Multi-culturalism

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...410786,00.html

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...410786,00.html

---

Thanks for proving my point, King Malcolm.

The article confirms what I have said in my post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Times

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.

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/w...ds/4107437.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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/w...ds/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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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...ixnewstop.html

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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...