why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

**Furunculus** · 07-26-2011, 16:44

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.

**Beskar** · 07-26-2011, 17:23

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).

**Furunculus** · 07-26-2011, 17:38

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

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

**Beskar** · 07-26-2011, 17:52

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.

**Subotan** · 07-26-2011, 18:16

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?

**Watchman** · 07-26-2011, 18:52

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.

**Strike For The South** · 07-26-2011, 19:16

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

**InsaneApache** · 07-26-2011, 20:06

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!