why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

[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?

[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?

[InsaneApache]

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'?

[Papewaio]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

* 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.

[Adrian II]

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?

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Adrian II]

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

I have a history of disagreeing with TuffStuffMcGruff, but I think he hit the nail on the head here. I think the primary driving factor for allowing immigration is because it allows a cheap labor supply to whatever industry needs it in the host country-- agriculture, low end service, whatever else. As to the 'policy rationalizations' for immigration, I doubt very much that politicians are sitting around hashing out the finer points of multiculturalism or the imperialist legacy of the west-- I'm sorry but the first two posters in this thread assigned WAY too high an assumption of education and IQ to the typical politician, lol.

[Strike For The South]

I have a history of disagreeing with TuffStuffMcGruff, but I think he hit the nail on the head here. I think the primary driving factor for allowing immigration is because it allows a cheap labor supply to whatever industry needs it in the host country-- agriculture, low end service, whatever else. As to the 'policy rationalizations' for immigration, I doubt very much that politicians are sitting around hashing out the finer points of multiculturalism or the imperialist legacy of the west-- I'm sorry but the first two posters in this thread assigned WAY too high an assumption of education and IQ to the typical politician, lol.

We've been waiting for you

[Koga No Goshi]

Heya Strike! I still have some friendly Pm's from you saved in my inbox after all these years. ;) Been a long time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Furunculus]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Papewaio]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Fragony]

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

[Lemur]

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

[Fragony]

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

[Adrian II]

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

[Fragony]

'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

[Vladimir]

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).

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh yes!

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Papewaio]

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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).

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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