Multiculturalism is dead

[Furunculus]

it is not the governments job to enforce diversity on its citizens, which is what has happened in towns and cities up and down the land.

[al Roumi]

it is not the governments job to enforce diversity on its citizens, which is what has happened in towns and cities up and down the land.

Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?

[Fragony]

Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?

They even admitted that it was active policy 'rubbing diversity in the noses of the right', exact words, googlydo

[Furunculus]

Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?

by uncontrolled immigration leading to the ghettoisation of our immigrant populations, and the crowding out of marginal groups among the native population.

if you want to create a more cohesive and happy society, which ought to be the goal of any government, then uncontrolled immigration is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

i realise you are happy eating your cous-cous salad in the local somalian restaurant, well guess what, so am i, but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.

that does not make a cohesive and happy society, it is that simple. end of!

[al Roumi]

by uncontrolled immigration leading to the ghettoisation of our immigrant populations, and the crowding out of marginal groups among the native population.

if you want to create a more cohesive and happy society, which ought to be the goal of any government, then unconctrolled immigration is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

While I might quibble on what the assumed alternative is to uncontrolled immigration (but not here), I agree that it was wishfull thinking, verging on negligence, to assume that everyone would just get along fine.

i realise you are happy eating your cous-cous salad in the local somalian restaurant, well guess what, so am i

[rory_20_uk]

I have always thought that the purpose of immigration should be to try to improve the populace of the country - to gain those with the most to give in terms of skills etc, not to take in all and sundry who view it as a better option than where they currently come from by means legal or otherwise.

Coupled with the utter fear of implicit or explicit integration one ends up where we currently are.

[Furunculus]

While I might quibble on what the assumed alternative is to uncontrolled immigration (but not here), I agree that it was wishfull thinking, verging on negligence, to assume that everyone would just get along fine.

just so long as you don't lose sight of the most important part of what i said, the bit you forgot to quote:

but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.

[Fragony]

Not just those, it's kinda ironic but my anti-immigration blond Mozart would be nothing without immigrants. He gets a considerable amount of votes from non-ethnic Dutch

edit @ furuncules, and yay to SK

[al Roumi]

just so long as you don't lose sight of the most important part of what i said, the bit you forgot to quote:

...but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.

Their marginalisation is a massive issue, but not one I would blame on or tie to immigration. I concede that the public eye has perhaps strayed from their plight to that of more recent arrivals to the UK, but again -that does not mean that immigrants or immigration are the cause or root of the UK's poor and their condition.

I still don't quite get it though.

Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".

Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.

It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?

You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.

Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".

Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.

It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?

You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.

Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).

Well we are back to semantics again, but I think that's the key (it's no the trivial kind of semantics). It seems to me that the multiculturalist movement starts from what you are saying here and then by using poor language to argue for it gets itself all mixed up.

I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!

Well, that is why I think the semantic difference is important. One way of talking about it verbally lends itself to relativism and a purely anthropological view of other cultures. It's not my belief that all the people who call themselves multiculturalists go that route, but the language leads them that way. How we talk reflects how we think. I think the other way of talking treats other cultures on the same level that we treat our own.