for that.

Crazed Rabbit

Goofball

10-28-2005, 18:51

Looks like two different arguments to me. I'm all in favor of knowing a lot, but multiculturalism is not necessary for that.

Crazed Rabbit

No, but it is certainly not an impediment to knowledge either.

Geoffrey S

10-28-2005, 18:56

I like multi-culturalism. There are so many things I enjoy which originate from areas outside my locale area it's hard to know where to start; various types of food, many types of music, different views to be discovered through converstations with people from a different background... as far as I'm concerned the benefits of multi-culturalism far outweigh potential negative aspects.

And permitting immigrant communities to, say, keep their wives and daughters in subjugation, not learning English, not working and so on, that was not a very good idea.
Agreed. Also, I don't view this as multi-culturalism as they don't add anything to the British culture; this kind of thing is a problem, not due to multi-culturalism but the way it's painted as such by numerous left-wing politicians who bleat 'racism' at the least mention of making sure immigrants become a productive member of their host country, along with enforcing at least a basic adaption to common law and principles.

One does not need to live in a multi-cultural society to learn about other cultures. There is such a thing as world travel, i.e. travelling across the world, experiencing other cultures. The simple argument of knowing more is weak in itself.
Bear in mind that this is a privilege of richer people who can afford such travel, who frequently are more open-minded to other cultures relatively speaking, possibly due to trips to culturally different places. Many people can't afford such expensive trips and end up going on holiday locally: Dutch go camping in Holland, English down to the coast of Britain, and in America there is a tendency to stay in the US for holidays made easier due to the vast areas to choose from.

English assassin

10-28-2005, 19:02

Multi-culturalism means that I can go to the wedding of Turkish friends and experience a part of their culture because they do it "their way".
It means that I can enjoy the annual African/Carribean festival in our neighbourhood.

Not to be dismissive, SC, but that is the "ethnic restaurant" multiculturalism I referred to. If multiculturalism means spicy food and colourful clothes then you can hardly be against it.

If, on the other hand, it means asian girls who fall in love with a white man having to leave their homes at night, move to another city under a new name, and never contact anyone in their family again because if they are tracked down their male relatives will kill them because in their culture they have dishonoured the family, then I call it bollocks. (And that scenario happens in England today.) If it means people who have been here decades speakign no or next to know English, (and expecting things to be translated into their language), I call that bollocks too. And, perhaps more controversially, if it means coming into a secular democratic society, and then complaining that that society is not run on religious grounds (grounds dicated from other countries, what is more, and without the benefit of the sort of historical and textual analysis that, say, christians or jews give to their holy books), I call that double bollocks.

Actually, Jews give a good example. No one doubts they have a powerful cultural identity, they practice their religion, and they get on with life in British society. Some of the more orthodox play little or no role in wider society because they think their religion forbids it, but they do no one any harm in so doing. So yeah, multiculturalism of that sort of culture is absolutely fine.

Good food too.

Lemur

10-28-2005, 19:03

Multiculturalism is neither good nor bad, it just is. There are plusses and minuses to it, like most phenomena in this world. What's amusing is to see certain leftist types promoting it as a cure for all that ails ya, and then to watch the rightist types foam at the mouth, declaring that it's a subversion of all that is good and right in America.

Needless to say, not only are both wrong, but wildly overreacting.

I'm sorry to hear that Britain is spending gobs of cash on the subject, however. I've always felt that these sorts of cultural issues sort themselves out over time, without a lot of government interference necessary. You don't need an English First initiative to keep the land pure, and you don't need a ministry of diversity to keep the game fair. Things work out. Just you watch.

solypsist

10-28-2005, 19:24

(let's hear it for wifo airports!)

okay i commented on multiculturalism in general, when what KM was referring to were programs by gov'ts and was lamenting these as obscuring the current citizen-culture in place. i should have been more specific - sorry if my replies were confusing, i'm only human.

so allow me to get this topic back on track a little:

the fact is that immigration from third world countries to industrialized nations is increasing, like it or not. and your government has some options. one of these options is to try to make its citizens aware enough so that everyone plays nice.

you may not like the current trend of immigration, or you may. however you or I feel about it does not change it from happening, now or later. you can lock yourself in a room and study from books and websites, but then expect a reality you're unprepared for when you walk out the door. or you can fight it, in which case see the part about "does not change it from happening." or you can do what humans do best, which is adapt - this does not mean "losing your culture" or anything so absurd, i just means being aware of differences in how people think in real-life situations that apply to your life.

people in america have been complaining about immigration since the colonies were founded, so it's no surprise to hear americans go on about it.

Ser Clegane

10-28-2005, 19:34

Not to be dismissive, SC, but that is the "ethnic restaurant" multiculturalism I referred to. If multiculturalism means spicy food and colourful clothes then you can hardly be against it.

I think what I meant goes a bit beyond the "ethnic restaurant" - when I talk about e.g., the wedding, it means that multi-culturalism that you actually participate in the life of the "other" culture and let it enrich your personal life (and that goes in both directions).

What you describe later in your post is exactly what I said multi-culturalism should not necessarily be

that these people live in some kind of parallel societly that does not overlap with the "native" society.
this is certainly something most of would agree on that it should not happen within a multi-cultural society, as it negates the positive aspects of different cultures living together.

Byzantine Prince

10-28-2005, 19:39

No, multi-culturalism is not good because it's very devisive. I think when people bring their cultures to a new country they should preserve what they think is the best of that culture from which they came, and mix it in with what they think is the best of the new. Also the natives should learn the best of that culture and also combine it with theirs to create a better one. That's how it should work.

There is no point in having a country with a million different cultures that don't get along. There should be a selective melting pot for both foreign and native sides. That is the only way they can both survive and become better.

TinCow

10-28-2005, 19:48

I think part of the problem in this thread is that we're not all talking about the same definition of multi-culturalism. We seem to have two seperate schools here:

1) Multiculturalism is the addition of cultural traits from outside peoples into the existing national culture. Essentially adding new aspects to the existing ones.

2) Multiculturalism is the independant existence of multiple cultures in the same nation.

Most people seem to be saying that #1 is good and #2 is bad, but we're using the terms differently and getting confused.

Kanamori

10-28-2005, 19:51

people in america have been complaining about immigration since the colonies were founded, so it's no surprise to hear americans go on about it.

It is ironic though, isn't it?

I know. My point is that the radical supporters of 'multiculturalism' don't want this to happen. They want our society to be a non-integrated one with multiple cultures. They are trying to prevent the assimilation.

Nobody holds that position.

I'm not sure I understand. If people want to do something their way, and it is legal, why do you care? Nobody is making you do it that way.

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 20:05

I'm talking about multiculturalism as is supported by those who go about saying how we need a 'multicultural society'.

Now, I'm all for legal immigration and those immigrants bringing bits of their culture and improving upon the base.

What I'm against is what EA has provided examples of; multicultural in that there are a bunch of insular cultures that don't like the culture they emmigrated to.

Crazed Rabbit

solypsist

10-28-2005, 20:11

they often don't get very far in society and usually last maybe a generation - their kids tend to integrate (or their kids, anyway).

people who are looking for issues against immigation can't do very well playing the multiculturalism card - the real issues finiancial burden is the best argument against it.

i'm pro-multicultural society, but to be completely honest, only when it's at my convenience ~;)

I'm talking about multiculturalism as is supported by those who go about saying how we need a 'multicultural society'.

Now, I'm all for legal immigration and those immigrants bringing bits of their culture and improving upon the base.

What I'm against is what EA has provided examples of; multicultural in that there are a bunch of insular cultures that don't like the culture they emmigrated to.

Crazed Rabbit

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2005, 20:20

Nobody holds that position.

I'm not sure I understand. If people want to do something their way, and it is legal, why do you care? Nobody is making you do it that way.

Erm, yes they do.

And I'm against it because its bad for society, bad for the people in that culture, and just generally bad, as can be seen in Sweden and England.

people who are looking for issues against immigation can't do very well playing the multiculturalism card - the real issues finiancial burden is the best argument against it.

I'm not arguing against immigration at all. These are two seperate debates, but you seem to be thinking that immigration=multiculturalism. It doesn't.

Crazed Rabbit

solypsist

10-28-2005, 20:27

okay, i wasn't referring to you, there's been a miscommunication since i used part of my post to reply to you.

the immigration/multiuculturalism thing was directed to the first post of this thread, which seems to be aimed in the direction of immigration and multi-culti programs.

I'm not arguing against immigration at all. These are two seperate debates, but you seem to be thinking that immigration=multiculturalism. It doesn't.

Crazed Rabbit

Goofball

10-28-2005, 21:39

Nobody holds that position.

I'm not sure I understand. If people want to do something their way, and it is legal, why do you care? Nobody is making you do it that way.
Erm, yes they do.

Examples please?

Is the U.S. gov't now forcing good, honest white folks to wear turbans and cook nothing but tacos in order to make your immigrant population feel more at home?

Adrian II

10-28-2005, 21:47

Examples please?

Is the U.S. gov't now forcing good, honest white folks to wear turbans and cook nothing but tacos in order to make your immigrant population feel more at home?It is about time, methinks. We have been force-fed American-style hamburgers in The Neds for 35 years now.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/bave.gif

AntiochusIII

10-28-2005, 22:32

Multi-culturalism, at its core, is neutral.

But my preference is to enrich the one bland cultures with as many different shades as possible, like a big picture with many shades and colors, rather than one bland black&white scene.

What the more "right-wing" people feel angry about in this thread is not multi-culturalism at its heart. Rather, it is the refusal, on one side or both, to integrate other cultures at all. Xenophobia and counter-xenophobia is not multi-culturalism. And those "Asians who hunt their dishonorable females" are breaking the law of that nation, something outside cultures nowadays, no matter what their roots are; thus, they should be duly punished for attempted murder, and those who try to incite hatred against the host nation should be duly punished for hate speech, a punishable crime almost everywhere, I presume.(?)

Yes, the host nation should try to teach immigrants the main language of the host nation, but should not force them. On the other hand, movements by politicians (they are always bad, aren't they?) to prevent teaching out of "they will be hurt" reasons are most unreasonable, and, again, is not multi-culturalism.

What I see here in Las Vegas is quite an example of multi-culturalism; friends from China, from Mexico, from Philippines, etc, abound, and their shops, food, interesting stuff, etc, exist in the city. "Chinatown" is much more than Chinese' town nowadays, and for the better.

yesdachi

10-28-2005, 23:34

There are definitely a few different views of what Multi-culturalism is floating around but IMO it is a good thing. But being from the US it is kind of hard to not be in favor of it, after all we have only barley developed a culture, which is most definitely an amalgam of multiple cultures. However, I do realize that some people see it as a negative, especially from what I am hearing about Sweden, but I really don’t think that it is the multi-culturalism that is the bad thing but the uncontrolled immigration leading to a Multi-cultural chaos. That is a bad thing.

It does frustrate me to encounter people or situations where someone is trying to force more diversity on me. An example would be… The college I graduated from offered several history classes most revolving around Western society. A few (white) people with too much time on their hands (IMO) petitioned and campaigned to have a history class that focused Africa and India. It was quite a big deal IIRC with several raciest/anti racist attacks on the school being made. The class was offered the next semester and attendance was average low and the next semester there was not enough attendance to even offer the class. There just wasn’t enough interest. It has been my experience that when it is time for something to happen, it happens and no one needs force it to happen. Sure there are exceptions in unnatural situations but for the most part, supply and demand takes over to make things right.:bow:

Alexanderofmacedon

10-28-2005, 23:36

I think it's great. You should know what people think/do/like in other cultures. It's good to be fully cultured.:bow:

Soulforged

10-29-2005, 04:31

I not only support multiculturalism, but I go even further. Let the multi-cultures join, and with time mix. Forming one single mass of traditions that can put all humanity and society as it should always have been, only one.
The simple idea of one culture (official culture) is the same as official religion. Have one superior idea to look at and praise at, so our nation can keep together. The point is: Why should the nations keep together? Why don't unite all of them (slowly but at least do it)? The answer is always the same, people are proud and are begining to turn selfish. They love their state, they love constituted ideals, love separation, and above all love nationalism. I don't think I'll see the day when this all is just a bad memory, but I hope it happens.

bmolsson

10-29-2005, 05:18

Multi culturalism is a difficult beast. Accepting cultures and be able to live side by side is very good. On the other hand, inability to integrate in to a homogen society will sooner or later create confrontation and conflict.
It's not all society that can handle multi culturalism. I would say that US is the country in the world that succeeded best, while a country like Saudi Arabia is among the worst......

thrashaholic

10-29-2005, 09:01

Multi-culturalism is fallacy, a term with virtually no meaning bandied around by politicans et al. to appease minority ethnic groups and guilt everyone else into accepting what is essentially a racist minority rule (ie having ethnic commissions and the like to set up quotas and let minorites 'have their voice heard'). A society can never be 'multi-cultural' as a society can only ever have one culture; 'multi-cultural' intrinsically means 'multi-society'.

The definition of multi-cultural that most people seem to be arguing as a positive influence, where the native culture adopts cutlural traits from immigrant cultures, is not multi-culturalism at all, it is still mono-culturalism: the single culture has merely changed. Cultures change all the time anyway, even without immigrants, thus calling change in a culture multi-culturalism is a bit silly. This is neither positive nor negative in the long run, it just happens. This form tends to happen when one has low levels of immigration, or immigration from a culture not too dissimilar from the native; the native population tend to accept it and the immigrant population necessarily adapt to the native culture (whilst adding their own little bits to it).

What is happenning now is that we are receiving vast quantities of culturally alien people from all over the globe who are, naturally, forming their own ghettoised societies within our own. This is dangerous and where conflict occurs. I can think of no society where mass immigration has not caused conflict between the native and immigrant populations: Northern Ireland, the Americas, Israel, England/Wales, Cyprus, colonial Africa (Ivory Coast, South Africa etc.), this is because the immigrant society, since there are enough to form their own society, have no incentive to integrate, it's too much effort. As my examples show, once conflict between these societies arises, it never goes away. Mono-cultural/societal nations, for example: Iceland, don't have these problems.

I always laugh when people say Britain was made on immigration, because Britain is perhaps one of the most divided nations on the planet, ancient animosities still run deep and new ones are being added every day as pockets of immigrant societies fight the natives and themselves for territory and dominance. Besides, prior to the 1900s, te only mass imigration Britain had was from Europe, who, although we like to pretend otherwise, are not culturally dissimliar to ourselves. Today, the highest number of immigrants to Britain are Australians I believe, yet there is no outcry or the like because these people are so similar to us culturally they fit into our society seemlessly, people like those fighting in Birminham do not.

Rodion Romanovich

10-29-2005, 10:38

I wrote most of what I think here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56228

Multi-culturalism in that we learn to eat kebab and sushi if we want to is no problem IMO. Neither is exchange of philosophical ideas and sharing each others traditions (if they have good parties ~:) ). The main problem is the laws of the country, which are most likely going to be affected by foreign cultures. The law is very critical to citizens, and if another group becomes majority the original inhabitants will lose their law. Especially if the foreign cultures reproduce faster, because many of them are at home all they because they have no jobs because there's a shortage of jobs as it is and they're disfavored by the market because without proper integration they never learn the local language and therefore can't handle the communication required for a most jobs. If the cultural/religious groups that grow most are cultural/religious groups who are fundamentalistic, non-tolerant and/or have a legal system which is very different from yours, as well as have shown they haven't been able to or didn't care about overthrowing dictators in their home countries, the old inhabitants can say goodbye to their country as it's been conquered, and they can expect foreign laws, perhaps including non-tolerance, fundamentalism and so on.

An individual foreigner is no threat, and shouldn't IMO be subject to prejudice of any kind. But a huge group of foreigners becoming a majority is a threat to the constitution, law and culture, and the tolerance should therefore be restricted. There's only one part of tolerance that really needs to be restricted, and it's to, by any just means available, make sure the foreign cultural, religious and other groups never become a majority or large enough minority to threaten the constitution.

To give them no right to vote is a short-sighted solution, it would never work. To repel all and persecute all converts is also a short-sighted solution. But to simply have birth control with every foreigner being forbidden to have more children than what's average for the local population, and send back refugees when their home countries have calmed down, and avoid immigration of non-refugees as much as possible, this guarantee would exist, removing the threat, and making it possible to live multiculturally without conflicts or fear.

I believe the greatest multiculturalism and acceptance is to respect that the other countries keep the law, culture and constitution they want, while they respect the law, culture and constitution we have. Often important political opinions ARE tied to culture and religion, and this is why in order to have a democracy that gives as many as possible what they want, one mustn't mix religious and cultural groups too much.

Immigration of the kind that's taking place into European countries is not good for anyone in the long run, except maybe for the few immigrants that get to the European countries.
1. if they're educated, they're letting down their own people by leaving them, and making their own countries fall apart more.
2. if they're against a dictatorship regime in their home countries, then they should stay and overthrow it like Europeans have overthrown dictatorship in the 19th century.
3. if they're in need and immigrate in order to get help, they're killing a thousand others in need of help. No matter how it's hidden behind fine words, immigration and aid is dependent on money, and ONE immigrant costs as much as helping THOUSANDS that stay in their own countries. Those that aren't real refugees but only pretending to be in flight and hiding should be ashamed to cause the death of so many others by their immigration.
4. the politicians don't do a thing to integrate the refugees. We're talking about small children with veteran syndromes, people who can't speak the language of the country they came to, and people who don't get any jobs and easily end up in criminality.

The immigration supported by the leaders of states in Europe and America is supported for the reasons that the leaders want:
1. internal rivalry between culture, so that attention is drawn from their ruling.
2. they want cheap workers from poor countries to come and by competition lower the wages in order to strengthen the power of the company leaders.

Large-scale immigration is not about helping people, it's about hidden political agendas. That's why all that are openly against immigration are harassed and threatened by fear and very few good arguments, rather than a fair debate. Usually, whoever is against uncontrolled immigration is called a racist, despite being less racist than any of the politicans who approve of immigration, who are living in isolated rich-man-ghettos and never see a foreigner. The non-official version of these politicians who hug immigrants' children on photoes are fierce racists who immediately veto attempts to build houses for immigrants anywhere near their own houses, because they don't want to see any other people than people of their own nationality. And this stupidity is, as I mentioned here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56228, the strongest force ever for causing racism and intolerance in the future, which is what I personally want to avoid, no matter who would become the victim of it if it did appear.

Ironside

10-29-2005, 10:53

IMO the biggest issue about this seems to have more about immigration policy, than multi-culturalism.

The creation of isolated enclaves that have the problems of ghettos cannot be good, whatever the reason that caused them. My guess is that concentrating immigrants to a limited area for a short period of time isn't an effective way to integrate them into the rest of the society, unless possibly several generations afterwards.

Haven't had the problems that Radier and Lazul gotten though.

King Henry V

10-29-2005, 11:31

No, I do not think that multi-culturalism is a good thing. I do not like the way the indigenous culture is forced to change so that it doesn't offend other cultures in the country. When somebody says "No, we can't stage a Nativity play because it might offend people of other cultures" I think "Tough. If they don't like they go back from wherever they came." When somebody says "We must translate this leaflet into several dozen other languages because some might not understand English", I think "Tough. If they don't even have the curtesy to learn the host nation's language, then no provision should be made for them." When my father had some legal business with the government here in Geneva, he asked wether he could speak in in German (one of the official languages of Switzerland). They replied "French is the sole official language of the Republic and Canton of Geneva. Please use it."
Other cultures should never be forced onto the indigenous culture. If people wish to learn about foreign cultures, I have nothing against it, but it is their hobby and their interest and it should not be sponsored by the government. There are plenty other resources, such as the internet and various books and magazines. which can allow to learn about other cultures without going to the expense of travelling.

Ser Clegane

10-29-2005, 12:13

No, I do not think that multi-culturalism is a good thing. I do not like the way the indigenous culture is forced to change so that it doesn't offend other cultures in the country. When somebody says "No, we can't stage a Nativity play because it might offend people of other cultures" I think "Tough. If they don't like they go back from wherever they came." When somebody says "We must translate this leaflet into several dozen other languages because some might not understand English", I think "Tough. If they don't even have the curtesy to learn the host nation's language, then no provision should be made for them."

Hmm ... could you please give some examples of how "indigenous culture" is "forced" to change?

Publishing leaflets in various languages hardly constitutes a change in culture.
Could you please also provide examples of the ban of the Nativity play? Preferrably a ban that has been forced upon the "indigenous culture" by the "non-indigenous culture" and not one that the locals forced upon themselves because they thought the play might offend other people?

I get the impression that this "forced change of culture" is a bit of a strawman that is blown out of proportion.

Duke Malcolm

10-29-2005, 12:37

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1410786,00.html

Wardo

10-29-2005, 14:18

I voted NO because the multi-culturalism presented here is not the multi-culturalism I was presented to by our current government.

I voted against the political multi-culturalism, that is, the politically correct speech being used for political benefit.

I live in Brazil, I dare to say the most multi-cultural (yours definition) country in the world, we reached the point where we are now alone, without governamental interference, come watch and learn one of these days.

What the party in power wants to do is create a cultural conflict, something that doesn't exist in Brazil, they want us to have the same problems Europeans have and they are trying to create one of the foundations of the problem, cultural pride, as in cultural imposition, we never had this abomination in Brazil, they tried to create this monster, and they are failing, it doesn't work, sorry, our society lives in harmony, and they only managed to incite minor trouble.

So here, multi-culturalism is an empty word, it is an imported politically correct speech you can talk about and nobody understand what you really mean, other than that it must be something good and needed, useless words, and like I said, by the "official" definition of "multi-culturalism" we are already the most multi-cultural nation on this planet, so when politicians put their finger on "multi-culturalism" it is only to stir and incite trouble, as nothing needs to be fixed, and creating cultural conflicts should be considered anti-multi-cultural.

NO to politicians fiddling with "multi-culturalism", leave that to European politicians, we don't have any cultural problems and as our society took care of itself for 500 years we can continue to cohexist by ourselves, without this political "multi-culturalism", it is not this government in 2005 that is going to create what never existed in the five past centuries to offer a solution to the problem that is going to only benefit them, in detriment of the country.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

10-29-2005, 15:03

I have heard/read/observed first hand that the argument that the kids of immigrants adapt and integrate doesn't seem to apply much in Europe.

Edit: I think my views echo EA's to a very large extent (just in case anybody fancies speculating on my opinions). I can't be arsed writing more.

Ser Clegane

10-29-2005, 18:34

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1410786,00.html

Thanks for proving my point, King Malcolm.

The article confirms what I have said in my post:

So who are the modern-day Scrooges, Grinches, Cromwells and Castros, and what motivates them? In most cases, the Chistophobes use the excuse of multiculturalism, insisting that celebrating Christmas is offensive to non-Christian minorities, often citing Muslims. But the truth is that it is done in the name of Muslims, rather than at the request of Muslims, who accept the existence of Christ.Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists don’t mind Christmas celebrations any more than Christians object to Diwali, Eid or Chanukkah. As Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said: “It’s not offensive to minority communities to celebrate the festival of Christmas.”

The problem is not multi-culturalism, but a bunch of "indigenenous" people who have to much time and try to push an agenda in the name of people who didn't ask for it.

King Henry V

10-29-2005, 18:45

But one is a by-product of the other. Sometime multi-culturalism also prohibits freedom of speech, as shown here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

Ser Clegane

10-29-2005, 18:57

But one is a by-product of the other. Sometime multi-culturalism also prohibits freedom of speech, as shown here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

What exactly does this article have to do with the perceived negative effects of multi-culturalism?

Do you think this kind of protest would only happen in a multi-cultural society?
Is it very unlikely to see a similar situation if the play had been about rape and murder in a Christian church?

Is this an example how a culture has been forced upon the "indigenous culture"? What has been forced upon whom in this case?

King Henry V

10-29-2005, 19:21

Come on, don't tell you haven't say any dramas where priests, monks and nuns have been said to abuse children. Do you see people storming the television/film company's offices?

Ser Clegane

10-29-2005, 20:47

Come on, don't tell you haven't say any dramas where priests, monks and nuns have been said to abuse children. Do you see people storming the television/film company's offices?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/10/nspring10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/10/ixnewstop.html

Tribesman

10-29-2005, 21:59

Damn Ser Clegane beat me to it , though there are numerous other examples Father Ted being withdrawn by the networks after protests in Boston . Pickets over here over the film about the Magdelene laundries , but then again the funniest was when the Life of Brian came out . Heretics ~D ~D ~D

King Henry V

10-29-2005, 23:20

AntiochusIII

10-30-2005, 01:03

I am quite a staunch defender of multi-culturalism because I am a first-generation immigrant in a culturally different society. And, for that, I've tasted the benefits of multi-culturalism firsthand. It is strangely appealing that my nostalgia, a natural thing, is much appeased by the fact that my native culture could be found here thousands of miles away from my native "land". In the meantime, the natural process of assimilation does its work in me. Also, I've tasted more than one new culture here--thanks to, again, multi-culturalism. It is a personally enriching experience; it even helps, in part, in making my rather empty and pointless life worthwhile.

The problems of unregulated immigration does not concern multi-culturalism at its heart; and problems often escalate as politicians manipulate them.

A society can never be 'multi-cultural' as a society can only ever have one culture; 'multi-cultural' intrinsically means 'multi-society'.Ah, but you did not recognize that there can always be more than one culture within one legal, "national", or even territorial identity. What constitutes society in your meaning?

I voted NO because the multi-culturalism presented here is not the multi-culturalism I was presented to by our current government.That's not multi-culturalism at all. That's political agenda--turning a non-issue into a big issue, to distract from real issues--here in the US we have things from Abortion to Gay Rights and what have you. Politicians be damned, you are justified to be angry.

I voted against the political multi-culturalism, that is, the politically correct speech being used for political benefit.Politically correct and multi-culturalism are two different things.

I live in Brazil, I dare to say the most multi-cultural (yours definition) country in the world, we reached the point where we are now alone, without governamental interference, come watch and learn one of these days.I don't have any experience firsthand, but I believe otherwise: the USA is one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world--or parts of the USA, that is. It is too big to be considered one cultural identity, really. An urban Western USA is of radically different characteristics to, say, a rural part of Southeastern USA. And I'm speaking from a combination of first-hand and second-hand knowledge.

What the party in power wants to do is create a cultural conflict, something that doesn't exist in Brazil, they want us to have the same problems Europeans have and they are trying to create one of the foundations of the problem, cultural pride, as in cultural imposition, we never had this abomination in Brazil, they tried to create this monster, and they are failing, it doesn't work, sorry, our society lives in harmony, and they only managed to incite minor trouble.I agree, as I've stated above.

Nonetheless, in Europe they have real problems: immigrants refusing to join, and become hostile the larger society. This, however, could be traced back to the politicians again, who try to prevent the integration with laws and rhetoric that go beyond the necessary protection/aid of the minority towards creating privileges--the counter effect of protection of rights.

Wardo

10-30-2005, 05:09

I don't have any experience firsthand, but I believe otherwise: the USA is one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world--or parts of the USA, that is. It is too big to be considered one cultural identity, really. An urban Western USA is of radically different characteristics to, say, a rural part of Southeastern USA. And I'm speaking from a combination of first-hand and second-hand knowledge.
I agree, as I've stated above.

That's exactly the same over here, if I had cutted out the "USA" and changed the cardinal directions on this quote it would seem like we were talking about the same country.

Down here, let me count, how many again? Out of my head, I think we had 4 or 5 "secession civil wars", and every few decades a referendum comes up in the South to decide if those states should separate and form their own confederation, just so you know how lacking our single cultural identity is. :bow:

The only "cultural" identity shared throughout the country is the passport, the ID Card and gramatically the language ~D , that's it, but we cohexist peacefully and harmoniously together and cultural conflicts aren't a problem, I say we are lucky, we were always lucky with our immigrants I guess, it has nothing to do with a policy or a multi-cultural law or anything, it naturally came to be like this, where Jews can live next to Muslims and Muslim women don't walk around covered from head-to-toe in black clothes...~:grouphug:

Ser Clegane

10-30-2005, 07:11

But their is a difference between being blasphemous, i.e being insulting to the religion itself, and showing so called representatives of that religion to be doing something bad. Whilst I would take offence to someone insulting Jesus or God, I do accept that humans can perform terrible things.
Well the Sikh considered it to be blasphemous that a place sacred to them was insulted in the play - seems to be pretty much the same to me.
Apart from that I am sure that there are numerous other cases where Christians reacted just like those Sikh did - it merely took a 10s google-serach to come up with the example I posted.
You might better look for a more convincing case to argue against multi-culturalism...

GoreBag

10-30-2005, 08:03

Multi-culturalism is a double-edged sword. I think it should mean something to be whom and what you are, but I also think that, on the whole, there is no reason why intelligent people can't learn from one another's point of view, since that really is what 'culture' means.

I don't mind pockets of different cultures in different areas; without them, we would all be one people. I'm not in favour of this - why be the same if we're not?

That being said, I hve no problem learning German or French in order to communicate and understand the people around me - hell, even the drug dealers speak two languages. In fact, without the isolated pocket of culture in my city, I would never have been able to learn German at all. There would be no ethnic restaurants, no festivals, and we'd all be Anglican (well, here, at least). How boring!

While there is a corelation between minority groups and crime, from petty thieves to gangsters, this is a 'corelation and not causation' issue. Everyone's heard that line before. I've never committed a hate crime before, so I don't really have much for input, but I imagine it's easier to shiv a man for his wallet if you don't even speak the same language.

I also don't think that all this fuss about fighting to maintain one's culture even makes sense. Culture isn't static - do these people even know what they're trying to maintain? It doesn't seem like it to me. It's one thing to keep doing things that your people do, like prepare certain dishes or speak a certain language, but one can't prop up a culture for its own sake. It's not possible.

On the other hand, I wish I'd been taught to speak Gaelic as a child. I have no interest in being another white-washed (excuse the pun) North American.

I'm missing a snappy line to wrap this up, but feel free to nitpick my text to shreds.

bmolsson

10-30-2005, 09:14

One thing I was thinking of, don't you have to HAVE a culture before somebody can FORCE you to change it ??? ~;)

thrashaholic

10-30-2005, 09:25

Ah, but you did not recognize that there can always be more than one culture within one legal, "national", or even territorial identity. What constitutes society in your meaning?

A society is a body of people linked together by common traits or shared interest, distinguishable from all others. Their culture, heriatage, upbringing etc. is either the same or very similar (ie there can be and is always variation within a society).

The USA is a prime example of where the term 'multi-culturalism' is mis-used, we keep hearing "American culture is a 'mish-mash' of lots of different cultures; the epitome of a functioning multi-cultural society", but in fact there is only one culture: American culture. Immigrants have over time added their flavour to it, and it changes, but there is in no way several distinct cultures running parallel to each other in American society. Immigrants who don't fit in to this culture aren't part of American society (as I understand, a lot of Mexican et al. ghettoise themselves into Spanish speaking societies); they can interact with American society, but are never part of it.

The UK is good example of a number of seperate cultures and societies living under one national identity. Societal divisions run deep in Britain: England/Scotland, England/Wales, Protestant/Catholic (or 'British'/Irish), North/South, etc.; animosities and mistrust still exist between these societies, even though they've been running in parallel for centuries. They have never blended and never can be blended; the idea of a unifying 'British' culture, propagated during the time of the Act of Union, is a manufactured one that has yet to and never will materialise. Two or more societies can never merge, only members of them can move and adopt a new society, and this only happens in small numbers.

Strike For The South

10-30-2005, 17:20

meh Texans have been putting minorities down for 200 years I see no reason to change

Fragony

10-30-2005, 19:44

Multiculture, if it worked, fine, eventually. Multicult; bleh.

Papewaio

10-31-2005, 01:54

Surprise I am for multiculturalism.

I am against mono-culturalism. That is practiced by those who believe in only their culture and wish to force others to partake of their culture.

A quick cross-section of mono-culturalists.
Cults, KKK, Aryan Nation, Nazis, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Communism.

I also would add that most problems caused in immigration are lack of understanding (which leads to fear and anger) and the inability to communicate. These are related issues. I think that it is up to the immigrants to learn how to communicate, it is also up to the society to help them learn. If you truly accept an immigrant you cannot leave them to fend for themselves. If they are to become a viable upstanding member of society you need to show interest in them, an understanding of their predicament and the oppourtunity for them to learn and understand you too.

So I do think at school, children need to be taught the fundamentals maths, science, the local language, some history and current social studies, sports of the country and foods too. Adult immigrants can find it very difficult to learn, I am not so worried about that portion. As long as we integrate the children and teach them respect for themselves, their parents culture, their new society and other cultures then we are heading in a positive future driven direction.

On the flip side, someones culture should never be used as a defence for a crime. If anything someone who comes from a criminal causing background should get a heavier sentence. This would limit their own chance of creating a family and hence limit them continuing the cycle.

In short I think it is lack of knowledge and self esteem that causes most racism. The key to that is teaching and mixing.

Soulforged

10-31-2005, 05:51

A quick cross-section of mono-culturalists.
....Communism.

Sorry but as you know now I couldn't let this pass. What in the hell has to do communism with culture?~:confused:
Some people confuse communism with political theory, but now it's with cultural models?

Papewaio

10-31-2005, 06:32

Simple you either join the communists of go to a gulag/die in the killing fields/mines/leave the country.

Communists only accept communists.

Lazul

10-31-2005, 10:48

well communism as an idea has little or nothing to do with culture. The problem is that the communistic experiments that has taken place the past century went so totaly wrong and 'they' forced their own, made up, culture on the people.
I doubt Marx would have like the idea of cultures being forced upon the people.

Fragony

10-31-2005, 10:57

I am against mono-culturalism. That is practiced by those who believe in only their culture and wish to force others to partake of their culture.

Sounds like the multiculture just got mono.

In short I think it is lack of knowledge and self esteem that causes most racism. The key to that is teaching and mixing.

To achieve what? You think you are building but you are really destroying. Racism exists because people are racist, nothing more nothing less. All the multiculti priests in the world cannot change human nature, people will always flock around their own kind.

Idaho

10-31-2005, 13:51

The USA is a prime example of where the term 'multi-culturalism' is mis-used, we keep hearing "American culture is a 'mish-mash' of lots of different cultures; the epitome of a functioning multi-cultural society", but in fact there is only one culture: American culture. Immigrants have over time added their flavour to it, and it changes, but there is in no way several distinct cultures running parallel to each other in American society. Immigrants who don't fit in to this culture aren't part of American society (as I understand, a lot of Mexican et al. ghettoise themselves into Spanish speaking societies); they can interact with American society, but are never part of it.
Armish, Orthodox New York Jews, American Indians, Cajuns, etc..

Basicaly you're talking bollo*&$

monkian

10-31-2005, 13:59

Armish, Orthodox New York Jews, American Indians, Cajuns, etc..

Basicaly you're talking bollo*&$

Im sorry but the only real 'American' culture was almost wiped out by White Europeans hundreds of years ago.

The current American culture is surely a mix of its settlers cultures ? Or at the worst just Consumerism ?

Byzantine Prince

10-31-2005, 14:28

Im sorry but the only real 'American' culture was almost wiped out by White Europeans hundreds of years ago.

The current American culture is surely a mix of its settlers cultures ? Or at the worst just Consumerism ?
America is simply a plutocracy with freedom to develop any culture and subculture you can make up.

yesdachi

10-31-2005, 14:47

I am against mono-culturalism. That is practiced by those who believe in only their culture and wish to force others to partake of their culture.
Sounds vaguely similar to the practices of most religions I can think of.~;)

Lazul

10-31-2005, 16:48

[B]To achieve what? You think you are building but you are really destroying. Racism exists because people are racist, nothing more nothing less. All the multiculti priests in the world cannot change human nature, people will always flock around their own kind.

...to achive a lesser amount of people being murdered due to their race?

What are the anti-racists destroying that is so valueble to keep?

Rodion Romanovich

10-31-2005, 18:06

I say this again: most racists aren't racists but scared of laws typical to foreign cultures taking over in their countries because the foreign culture becomes a majority. It's a valid threat they see, and the so called anti-racists who are against adding guarantees in the system that the locals will remain majority reinforce this racism, and create a future scenario where either the former local population or the immigrants will most likely become victims of oppression and real racism. In short - anti-racists create the racism and oppression of minorities they claim to be against. I'm against oppression of minorities and against minorities, but looking at history I've seen that there must be some type of guarantee that the locals will remain majority in order to avoid a such racial oppression and violence scenario.

Fragony

10-31-2005, 22:23

...to achive a lesser amount of people being murdered due to their race?

What are the anti-racists destroying that is so valueble to keep?

Anti racists mistake love and hate, there is nothing wrong with loving your own culture. There are really so many reasons to do so, as doing so is part of it. BUT, this worshipping has taken an ugly turn, as loving your own(european) culture is quite inpopular nowadays. If that is a false statement we could as well all go hindu/muslim/satanist; where exactly aren't we a culture of our own? And why should we change really, why are they comming here then. If they do, be like us, or try living without us. Both are fine witth me as long as nobody robs my granny.

Papewaio

11-01-2005, 01:32

I am against mono-culturalism. That is practiced by those who believe in only their culture and wish to force others to partake of their culture.

Sounds like the multiculture just got mono.

How is it mono? If you read the whole post you would see that it talks about more the one culture.

As long as we integrate the children and teach them respect for themselves, their parents culture, their new society and other cultures then we are heading in a positive future driven direction.

So nothing about not liking your own culture. About learning respect for who you are and where you are. And learning to respect other cultures.

In short I think it is lack of knowledge and self esteem that causes most racism. The key to that is teaching and mixing.

To achieve what? You think you are building but you are really destroying. Racism exists because people are racist, nothing more nothing less. All the multiculti priests in the world cannot change human nature, people will always flock around their own kind.

To achieve a country that is stronger, more vibrant, peaceful, harmonised.

I suggest you come to Australia, you will see people intermixing, people staying with their own kind, people intergrating, people chosing not to intergrate. They certainly do not always flock with their own kind.

If we all did flock with our own kind we would end up with the same genetic problems as incest... this is what happened with the European Royal families limiting themselves to only other Royals. The Russians ended up with rare genetic defects.

Fragony

11-01-2005, 08:21

.I suggest you come to Australia, you will see people intermixing, people staying with their own kind, people intergrating, people chosing not to intergrate. They certainly do not always flock with their own kind.

I suggest you come to the Netherlands, and see how it works when it gets a bit crowded. In Australia I expect people to have a bit more personal space, did you know there live more people here then in the entire continent of australia? It is a pressure boiler I tell you, living together while leaving eachother alone fine, but multiculture isn't tested before people actually have to sit on eachother lap. Let me tell you that it is a disaster. You have a rather attractive asian girlfriend, but that is just the multiculture within your own walls. Walk outside and it gets ugly.

thrashaholic

11-01-2005, 09:07

Armish, Orthodox New York Jews, American Indians, Cajuns, etc..

Basicaly you're talking bollo*&$

How civil....

Idaho

11-01-2005, 13:45

America is simply a plutocracy with freedom to develop any culture and subculture you can make up.
Providing it doesn't challenge the plutocrats.

Papewaio

11-02-2005, 03:36

I suggest you come to the Netherlands, and see how it works when it gets a bit crowded. In Australia I expect people to have a bit more personal space, did you know there live more people here then in the entire continent of australia? It is a pressure boiler I tell you, living together while leaving eachother alone fine, but multiculture isn't tested before people actually have to sit on eachother lap. Let me tell you that it is a disaster. You have a rather attractive asian girlfriend, but that is just the multiculture within your own walls. Walk outside and it gets ugly.

Where I work there are Australians... Lebanese, English, Irish, Indian, Turkish, Pakistanis, Fijians, Dutch, Italian, Indonesia etc etc. Same thing when I head to the food halls, get a bus, go shopping, wait in line at the bank, go to a library, or catch a train during peak hour and wish you were a sardine.

Over 90% of Australians live on the coast. 80% of Australians live in cities. 25% of Australians are born overseas, then add in second plus generations and you end up with a swirl of different ethnic and religous backgrounds. So our cities are a whole rainbow of groups and multiculturalism.

If you are going to live on each others lap I suggest you learn to be more cordial with each other.