why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

[Centurion1]

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

Would you say then that Australia with a 90% European population is relatively homogeneous as a society? Even if one were to distinguish between Eastern and Western Europe the number would be very high.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm starting to think the word you intended to use is homogeneous, i.e of same descent?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Would you say then that Australia with a 90% European population is relatively heterogeneous (/ homogeneous) as a society?

In America, on a census you fill in 'white', or 'Asian', or some such broad category. In Europe, one must identifies 'European' with greater detail. There is no such thing as 'European' in Europe. I can tell a Spaniard from an Italian from a mile away. A German from a Briton. Danes of a conservative nature will speak of Yugoslavs as 'Blacks'.

So there is more to it than 90% European. Denmark is 80 percent European, but this eighty percent is homogenous. Australia is 90 percent European, but much more heterogenous. Australia has large Greek, Lebanese communities. Lotsa other wogs. It is a big, federal country, young, colonial, with an indigenous population and a recent shift towards immigration from its regio. Percentages don;t tell the whole story.

Still, I think Australians underestimate the diversity of modern European societies. Or North America. This is not the 1950s anymore. Britons nowadays move to Australia because it feels so European, because they feel at home more in the outback than in Leeds.

[Centurion1]

Aw **********************************************

Have I been saying Heterogeneous the entire thread?

***********************






Edit: I really hate myself sometimes

[Papewaio]

Still, I think Australians underestimate the diversity of modern European societies. Or North America. This is not the 1950s anymore. Britons nowadays move to Australia because it feels so European, because they feel at home more in the outback than in Leeds.

About 600k Aussies travel to mainland Europe every year (3% of the population)... so I think they might have a small clue to the cultural diversity. Whilst about 10% of the Australian population lives out of a city and probably way less then 3% in the Outback. I'd actually say we understand less about our own Outback.

And yes in our census we define our ethnic origins a bit more accurately then the approximate continent.

[Subotan]

This discussion fall into the trap of, well, any other discussion on this topic.

It quickly derails from "why did the west comit to multiculturalism" to "why are you hating brown people" (Sorry if I stepped on your TM StrikeForTheSouth).

And that, this whole all, pretty much explains why I am against multiculturalism. I have by myself witnessed how society is worse of from it, I have however not seen one hint of any factors making up for it.

So to you all who are against those who are against a multi-culti society - why are you FOR it?

I still haven't seen a definition by the critics of multi-culturalism of multi-culturalism at any point in this thread. Define it, and I'll answer.

[Fragony]

Multiculturalism = xenophilae

[rory_20_uk]

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

[Ironside]

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

Depends on what you mean by European. Most immigrants are still European after all. But if you narrow Europe a bit so that for example former Jugoslavia ends up as not European, then you're correct. So there's less than 90% of a western European population yes. (Swedish data is 14% foreign born, of those are 60% European. The group born with 2 immigrant parents makes this larger, but I'm not finding the data for that one. It exists but isn't at the same location).

I asked for a source.

Your easy math does not hold up, I am afraid, as it is so easy to flick the argument around.

See, why should we accept a disease ridden Somali analphabet, who is too old to school properly and will put a burden on our healthcare. Nevermind then opening up for his entire village to come?

Do not get me wrong, I think some immigration does a nation good. However, from where I am, immigration is costing us, not helping us. So again, source?

I refuse to see immigrants as some "lottery win" out to do us any good when it comes to economics. I refuse to see it because everything I have seen and heard of point at the very opposite.

Or are you people in Norway being angry at us Swedes for hogging all the immigrants to ourselves?

Does the people in Europe at large have a ill will towards Sweden for grabbing all the "future gold"?

Not even the socialist party in Sweden (socialists, remember? The ones you are a huge fan of) make any claim that immigration is good for the economy, as they have been proven hugely wrong. Instead they urge to the soft side of the debate, IE, "Think Of The Children".

Immigrants are quite a mixed group, but those who stays are integrating with time (=becomes more statiscally simular to the rest of the population). So atleast their children are a net benefit.

Personally, I've never lived in a ghetto, even if I've been living in above average immigration areas.
I've had Iranian, Iraqian, Indian, Chinese and Chilean classmates (not at the same time, so they haven't been many) and not had any problems with them.
I've also worked a bit and talked to the more failed ones. Older Burmanese refugees that's been living here for years still without knowing any Swedish (the ones I worked with were training a bit with theirs though). But on the whole I've encountered fairly successful integration cases. So for me it's not a problem to encounter some more with the same story.

Those areas where it has developed into a ghetto is of course a problem so I can get why you are more critical, even if the Somali bringing his entire village is a huge statistical ourlier, should he even exist (the ones bringing the entire family should exist, but being rare).

Immigration is what's keeping the population growing in Sweden though.

[Adrian II]

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

My wife has an American lady friend who was born and bred a Roman Catholic, and I mean Catholic with all the trappings. She scoured the Interwebs, local Catholic organisations and summer camps for ten years looking for a nice Catholic boy to marry. I teased her: "Why don't you try a Jewish boy for a change? At least you'll eat well and laugh a lot." Her answer: "No, I can't, I'm looking for commitment."

Shees, as if Jewish boys couldn't commit.

AII

[Furunculus]

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

good description of the problem; are you my familiy, with a commitment to me and mine, whom i can rely upon to act in a predictable and acceptable way in times of hardship? if "yes", it is worth my while extending the same commitment to you!

[Papewaio]

A quarter of the population in my neighbourhood is Indian or Sri Lankan (roughly 20% & 5% respectively). A lot of the guys I work with in IT are also Indian/Sri Lankan/Pakistani/Fijian Indian. Quite a few still marry in arranged marriages particularly if they are their parents immigrated here. My guess is that the second and third generation will be a lot more intermingled. Mind you I think if I was a short vegan who belived in mythical powers I'd need my parents to help me score a girl too...

I also know walking around the city that there are a mixed couples with an Indian partner. Strangely enough it seems a higher percentage of these are the tall, muscular Indian guys.

I think a lot of it comes down to girls will only go out with a taller partner... not racism, heightism.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, I'm sure they'll enjoy snacking on white meat, but will they marry them?

[InsaneApache]

@ Adrian II; I'm not sure about commitment, she sounds like she should be committed. Ten years looking for a partner to marry! Jeez loads of people have married, had kids, got divorced and married again in less time than that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So just getting some of the fact sorted out. Slavery did exist post Roman Empire in Europe: Check.

Slavery in Europe was dieing out in the 15th Century in favour of serfdom (economic not iron clad slavery).
Some of the Nation States profited from slavery on and off right up to the mid 19th century. Check.

Owning someone's life is different to owning someone's body, in medieval Europe slavery and Serfdom could mean the same thing, English slaves prior to the Conquest probably had more rights than English peasents thereafter. My point was, and remains, that the "slavery" practiced from antiquity onwards was completely different from the racial slavery blacks were subjected to in the following centuries. In America you could point at a Black man and say "he's mine" and he was your slave, he had no rights.

That's true for the menfolk but given Fragony's definition of slavery:
"If you want it to be, 19th century serfdom in Russia was basically the last of what is close to slavery in Europe. Poor working conditions, all times. But not real slavery, where someone is your property by law "

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

[Papewaio]

Oh, I'm sure they'll enjoy snacking on white meat, but will they marry them?

Actually I was thinking of the couples with kids... and most of them had asian wives (chinese)...except for the really tall indian guys... which was my point about heightism not racism being more prevalent... a lot of our prejudices are when looked into not as simple as skin colour.

For instance alliteration is common in naming kids. It's also more common for partners to marry someone with a similar sounding name/syllables then just chance would indicate.

[Skullheadhq]

Multiculturalism = xenophilae

Xenophiloi would be the correct spelling, or Xenophiles if you want it part English.

[Ironside]

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

Also one of those blurry issues. I would say that the last remanant is when marital rape became a formal crime (were the Soviets were early to do interestingly enough), starting in the 1960-ties outside the communist block.

Widows had considerble power of their own and the grip on unmarried women started to be loosened during the industrialism, that indirectly caused marriage age to go up -> They started to be able to work and support themselves.

[HoreTore]

Men stopped owning their women when our women left the kitchen and entered the workforce.

So, 1968.

[rory_20_uk]

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

[HoreTore]

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

The majority of women were still housewives in the 50's.

[Subotan]

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

Ok, sure. I'm going to a pain in the arse, and ask you to be a bit more specific; how do you define "separate entity"? Is it on a group or an individual basis? Are, say, the British Chinese who live in various Chinatowns, despite identifying as British, examples of this? If so, why does this arrangement constitute a problem?

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

This is something which will change with time, I think and assume. If you look at the USA, throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, there are plenty of examples of nativist Americans who dissaproved of the Irish, Germans, Italians, Japanese etc. all bringing those traits over to the United States. Gradually, those differences have blurred and faded to the point where "hyphenated-American" is for the vast majority of Americans now a mere semantic expression.

The one thing which they did adopt was the United State's citizenship, as it was so easy to acquire. This helped speed assimilation and integration, and is why I think a tolerant approach would be more successful than any attempts at forced integration.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

Tamils are a special case, given that their sense of nationhood is particularly sensitive, occasionally to the extent of rather unforgivable apologism for the LTTE. Depending on the sensitivity of the person in question, prodding them about it can be a fun game. That said, I get your point. Modern technology helps keep those ties stronger, for better or worse. However, these differences will fade with time. I would be genuinely surprised if her kids, who would presumably grow up in the UK will feel the same way. After all, we've seen the same arguments used towards various immigrants to this country - Jews from Eastern Europe, Huguenots, Irish, German Lutherans, Africans, African-Caribbean etc. All have effectively assimilated into a British society that has changed to accommodate them.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, you are right. Chinatown is probably an aberration as they were the first group to keep completely separate. But they do view themselves as British and obey British laws. Most of those who went to the USA wanted to be Americans, and tried to fit in.

England is a mongrel nation. English is a mongrel language. A melting pot where peoples have come and dissolved in to make a stronger alloy. The most important fact is coming to be included.

Big blobs that do not dissolve are not wanted (please, if there any material scientists out there, spare us the importance of variable crystal sizes in preventing sheer fractures in ceramics...).

Historically there was probably one influx in at the most a decade. Ties to the "homeland" would be tenuous and so assimilation was pretty guaranteed. Now fluxes are that much quicker and ties (if wanted) to the "homeland" are vastly stronger. I was at a registry office with a Pakistani and his bride fresh from the Homeland. he was told that he had to leave a notice for a number of days before he could get married. He was quite upset that this couldn't be skipped - he did not appear to be one to let English Law to interfere - yet he's apparently integrated enough to have a Passport; at the ceremony to get one's British passport a decent number of the persons couldn't speak enough to get through the ceremony!

[Fragony]

'Ok, sure. I'm going to a pain in the arse, and ask you to be a bit more specific; how do you define "separate entity"? Is it on a group or an individual basis? Are, say, the British Chinese who live in various Chinatowns, despite identifying as British, examples of this? If so, why does this arrangement constitute a problem?'

Are there already 'you are entering a budhist area' posters there. Chinese just live here, I once heard they are from China, can anyone comfirm

[Adrian II]

Are there already 'you are entering a budhist area' posters there.

Um, Chinese would probably install a daoist area. With signs like 'Caution, non-violent guards' and 'All gets done by doing nothing'.

And imagine the food, man, imagine the godly food.

AII

[Tellos Athenaios]

And the opiates. Sherlock's dream.

[Fragony]

Yes but still. I think it's all pretty simple, the islam just proves that multiculture is a flawed concept. Unacceptable to the babyboomer generation, their parents could hardly read so they aren't used to not-so-stupid people disagreeing. Ever met a anthropologist who is not an anthropologist?

[Centurion1]

Um, Chinese would probably install a daoist area. With signs like 'Caution, non-violent guards' and 'All gets done by doing nothing'.

And imagine the food, man, imagine the godly food.

AII

This all depends. Are we dealing with good Atheist Chinese who love big brother?

Taoism is on the decline in China and more and more people (who are actually religious) are becoming Buddhist's. Mostly Mahayana.

Have you ever been to a Chinatown? Not friendly places to giant white Dutchmen like yourself and most certainly not peaceful places.

[Fragony]

I'm only 1.84 Asians are just small. And a bit girly I might add

[Adrian II]

This all depends. Are we dealing with good Atheist Chinese who love big brother?

We are dealing with my attempt at a joke. Nothing more.

I have been to a few Chinatowns. San Francisco was nice, XIII in Paris too. Had no problem at all, and I'm quite a tall Dutchman.

AII