why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

I was watching Newsnight last night and a Norwegian politician was being interviewed. He was a year older than me and stated that immigration into Norway didn't start until the early to mid sixties. He admitted that he didn't physically meet anyone other than a white person until he was 17. (1976)

He then went on to say that multiculturalism was the accepted policy in western Europe.

The question I ask is this.

Why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

Who decided to do this?

What, if any, are the benefits?

Anti-Imperialism.

We went around the Globe making the "World English", such despicable acts as introducing Democracy to India, eradicating Suttee and the Tugs, and being a more effective warlord than those found in Africa whose countries we then pinched.

To make amends for these henous crimes we now think that everyt culture is equal - if not better than - our own. Initial immigration was from the Carribean who have a very similar cultural background (no not the same, but similar) in both language, code of law and religion. We then thought "what the hell" and to really pay for our crimes have thought it best to allow an anything goes as how else to show how contrite we are?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

To make amends for these henous crimes we now think that everyt culture is equal - if not better than - our own. Initial immigration was from the Carribean who have a very similar cultural background (no not the same, but similar *) in both language, code of law and religion. We then thought** "what the hell" and to really pay for our crimes have thought it best to allow an anything goes as how else to show how contrite we are?

---

* I disagree. All the West Indians I met, when I was younger, regarded England as the Mother Country. They were schooled the English way. They had English laws.

**Who are these mysterious 'we'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Anti-Imperialism.

We went around the Globe making the "World English", such despicable acts as introducing Democracy to India, eradicating Suttee and the Tugs, and being a more effective warlord than those found in Africa whose countries we then pinched.

To make amends for these henous crimes we now think that everyt culture is equal - if not better than - our own. Initial immigration was from the Carribean who have a very similar cultural background (no not the same, but similar) in both language, code of law and religion. We then thought "what the hell" and to really pay for our crimes have thought it best to allow an anything goes as how else to show how contrite we are?

~:smoking:

---

You don't say.

I predict a long and useless thread, full of unproven assumptions, accusations and Websters' definitions. Of course if Insane would ask for well-documented views only, that would considerably narrow the scope and prevent the worst derailments - for a change.

Heck, I might even participate.

AII

I think it had mostly to do with economics. Immigration tends to be heralded by the elite who prefer more people to rule over, cheaper goods and services domestically to compete with wages globally.. Certain nations were seeing major growth levels and most of those levels were from population booms. Most things are desired for financial gains and then sold to the public in ways that they will understand - guilt, new foods, new and better beard designs, etc.It was always funny have the first American states to allow women to vote, did so to fluff up their populations in congress. Other states saw this benefit and sold it to their people. Of course, there are already people who strongly believe in certain things and popular swells, but quite a bit of that is a new thing; things happening because people actually want it on their own.Look at nations who refuse to accept immigration- the ones who are seeing growth are the ones who have an invisible population that are now becoming visible, a simulated rural to urban immigration. The ones who are struggling have hit a wall where the entire population is now visible and dwindling.Mobile typing is a great excuse for poor paragraph form

Australia had the White Australia Policy. Aborogines were on the wild life census until a referendum took them off it.

Post WWII Australia started to revert some of the polices. People like the Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavians were allowed in (Snowy Mountain Scheme). Strange thing is the early goldfields had Norwegians and Chinese, then there was a period when it was very hard to come in unless you were from somewhere else in the British Empire.

Post the Vietnam war with all the Vietnamese boat people, more imigrants had to assimilate along with the Italians and Greeks. Since then it's gone from very few to 25% of the population is born overseas. Still a lot are British or European. But in the area I live a quarter of the people are Indian. I'll be able to say with more accuracy soon as we are doing the census very soon.

The we who allowed this was a series of elected officials on the backs of standard elections and referendums. Democracies may take a long time to get it right, but the trend is generally encouraging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think it had mostly to do with economics. Immigration tends to be heralded by the elite who prefer more people to rule over, cheaper goods and services domestically to compete with wages globally.. Certain nations were seeing major growth levels and most of those levels were from population booms. Most things are desired for financial gains and then sold to the public in ways that they will understand - guilt, new foods, new and better beard designs, etc.It was always funny have the first American states to allow women to vote, did so to fluff up their populations in congress. Other states saw this benefit and sold it to their people. Of course, there are already people who strongly believe in certain things and popular swells, but quite a bit of that is a new thing; things happening because people actually want it on their own.Look at nations who refuse to accept immigration- the ones who are seeing growth are the ones who have an invisible population that are now becoming visible, a simulated rural to urban immigration. The ones who are struggling have hit a wall where the entire population is now visible and dwindling.Mobile typing is a great excuse for poor paragraph form

---

See, this is what I mean. Whip out your Websters and you'll find that migration -/- multiculturalism.

AII

Multiculturalism is an inseperable byproduct of immigration, for better and worse. Im a fan of immigration. I think that nationalist culture is hollow and I prefer the company of those from outside.What are you getting at? Remember that in this thread you started to hurl rocks first. Im typing off the top of my head at 7am in a non-partisan way about immigration and i'm being called stupid already by a moderator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think that nationalist culture is hollow and I prefer the company of those from outside.

---

As it happens so do I, but I have enough humility to realise that I am but one man, far removed from the urban poor who do suffer under high immigration conditions, so i remain sympathetic to their demands for an end to uncontrolled immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

* I disagree. All the West Indians I met, when I was younger, regarded England as the Mother Country. They were schooled the English way. They had English laws.

**Who are these mysterious 'we'?

---

Point one - I married a Trinidadian. Similar, but not the same.
Point two - the "we" is probably a group in government. Probably decisions made over time more than a specific select committee meeting.

Adrian, I eagerly await your requests under the Freedom of Information Act to the government to ask for unspecified documents over an unspecified time period... But thanks for joning in to say you won't.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

As it happens so do, but i have enough humility to realise that I am but one man, far removed from the urban poor who do suffer under high immigration conditions, so i remain sympathetic to their demands for an end to uncontrolled immigration.

---

Aggreed! I am a net beneficiary of immigration as well

Cards on the table.
I'm an immigrant.
My mums an immigrant.
My dads an immigrant.
Same for my brothers and sister.

My wife is an immigrant.
Her family are immigrants.

I've benefited directly and indirectly. You can take my cappucino, kebab, rotti, roast beef, belgium beer diet away from me over my corpulent grease encrusted dead body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

He then went on to say that multiculturalism was the accepted policy in western Europe.

The question I ask is this.

Why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

Who decided to do this?

What, if any, are the benefits?

---

multiculturalism has been the norm far longer than monocultural society, surely people from the UK can see that in there own history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

multiculturalism has been the norm far longer than monocultural society, surely people from the UK can see that in there own history.

---

Oh yes!

The north of England is different to the south. The southwest of England is different than the south-east. As for Scotland, it took me several months to decipher what the locals were saying, the accent was so thick. As for the Welsh.....yaki-da, I love Wales.

Although one country, there are sometimes vast differences. One of the funniest things I've witnessed was a conversation between a Geordie and a Cornishman.

However we do have a common bond. We are British.

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

---

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...e-facepalm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

multiculturalism has been the norm far longer than monocultural society, surely people from the UK can see that in there own history.

---

No, I honestly can't. Certainly not so long as the "UK" has been an entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...e-facepalm.jpg

---

I have seen that one before. It's still true though, when the cultural revolution in China turned out to be hardly the best thing that ever happened to the Chinese the DDR had to be the answer to everything, if you pointed out to AdrianII in his disco-period that the DDR isn't perfect he would analy rape you with books and put you on a strict diet of quotations. Alas, the wall fell, enter the multicultural utopia. Now that that lost it's shine as well we must save the world from death by CO2

Common theme; down with us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

No, I honestly can't. Certainly not so long as the "UK" has been an entity.

---

You do realise that that is a statement tripping into the zone of an oxymoron. The UK is by definition a multicultural society.

The UK = United Kingdom = Many different kingdoms = different cultures (even within the same kingdom). Saxons, Normans, Celts etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Oh yes!

---

And you are better off for it. How else would you have learned to wash down curry with lager?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

---

Since we're in verbal rape mode, I can add my two cents.

Migration began to be perceived as a problem for the West only in the 1980's, when globalisation began to uproot our societies and economies and someone convenient had to be blamed..

Then after the Berlin Wall came down Badmensch was in need of a new enemy and decided on Islam.

Islamic terrorists saw a chance to capitalize on this fear, with overwhelming success.

Hence the shitpile we're in today.

I am not going to document this because nobody else bothers.

AII

'Then after the Berlin Wall came down Badmensch was in need of a new enemy and decided on Islam.'

And when did that happen, thought they were too occupied with blacks

- removed rant - oops

Want to sum up some of the successes of "multiculturalism"?
United States of America
British Empire
(others)

America united people from all over Europe and other places around the world. They brought in all their new ideas creating technological leaps and bringing itself from a back-water slave colony of the British Empire to the most powerful nation in the world.

However, what the issue is, is peoples understanding of "multiculturalism". The basic tenets is that people are equal, there is no inferior "races" which was present in the ideology first half of the 20th century. It is bringing equality between people, whether they are asian, black, homosexual, female, male, white, hetereosexual, asexual, disabled, and every other tagline.

If anything, the term "multiculturalism" sends out the entirely wrong message, it implies there is more than one culture. What in reality should be happening is an "Open-Culture", where we are open.

The biggest enemy of this are those who want to discriminate, oppress, force their extreme "conservative" ideals down peoples throats, whether they are Al-quaeda (New York), Fascists (Oslo), Nationalists (Madrid) and Nutjobs (American Republican Media).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

However, what the issue is, is peoples understanding of "multiculturalism". The basic tenets is that people are equal, there is no inferior "races" which was present in the ideology first half of the 20th century. It is bringing equality between people, whether they are asian, black, homosexual, female, male, white, hetereosexual, asexual, disabled, and every other tagline.

The biggest enemy of this are those who want to discriminate, oppress, force their extreme "conservative" ideals down peoples throats, whether they are Al-quaeda (New York), Fascists (Oslo), Nationalists (Madrid) and Nutjobs (American Republican Media).

---

Ah, in that case it has been misrepresented in the west as meaning that there is no inferior "cultures", that all cultures are equally valid even when exported en-masse to a council estate near you! I see the mistake, we have merely been misguided in the correct 'implementation' of multi-culturalism.
If you want me to sign up to a creed that says there are no inferior races then i'm all over that like a dose of the clap! there is however a small problem; it's called multi-culturalism and not multi-racialism........................

i rather thought that a significant enemy of mutli-culturalism, when combined with unmanaged immigration, was lots and lots of poor people in urban environments; people who rely on their local community and suddenly find themselves awash in 'others' with whom they have no relationship and no affinity? maybe that's just me.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...-level-concern
then again, maybe not.

I define myself as "Open-culturist" because I dislike "multi-culturalism" as a word because it does give out wrong messages.

But un-managed immigration is not a tenet of multi-culturism or open-culturism. It is a symptom of increasing wealth divide in a ever globalizing world. People from other parts of the world come to Europe in search of wealth and it is that powerful, they travel great distances in some of the worst conditions possible to get a glimpse of it.

I remember a figure floating around which said that 80% of the worlds wealth is controlled by 20% of the population, which means 80% of the global population are only sharing 20% between themselves.

There are solutions to this issue, but being honest, they are not "realistic" in the sense I explained in another thread. It isn't that it is not feasible or cannot be done, it is that there are so many people which would oppose it due to their own ideology or other reasons that it wouldn't be done.

What is there to be done?
Many people propose a Iron-Curtain, a sort of "Berlin Wall" to keep people from getting into the country. This is very unrealistic and really impractical. Think about it, many illegals come in on visa's with legitimate reasons then go underground. It would be like me going to America on a holiday visa, then simply not return home, I am now an illegal. Would America really want to stop holiday making Europeans bringing in their wealth and money into their pockets? What about business representatives and high-flyers which do much for Anglo-trade ?

Best solutions would be International Aid and Development. In a ever shrinking world, the best solution is to improve areas so people would want to remain. For example with Polish migration to Britain, there was a big influx with that but as Britain got weaker and Poland got stronger, people ended up returning to Poland!

The problem with our current method is that we can only do these changes through secondary channels, it is not as if we can pull up with big trucks then simply build a city. There are "governments" to contend with, which would cite sovereignty issues, especially as they want to pocket as much as that money as possible for themselves. (Corruption).

is it any wonder the two are conflated in public perception?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-adviser.html

I think we can both agree that "Labour" doing such an action was/is utter moronic. On that we agree.

"A nation" must be self-sustaining at the minimum for its population. That doesn't mean we should adopt policies which would bring economic ruin to Britain, it means that Britain is able to produces more wealth in exporting the cost of their imports (Like Germany has) and has surplus balance sheet.

In a nation like Britain, to "min-max" for best results, we should have a far smaller population, as such, we should be exporting more people than we are importing.

Uncontrolled migration and unchecked population control severely weakens and ruins the trade balance. While there are other nations which currency need more people in order to reach a best possible parity, Britain is on the other end where losing people would be in our best interest (In a sense, Brits should be going to Poland, who want/need more workers, not the other way around).


An open-cultural society in particular would make this easier for such fluid movement of people. People find it far easier to move to the next town then they do to a new country, especially with different languages and cultural barriers. So a more global open-cultural dominance would weaken these barriers, thus making it easier for people to move as where they are needed.

However, there is also a downside as I addressed earlier, easier movement of people makes it easier for people to move, as such there should be controlled checks on movement of people and unfortunately with our rag-tag nation set-up, this is incredibly difficult.

STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM

Before even a single post more on the topic is posted, we need a definition of multi-culturalism. Too often, "critics" of it get away with using it to mean whatever they what it to mean, whether it's criticism of services provided by the state in order to make it easier for immigrants to survive, or as a dog-whistle to hate on the foreigners.

So, critics, what do you mean?

Uh, since when did any "western" state have "unmanaged immigration" going on? I mean, even the illegal kind is sort-of managed by the police and whatnot on account of being, you know, illegal.
After something like the 1700s anyway.

Also, the monoculture thing was sort of tried, round late 1800s to early-mid 1900s or so. It failed quite spectacularly on account of totalt dissociation from factual reality, but not without doing kind of a lot of kind of seriously ugly damage. That kind of didn't leave that many alternatives for civilised people.

Are we talking about multicultralism of immigration?

Multiculturalism implies there are sperate spheres of culture within the wider state, which, as an American I have no issue with as long as American law is the be all end all. Not to mention the immigrants will eventually become "American" like everyone else before them.

The west has superior vaules and all we need to do is wait them out

Simply becuase the immigrants have a bit of a tan does not a multicultural society make. No national entity has ever been closed off in history with any real success. So I'm afraid I don't understand the question. No man is an island, no nation is insular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

...no nation is insular

---

Well, some have tried. The current poster boy would be North Korea, I think.
Miserable failure sooner or later down the road seems to be the nigh-certified reward for the effort.

Quote:

---

But un-managed immigration is not a tenet of multi-culturism or open-culturism. It is a symptom of increasing wealth divide in a ever globalizing world. People from other parts of the world come to Europe in search of wealth and it is that powerful, they travel great distances in some of the worst conditions possible to get a glimpse of it.

---

I spoke about this with pater who commented thus; There has always been migrations, it's just that in the late 20th century there was very little, it was a blip, an abnormality. One that your generation thinks is normal.

Certainly made me think.*

*after an ouzo or two!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Uh, since when did any "western" state have "unmanaged immigration" going on?

---

"Really poorly managed immigration"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

"Really poorly managed immigration"

---

The KKK wannabes 'round these parts consider everything short of "back to Africa" to be that, you know.
Pray tell what would be your particular criteria for "well-managed immigration"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Since we're in verbal rape mode, I can add my two cents.

Migration began to be perceived as a problem for the West only in the 1980's, when globalisation began to uproot our societies and economies and someone convenient had to be blamed..

Then after the Berlin Wall came down Badmensch was in need of a new enemy and decided on Islam.

Islamic terrorists saw a chance to capitalize on this fear, with overwhelming success.

Hence the shitpile we're in today.

I am not going to document this because nobody else bothers.

AII

---

Well in the U.S. the enemy was replaced with, ourselves. I didn't document the conversation I had with a federal law enforcement official but the U.S. cared less about Al-Qaeda then they did about Al-Elf. This inward focus existed during the Clinton administration and exists within Democratic circles today. Probably because it fits under law enforcement and easier to quantify.

The U.S. has never been about multiculturalism (in less you include variations of Western culture). It's that we had so much space we could fill after we got rid of the natives and the bison. We also have the dominant, or "American" culture. Despite this, we're still culturally divided (e.g. Southern, black (urban and rural), New England, West Coast, and etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Despite this, we're still culturally divided (e.g. Southern, black (urban and rural), New England, West Coast, and etc).

---

By that token you'll be hard pressed to find a state larger than Monaco that *wasn't* "culturally divided" - regional differences still doing quite well in spite of the best efforts of the 1800s nationalist unifiers.

Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The KKK wannabes 'round these parts consider everything short of "back to Africa" to be that, you know.
Pray tell what would be your particular criteria for "well-managed immigration"?

---

That would be a new one, I am being association with the Klu Klux Klan. As for your question, if you read my earlier posts, you would clearly see my criteria.

In short:
If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded. This is where population control comes in as the population of Britain needs to decrease, there needs to be more emigration from the Isles to elsewhere and this number needs to be greater than the influx. On the otherhand, there are other nations (Such as Poland) which require more (and want more) migration so they are able to have better use of the land and for industry.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

By that token you'll be hard pressed to find a state larger than Monaco that *wasn't* "culturally divided" - regional differences still doing quite well in spite of the best efforts of the 1800s nationalist unifiers.

Just saying.

---

There's a heck of a lot of difference between regional variations in things like popular culture/dress/accents etc on the one hand, and entirely different cultures with completely different religions/values/social structures on the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You do realise that that is a statement tripping into the zone of an oxymoron. The UK is by definition a multicultural society.

The UK = United Kingdom = Many different kingdoms = different cultures (even within the same kingdom). Saxons, Normans, Celts etc

---

Nooo! You went there, my pet peeve...

How is it in any way relevant to talk about "Saxons, Normans, Celts etc" when talking about the the UK of 1707 onwards?

As for it being an oxymoron to call the "United Kingdom" homogenous, remember that these kingdoms were feudal creations and in that sense a bit of a blast from the past. The kingdoms of Scotland and England did not denote some sort of cultural or national divide, merely the bounds that various dynasties carved out for themselves.

Scottish nationalism originated as a sort of bourgeoisie romanticism (I'm feeling Marxist today) and has since been propagated as a result of mass Irish immigration which was a detestable assault upon the British nation.

There is one British people, one British nation, and no 'sub-nations' within it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Want to sum up some of the successes of "multiculturalism"?
United States of America
British Empire

---

What cultures do you think did well in the USA?

Is a socialist resorting to the imperialist adventures of the British Empire to find an example to support his case? Not that it would even be comparable in the slightest to what multiculturalism means today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

There's a heck of a lot of difference between regional variations in things like popular culture/dress/accents etc on the one hand, and entirely different cultures with completely different religions/values/social structures on the other.

---

Uhhhhhhhhhh... right. Vlad was using the Eastern and Western US seaboards as an example, which is what I was addressing. In the case you didn't notice or something.

Though AFAIK what you're describing has also been achieved without people murdering each other meaningfully more than normal for the era, so yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Uhhhhhhhhhh... right. Vlad was using the Eastern and Western US seaboards as an example, which is what I was addressing. In the case you didn't notice or something.

---

Eh, no... you were talking about the 19th century nationalist unifications in Europe. It's just not a relevant argument in a thread about modern day multiculturalism and its issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That would be a new one, I am being association with the Klu Klux Klan.

---

What, you're one of the Finnish "immigration critical" types?

Quote:

---

As for your question, if you read my earlier posts, you would clearly see my criteria.

---

Would it kill you to reiterate? Please. I insist.

Quote:

---

In short:
If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded. This is where population control comes in as the population of Britain needs to decrease, there needs to be more emigration from the Isles to elsewhere and this number needs to be greater than the influx. On the otherhand, there are other nations (Such as Poland) which require more (and want more) migration so they are able to have better use of the land and for industry.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

---

Uh, are you talking about the ability to feed the population? 'Cause if so Germany is probably the worst example in Europe, as they essentially starved to death already in WW1. (The Nazis bent over backwards - and made some pretty stupid decisions - in an effort to avoid a rerun.) In fact what you're talking about seems to have no bearing at all on how national nevermind global economies have functioned for well over a century now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

Eh, no... you were talking about the 19th century nationalist unifications in Europe. It's just not a relevant argument in a thread about modern day multiculturalism and its issues.

---

Really? 'Cause I daresay the nationalist projects of the Long Nineteenth Century, and especially their many failings and ugly sideshows as well as the fact they were engaged in to begin with, rather illustrate why "multiculturalism" ended up as de rigueur.
Ie. because the alternatives were found out to be rather vile and unworkable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Really? 'Cause I daresay the nationalist projects of the Long Nineteenth Century, and especially their many failings and ugly sideshows as well as the fact they were engaged in to begin with, rather illustrate why "multiculturalism" ended up as de rigueur.
Ie. because the alternatives were found out to be rather vile and unworkable.

---

Again how can you compare the regional differences of the 19th century with modern immigration. It's a completely different beast, as I said earlier you are talking about different culture/dress/accent etc as if it is the same thing as a group of people with a completely different religion/values/society etc. Not to mention the fact that the geographic distribution is completely different. Having different regions with their own customs is one thing, ramming hordes of foreigners into ghettos and focusing them in poor urban communities is a whole different matter.

Also please tell me what this "vile and unworkable", and apparently only alternative to multiculturalism is.

I do not see anything vile or unworkable about the nation state, it was working fine until a few decades ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

How is it in any way relevant to talk about "Saxons, Normans, Celts etc" when talking about the the UK of 1707 onwards?

As for it being an oxymoron to call the "United Kingdom" homogenous, remember that these kingdoms were feudal creations and in that sense a bit of a blast from the past. The kingdoms of Scotland and England did not denote some sort of cultural or national divide, merely the bounds that various dynasties carved out for themselves.

Scottish nationalism originated as a sort of bourgeoisie romanticism (I'm feeling Marxist today) and has since been propagated as a result of mass Irish immigration which was a detestable assault upon the British nation.

There is one British people, one British nation, and no 'sub-nations' within it!.

---

I call your hand and raise it. For the record I'm half Welsh... kind of. Because there is Irish and Scottish going back a few generations. Add to that a Welsh great grandmother who was born in America... doesn't change her ethnicity, just geographic location of the touchdown.

My mum is very British, but never call her English.

Disregard the genes, look at some of the cultural differences to an atypical Englishman (which doesn't exist except in a census aggregate)... different language, geography and food are all in big enough variation to say that the average Welsh person is not the same culture as the average Englishman. That said neither is a Northern Englishman and a Southern one. There are cultures and micro cultures within Britain. I don't have to live there, I have an Eastender uncle whose rhyming slang clearly denotes that he has a different cultural heritage to someone from the same city.

British culture is a home grown multiculture. It is a combination of all those other vibrant communities.

As for failure of groups of immigrants to intergrate. Well look at the system. How well intergrated are those who have been born and bred on a council estate? Seems a failure of city planning resulting in systemic social issues.

Sydney has a few infamous equivalent areas. The ones that don't make media headlines are the areas that have government housing more thoroughly dispersed within a homeowner zone. Give kids rolemodels and they can succeed.

Some groups do come to new countries and fail to intergrate or have higher barriers. Typically those who don't move in general society become the least intergrated. Mums who stay at home and look after the kids, unemployed adults who don't mix with others and kids who go to schools of the same group without ever intergrating with mainstream kids.

I see the most important thing for schools is socialisation. Ethics and education are up to the parents.

So it comes to a shock to the insulated parents when their kids who go to school, uni and work in a multicultural society end up dating someone outside of their parents group.

Multiculturalism has it's highlights like foodcourts :) and it's lowlights like insularity. I don't want food that all tastes the same so I'm quite prepared to put up with cultural differences. A foodcourt is a laboratory of an ideal multicultural environment, the variety of foods still has to be prepared within the health and safety guidelines of the state. I also expect like a foodcourt that one can pick, choose and mix to ones content.

Back to Britain. I'm pretty sure Vindaloo's and tea don't orginate in Britain but are seen as very British.

Sometimes the best of things aren't home grown, they are home chosen.

I don't really disagree with you Pape, the only thing is (getting back to definitions here), I don't think geographic regional cultural variations are example of multiculturalism. They are not separate cultures, it is fairly petty examples of things like accent etc.

As for Britain adopting foreign things like vindaloos as part of national culture, again this is petty things like food. I don't contest the foreign influence in these things, what I don't like is foreign influence in terms of real values and having any social impact.

How can you compare having a curry with covering your wife in a burkha?

I feel there are many inappropriate comparisons and attempted parallels being flung about in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I was watching Newsnight last night and a Norwegian politician was being interviewed. He was a year older than me and stated that immigration into Norway didn't start until the early to mid sixties. He admitted that he didn't physically meet anyone other than a white person until he was 17. (1976)

He then went on to say that multiculturalism was the accepted policy in western Europe.

The question I ask is this.

Why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

Who decided to do this?

What, if any, are the benefits?

---

Well for an interesting tidbit, in postwar Europe, up to 1968/early 70s, it was the left which resented mass immigration, even multiculturalism, and the right which imposed it. As Casanova (PCF , French Communist Party) understood, 'the working class is racist and imperialist'. Fight the Algerians, prevent their coming over, recruit amongst white Algerians for the left. Meanwhile the right demanded Algerian workers in France, to keep wages down and to limit the power of the unions. The left, especially the PCF, tried to protect the working class from this competition. Where the PCF was in power, social housing was refused to Algerians, their position made miserable by other legal means too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

Nooo! You went there, my pet peeve...

How is it in any way relevant to talk about "Saxons, Normans, Celts etc" when talking about the the UK of 1707 onwards?

---

The discussion in the OP implied this is a NEW development clearly it's not.

Quote:

---

Scottish nationalism originated as a sort of bourgeoisie romanticism (I'm feeling Marxist today) and has since been propagated as a result of mass Irish immigration which was a detestable assault upon the British nation.

There is one British people, one British nation, and no 'sub-nations' within it!

---

So what by the time of Act of Union other cultures not from the British Isles were livin an workin in Britain and that continued after Union, multiculturalism does not implode because there is only one Britain

In the fifties my father worked on the sites and roads of England, most were Irish but there were plenty Poles, West Indians, Lithuanians and on and on.

Britain was most deffo multicultural long before the Daily Mail decided it was a new thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

How can you compare having a curry with covering your wife in a burkha?

---

One is a food fashion, the other is a clothing fashion. Doesn't seem too hard to compare them.

What is culture? Well what is the quickest way to ingratiate oneself in a new society when traveling overseas?

The answer to the second highlights some of the first. When traveling if you can appreciate the local food and customs whilst being able to say an understandable please & thank you in the local tongue you're doing well.

Communication is the underpinning of community which is the habitat of culture. Food and drink are the way we show inclusion and respect for each other.

Food is vitally important to civilization. Give them bread to keep popularity in the Roman Empire. Mistakenly say cake to topple the French Empire. We are but 3 meals away from the breakdown of civil concord.

A restaurant to me is only possible because of civilization and culture. It is the most concrete opposite to extremism, hostility and terrorism. A restaurant is hospitality, culture and cuisine. So food to me is a very real part of any deep understanding of a culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

---

the problem britain has isn't the absolute level of immigration, we can easily choose to import more.

no, the real problem with immigration in britain is:
> the relative level of change, which cannot easily be accommodated by the population centres where immigrants tend to accumulate, where people tend to be poorer and thus more reliant on a stable and recognisable community.

this 'dissatisfaction' is further catalysed by the following:
> the degree of difference of the immigrant culture, and its perceived compatibility
> an orthodoxy that discourages the native culture from expecting the immigrant culture to adapt to their sensitivities.

to turn it into an argument about demographic sustainability is rather irrelevant, the man on the street doesn't give a damn about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Disregard the genes, look at some of the cultural differences to an atypical Englishman (which doesn't exist except in a census aggregate)... different language, geography and food are all in big enough variation to say that the average Welsh person is not the same culture as the average Englishman. That said neither is a Northern Englishman and a Southern one. There are cultures and micro cultures within Britain. I don't have to live there, I have an Eastender uncle whose rhyming slang clearly denotes that he has a different cultural heritage to someone from the same city.

British culture is a home grown multiculture. It is a combination of all those other vibrant communities.

---

If your Mam's family are Welsh then surely you know Britian has not been multicultural until very recently, the way to get on was to be English and no one know this better than the Welsh, whose language and culture were brutalised in an attempt "civilise" them "for their own good".

Of course, that hasn't changed - except that now you have to be a different kind of English and it's more sneaky.

My mum speaks fluent Welsh and considers herself Welsh or British not English. Mum sees a clear difference in culture, heritage and the ability to use both languages. The very act of being bilingual in her eyes sets her in a different culture to the likes of my monolingual self. Multiculture isn't as dramatic as yin-yang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

My mum speaks fluent Welsh and considers herself Welsh or British not English. Mum sees a clear difference in culture, heritage and the ability to use both languages. The very act of being bilingual in her eyes sets her in a different culture to the likes of my monolingual self. Multiculture isn't as dramatic as yin-yang.

---

Multiculturalism is an ideoligy, some posters here make the mistake of confusing it with multi-ethnic. It's true that culture has always been multi-ethnic, but that was a given not a goal. Multiculturalism is a modern day religion and religion accepts no faillure, that is all there is

First everyone can be of the same ethnic background but have a different culture. Just look at suburbanites vs country folk. Heck you can have the same family members living cultural diverse lifestyles.

Multiculturalism is allowing people to have keep their cultures within the law of the land. That is why I use a food court as an example. Many types of food and cooking styles but they have to maintain hygeine standards of the country they are in, not where they are from.

I'm fine with cultures having differences. However I'm against special laws for certain cultures or religions this includes priests not having to report a crime they have heard in confession. Everyone atheist, catholic, jew, buddhist, muslim, tin hat brigade should have the same expectations to be treated the same under the eyes of the law, both in being looked after and duties towards being a good citizen.

I do not see multiculturalism as a religion in Australia. One quarter of the population is born overseas. We have tangible benefits from it. It isn't an easy thing to implement, but in general the ROI is pretty good, but it does take 25 years plus to normally see the fruits come true.

I don't think you should have to report crimes that you knew were commited in the past, rather only things that you learn were committed in the past and may have something to do with future action. Ie someone confesses that they've killed a guy at a bar because they were attacked. This would not need to be reported. If someone told you that they killed a guy at a bar and they liked it, then it has future criminal implications. Child sexual abuse would be an example of something that would need to be reported as the act itself suggests future behaviour. Similar to privelages given to attorneys and psychiatrists and training should be included in seminary (im pretty sure it already is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't think you should have to report crimes that you knew were commited in the past, rather only things that you learn were committed in the past and may have something to do with future action. Ie someone confesses that they've killed a guy at a bar because they were attacked. This would not need to be reported. If someone told you that they killed a guy at a bar and they liked it, then it has future criminal implications. Child sexual abuse would be an example of something that would need to be reported as the act itself suggests future behaviour

---

:confused: did you post in the wrong thread by any chance??

I was agreeing with pape minus the aforementioned caveat. I peruse existing threads for interesting ideas that I either agree with or disagree with. I honestly like sidetracks within a thread to a point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I was agreeing with pape minus the aforementioned caveat. I peruse existing threads for interesting ideas that I either agree with or disagree with. I honestly like sidetracks within a thread to a point

---

Well I'm still confused then what does reporting of crime have to do with the OP.

If you talk with a guy from the street about fear of multiculturalism. The thing you get is that he/she is afraid that his/hers own culture might change towards direction he/she does not want it to go, because of immigrant influence, aka they do not want to be under sharia law in Finland for example. So in the end is opinion concerning multiculturalism even about multiculturalism in the end? Or just more about fear in general?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

If you talk with a guy from the street about fear of multiculturalism. The thing you get is that he/she is afraid that his/hers own culture might change towards direction he/she does not want it to go, because of immigrant influence, aka they do not want to be under sharia law in Finland for example. So in the end is opinion concerning multiculturalism even about multiculturalism in the end? Or just more about fear in general?

---

Thing is, they are right. Multiculturalism is implementing islam, nobody is asking for it. The islam seems to be the greatest achievemenr to be won in the multiculture game

Who says that turning into islam is something to be desired about? I am placing the weight to the word "who".

there is something up here with continual arguement that Multicultism is some force behind immigration, surely the reason Europe has lots of muslim immigrants is because all the countires bordering Europe that send immigrants are Muslim.

The problem with the Multicultist idea that Frag has is surely after the people got here, when they start dismantling norms and rules to satisfy some airy fairy ethic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Who says that turning into islam is something to be desired about? I am placing the weight to the word "who".

---

The multicultural left. The islam is nothing but a trophy. The rest of us are forced to lovingly caress a poisinous snake (political islam) so they get to feel good about themselves

' The problem with the Multicultist idea that Frag has is surely afterthe people got here, when they start dismantling norms and rules to satisfy some airy fairy ethic. '

yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The multicultural left. The islam is nothing but a trophy. The rest of us are forced to lovingly caress a poisinous snake (political islam) so they get to feel good about themselves

' The problem with the Multicultist idea that Frag has is surely afterthe people got here, when they start dismantling norms and rules to satisfy some airy fairy ethic. '

yes

---

So it is the political left that wants to convert everyone to Islam? So are they Islamist in disguise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

surely the reason Europe has lots of muslim immigrants [...]

---

It's hasn't. That's why this whole debate is absurd. About 3% of the population of the European Union are muslims. This percentage has been stable for years and is expected to go down since muslims are gradually adopting European birthrates. Many of those listed as muslims are not immigrants. Bulgaria for instance has 13% muslims, most of who were there since the Ottoman days. Many others are not observant, even though they are registered as muslims. In France for instance only half of immigrants from muslim countries are observant.

Just a few facts. I thought they couldn't hurt.

AII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

So it is the political left that wants to convert everyone to Islam? So are they Islamist in disguise?

---

Nah, it just doesn't work all that well, so concession after concession after concession, multiculture can't fail after all. It's a process of accumulation, small things that go unnoticed untill you add things up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It's hasn't. That's why this whole debate is absurd. About 3% of the population of the European Union are muslims. This percentage has been stable for years and is expected to go down since muslims are gradually adopting European birthrates. Many of those listed as muslims are not immigrants. Bulgaria for instance has 13% muslims, most of who were there since the Ottoman days. Many others are not observant, even though they are registered as muslims. In France for instance only half of immigrants from muslim countries are observant.

Just a few facts. I thought they couldn't hurt.

AII

---

I was talking about the fact most of the acual people who actually immigrate here year on year are muslim by default not by some leftist design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nah, it just doesn't work all that well, so concession after concession after concession, multiculture can't fail after all. It's a process of accumulation, small things that go unnoticed untill you add things up

---

So, to you the gist of things is that you feel that the political left is being irresponsible and reckless, because they want to be right in their views about multiculturalism? No matter what the consequences are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

So, to you the gist of things is that you feel that the political left is being irresponsible and reckless, because they want to be right in their views about multiculturalism? No matter what the consequences are?

---

Sums it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I was agreeing with pape minus the aforementioned caveat. I peruse existing threads for interesting ideas that I either agree with or disagree with. I honestly like sidetracks within a thread to a point

---

Not really a side track. Pointing out what is considered a cultural norm. I do wonder how we would feel seeing that same privilege extended to Mufti's.

People have a story, a need to vent. If it wasn't a priest it may have been someone else. Talking to anyone else would shine the light on a
crime and open up paths to investigation. The difference with a defense lawyer is that we operate on a dueling mechanism in law.

(Above was on a phone, below is without spell check).

My own caveat which is more off track (one upmanship :) ):
I actually think 90% of what confession is, is a great thing. In fact it might be a better option then prison. It is part of the cup of tea and talk therapy ideas that might ultimately be better then mandatory sentences for minor crimes. I think it is better to have professional lawyers, judges and carers (Priests, Doctors, Nurses) to be able to implement solutions based on their professional judgement.

Strictly from my perspective.

What Sweden has gained from multiculturalism:
- Richer food culture.
- More understanding of other nations.
- People who work harder for less.

What Sweden has lost:
- We now have ghettos.
- The use of derogatory names for girls are being common.
- The sense of "The big home", we used to pay high taxes to support our less fortunate citizens (and that was ok), now we find ourselves paying even higher taxes for originally somewhereelses citizens (and that is not ok). Can be seen in the fact that we used to be socialist when we were only Swedes with minor immigration, whereas we have now moved to a more cold society with colder laws and general structures in society at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Strictly from my perspective.

What Sweden has gained from multiculturalism:
- Richer food culture.
- More understanding of other nations.
- People who work harder for less.

What Sweden has lost:
- We now have ghettos.
- The use of derogatory names for girls are being common.
- The sense of "The big home", we used to pay high taxes to support our less fortunate citizens (and that was ok), now we find ourselves paying even higher taxes for originally somewhereelses citizens (and that is not ok). Can be seen in the fact that we used to be socialist when we were only Swedes with minor immigration, whereas we have now moved to a more cold society with colder laws and general structures in society at large.

---

This sounds normal, really, the Rich benefit (foriegn cooks, cheap labour) while the poor and less-than-wealthy are left to pick up the tab. I have always said Scandanavia did well socially because of homogenity. The attrocities in Norway, while not committed by an immigrant, are still linked to immigration.

That realisation has not, however, pointed me towards a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Strictly from my perspective.

What Sweden has gained from multiculturalism:
- Richer food culture.
- More understanding of other nations.
- People who work harder for less.

What Sweden has lost:
- We now have ghettos.
- The use of derogatory names for girls are being common.
- The sense of "The big home", we used to pay high taxes to support our less fortunate citizens (and that was ok), now we find ourselves paying even higher taxes for originally somewhereelses citizens (and that is not ok). Can be seen in the fact that we used to be socialist when we were only Swedes with minor immigration, whereas we have now moved to a more cold society with colder laws and general structures in society at large.

---

Sweden has to be the example of multiculturalists putting their society to the test, a country governed by a collective narcistic personality disorder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This sounds normal, really, the Rich benefit (foriegn cooks, cheap labour) while the poor and less-than-wealthy are left to pick up the tab. I have always said Scandanavia did well socially because of homogenity. The attrocities in Norway, while not committed by an immigrant, are still linked to immigration.

That realisation has not, however, pointed me towards a solution.

---

agreed, a truly happy and undiluted solcial democracy really only works with a culturally homogeneous population, as only a broad and deep sense of 'family' will encourage people to reach into their pockets for others benefit time after time.

So Australia which is a culturally hetrogenous population is not a happy social democracy?

Now these are only sourced from one think tank, so automatically the sample population is not great. But as these were at the top of the google search I'm sure you can find something to counter it if your premise is correct.

From the happiest countries in the world 2010:
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand

The World’s Most Liveable Cities Top 10 List 2011:
1 Vancouver, Canada
2 Melbourne, Australia
3 Vienna, Austria
4 Toronto, Canada
5 Calgary, Canada
6 Helsinki, Finland
7 Sydney, Australia
8 (equal) Perth, Australia
9 (equal) Adelaide, Australia
10 Auckland, New Zealand

But it kind of torpedoes the idea that one needs to have a culturally homogenous population to be happy as that is not the key.

I don't see the poor as being worse off for immigration. The uber-rich can afford a butler, its the middle class and poor who are more likely to require the help of a lower wage earner. Take call centres in Australia, they are about as diverse a group of people possible. Call centres are run by a much higher percentage of immigrants and second generation then the rest of Australia. The low cost solutions that are call centres are catering more for the middle and poor segment of the population.

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

Not that it is very surprising, mind you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

Not that it is very surprising, mind you

---

Nope, it's not about brown people, nor hindu's, nor asians. Only about leftist islamphilae

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nope, it's not about brown people, nor hindu's, nor asians. Only about leftist islamphilae

---

Considering most of the tenats of "leftism" are diametrically opposed to the Sharia strawmen you are setting up, I fail to follow

Have you ever thought this conspiracy may be in your head?

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So Australia which is a culturally hetrogenous population is not a happy social democracy?

Now these are only sourced from one think tank, so automatically the sample population is not great. But as these were at the top of the google search I'm sure you can find something to counter it if your premise is correct.

From the happiest countries in the world 2010:
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand

The World’s Most Liveable Cities Top 10 List 2011:
1 Vancouver, Canada
2 Melbourne, Australia
3 Vienna, Austria
4 Toronto, Canada
5 Calgary, Canada
6 Helsinki, Finland
7 Sydney, Australia
8 (equal) Perth, Australia
9 (equal) Adelaide, Australia
10 Auckland, New Zealand

---

All of those statistics are highly subjective and sort of pointless. Not to mention if you really want to get into it I saw about four different rankings for happiest countries online.

But sure we will go with yours if it makes you happy.

1. Homogeneous culturally
2. Homogeneous culturally
3. Homogeneous culturally
4. heterogeneous you say. 92% of the country is made up of those of European descent with a 8-9% Asian population. I couldn't find how much of the European population is foreign born or not so it would be nice if you could tell me that. I assume the majority hail from the British Isles.
5. New Zealand appears to be about 70% European with 15% each in Maori and Asian so a clear majority segment of the population but pretty Heterogeneous.

Also to note how ridiculous I think these statistics are I saw on one ranking for 2010 that Guatemala were ranked at number 9. The Us may not be as happy but I think I know which one I would choose.

Quote:

---

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

Not that it is very surprising, mind you

---

ummmm I would disagree. Western Europe has quite a few issues with immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans as well I believe.

I don't consider the US a multicultural society. We assimilated immigrants heavily but we also absorbed some old country practices into the culture. We are sort of a mix match. At least we were now it is more assimilate or leave.