Multiculturalism in the World Today

[solomon]

For those politically astute and observant of the news, there have been many events that have lead to the questioning of "Multiculturalism" today.

The Arab Spring has lead to an unraveling of traditional orders and bilateral relations between states and leading to large scale migration.

Many European heads of government have called into question the concept of "Multiculturalism".

The United States has to deal with potential radicalizing muslims on it's shores, not to mention the ever burgeoning Latino population.

I was wondering what various people here of various backgrounds (American, European, Asian) thought Multiculturalism means to them in their countries, in both context of the past and today. Particularly in relation to recent events.

[Haak]

Well I might as well dump all these here:

Spoiler for space:

Originally Posted by JMvS

Well, in Europe each country has its particular immigration demographics. Regarding Germany the most distinguishing feature is its rather large Turk community, which originated as gastarbeiter: guest worker brought in during the reconstruction post war period. Likewise, France is characterized with (an even larger share) of Arabs and African from its former colonial Empire, as is Britain with its community originating from the Indian subcontinent.

During these past decades, mass immigration had been advocated by mainstream politician in order to fuel the post war growth, and more recently simply to compensate the demographic decline of many European countries (save maybe for the Irish, most native populations are stagnating or already declining).
A recurrent motto is "we need them to pay for our retirement pensions!".

But the economic necessity is wearing off, for the trade off is becoming less and less appealing, as appear the costs of dealing with unskilled, ill-educated, ill-integrated and jobless prone masses of immigrants. So far, calls for a "selected immigration" are light years away from reality.

And in the context of many countries, as you point out, there's a rising perception that the European Dream is mostly about raking in the generous public services, rather than the "I'll make it big" American Dream.


But another rather important difference with the United States are perhaps stronger cultural connotations, particularly in the present context, as across the resulting minorities, the Muslim component is much more important than in the United States.

I think the debate around "Ground Zero Mosque" illustrate pretty well the present climate. Except that in Europe, while public irritation toward some attitudes of Muslim communities is growing stronger across the continent, as shown in the aftermath of the Swiss Referendum on the Minaret construction ban (polls in neighboring countries showed similar sentiment), there is way less room for debate, as all mainstream politicians, media and "peoples" are remarkably homogeneous in their support of multiculturalism, dissenters being ostracized and vilified, Godwin points scores rising to the stratosphere.

At least is has become more and more evident that some of these communities tend toward strong communitarianism, which in the context of recent radicalization of minorities of Muslim origin, leads to serious conflicts with local law and culture (the application of Sharia in England would be a prime example of that). Furtherly, in some instance, this tendency has led to the formation and growth of ghettos, precluding social and economic integration of those minorities, even degenerating into lawless areas during the recent decades.

Originally Posted by Vexx

This PM nails it on the head in regard to what it means to live in a country and be a citizen of it. Great article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Originally Posted by solomon

Originally as an american black man I bristled at the general gist of Cameron's speech. It too often drummed up images of BNP/Front National type drivel.

Vexx's comments made me re think it a little....

While I don't like the unilateral sounding title (a bit too similar to BNP type rightist loonies type of rhet.), I do admit that there has to be a certain level assimilation required in order to for a society to rationally function. Otherwise tribal warfare ensues.

History has shown that united, people are stronger than if they are fractured.

I am a Black American albiet a somewhat "white" Black American as is the parlance, but despite skepticsm and certain cynicism I still broadly believe in the main values that America is and should be.

I think the key word he pointed out was "Islamic extremism is not Islam". This is a point that I wish the media, politicans and people of Islamic faith would more strongly push, even if they have misgivings about American foreign policy. After all, I would expect the same scrutiny of the more established Christian religion and majorities.

No matter what religion, theocracy and discrimination and wonton violence and human rights suppression should not be tolerated in modern secular democracies.



THAT BEING SAID...

The devil of course in in the details.........I think multiculturalism is the wrong word and establishes bad pretexts
(especially in the UK and America, different cultures exist between those in Ulster, the Black Country and Cardiff, for example)

It's all about the nuance and context.

Check this observation on contemporary anti-muslim sentiment by Baroness Warsi, a Conservative Party Muslim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12235237

Also a smattering of British Muslim opinons and European opinions follow as links on the side.




Interesting viewpoint, but the reason China is doing so well is due in substantial part due free market reformation, emulating Western Democracies.

I support social welfare programs and certain economic restrictions but by and large the free world and China is making wealth thanks to Private enterprise in many instances.

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

LOL... pretty sure the protestors in Egypt and Tunisia have more in common with the people who protested against Ahmadinejad in 2009 than with most Islamists. Last I heard Egyptian Islamist groups were still have trouble deciding quite what to make of what was going on.



Well, I agree that basic human rights trump cultural considerations, but I must say that Mr. Cameron's understanding of multiculturalism is rather different from mine.

Canada was the first country to implement an official policy of multiculturalism in 1971. It's basically a way of recognizing that the previous policy of official biculturalism (English Canada and French Canada) failed to recognize the contribution of smaller ethnic groups. It has nothing to do with letting ethnic traditions trump basic rights.

Canadians wouldn't stand for having a policy of official monoculture - it would stoke rhetoric among separatist movements about how English Canadians are trying to assimilate French Canadians, and nobody is keen on seeing that come back into vogue because at times it has come close to tearing this country in two. In that respect, biculturalism and multiculturalism enhance Canadian unity.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll be the first to advocate for multiculturalism in terms of people enjoying and celebrating their personal heritage. However, as a consensus for living in a city-state entity, fundamental concerns for individual rights are not trumped by someone's reading of "ancient texts" or their abusive exercise of particular customs. Hence, stoning or being whipped to death for getting raped (the oft quoted example) does not fly, nor does the beating of a Harry Potter actress because she's dating someone who was raised with a different set of ancient texts.

I love multi-culturalism ... it provides color and diversity in my world. Festivals, food, a broader sense of views, healthier gene pool, etc. I'm Heinz 57 Euro, I married a Japanese-American, one of my sons is dating a Nepalese Bengali... none of us should have to worry about jerkwads blowing us up or beating us to death for those choices.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I second that. I come from an ubiquitous background and I am told that I am supposedly mixed-blood between many races. Though many of my classmates and acquaintances often tease each other with racial remarks, we don't feel any dislike towards each other, and simply took it as a joke. Once during my army days outfield, we teased an Indian squadmate of mine that he wouldn't need black camouflage paint and he simply needed green. He then applied green paint to his face and said that "you urine coloured nuts are wasting precious warpaint". All of us then laughed it off and it became a regular joke (even over the comms, the commanders didn't know we are planning bunk parties with that code signal ) until all of us went separate ways after the training. Every unit I went, there is this touch of treating such cannonballs as miniature ball-bearings when it comes down to this at the squad levels (we don't dare to do it above that because the commanders are so touchy). In fact, it became a joke that ALL of us always laugh to and NEVER gets old. Yet we never held grudges because we knew that deep down, there is real ingrained respect for each others' ethnicities.

How do we understand each other like that and able to naturally sense that the other party wasn't serious? Well, we grew up with each of our kind and simply showed tolerance and had to force ourselves to understand and work with each other despite our racial and religious differences. As the locals get increasingly selfish, and new immigrants become racist towards a 40-year rojak culture due to their increased presence, this is simply going to go down the drain in the few years time.

"River crabs" don't just flow down the stream by themselves, they are lured and consolidated over time and understanding of them. If we don't dispel that climate of fear of each other, the ISA isn't going to repeal itself in the next century or so.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

An interesting point. Christian crosses in public schools in France are banned, as are any other religious items. The Burqa was also banned unilaterally fairly recently. One could argue that you're repressing these peoples, or you could argue that the separation between State and Church is absolute in France, and that the State wants to be an identifiable entity for a broader community. What do you think of that?

There's always going to be excitable people, but France has mixed in with immigrants a lot. At least they have a proper word for mixed-blooded people. Half-cast sounds derogatory to me.



And at least it's not insulting to hear to me, but maybe that's just me. I mean, really, if you don't even have a word for this increasingly common phenomenon, how do you expect these people to look themselves in the eye when they're growing up. (School is usually merciless to us mixed people)

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

See, I can get behind the bit about taking a tougher stance on extremism. But I'm not much for the conservative rhetoric about state multiculturalism. When I look at Canada's failures to deal with Sikh extremism (culminating in the 1985 Air India bombing), I don't see leftist multiculturalists saying that blowing up 747s and beating moderate Sikhs with iron bars (as happened to Ujjal Dosanjh, who later became BC's Premier and then Canadian health minister) is acceptable. I do see a lot of police and politicians not taking a threat seriously because it only concerned brown people.

And speaking of Sikhs, I'm of the opinion that letting Sikh RCMP officers wear their turbans while on duty enhances national unity. Cameron's rhetoric feels like its designed to appeal to the kind of people who complained that violated traditional RCMP dress code.



This word is actually used in Canada to refer to those of mixed aboriginal and European descent (usually either French or Scottish). They're officially recognized as an ethnic group in themselves.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Not disputing any of the above points but, as a thought exercise, why should national ideals trump ethnic culture?

What makes a nation? Are national ideals not another form of "culture"? If so, why should this particular culture supersede the cultural norms of people living in said nation, especially if such people are immigrants?

Nation-states, as envisioned by modern Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, no longer exist in quite the same way today, thanks to the death of distance brought about by technological revolutions in communications and logistics. That, to me, is the root cause of present-day multicultural tensions.

Originally Posted by Haak

Yeah that sure is the proper way to behave...

Anyway I just came across this interesting recent study and wanted to know if anyone else knows anything about the subject:
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/...splay/?id=6866

To be honest I still haven't really formed an opinion yet...

[TinyRedLeaf]

It'll take a full-blown thesis to describe the many different forces at work behind this issue, and to put them into a conceptual framework for more rigorous study... something I don't quite have the time to do, at least not on an amateur basis.

(1)
The first thing to consider is the rising wave of religiosity across the world, especially in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The feelings aroused by those attacks were inflamed further by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, along with the still-simmering conflict in Afghanistan.

These conflicts make up the very "clash of civilisations" that political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote about in 1996.

(2)
And, to understand the unexpected rise in religiosity over the past decade, it's necessary to look back further to study the way the global Muslim community grew increasingly disillusioned with geopolitical trends following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The 1991 Gulf War, the ethnic violence in the Balkans during the 1990s, the perennial unrest in Israel and the West Bank, along with an increasingly assertive theocratic leadership in Iran provoking hardline responses in the rest of the Arab world — all these contributed to an environment that radicalised fringe elements of the Muslim community, setting the stage for the "clash" that would soon break out in the new millennium.

(3)
The fall of communism also led to renewed efforts to reintegrate what remained of the Second World, particularly in Europe. In the absence of overarching ideological objectives following "the end of History", long-buried fault lines along language, race and religion began bubbling again to the surface.

People began clamouring again for rights and recognition in a new, multi-polar world order. And wherever such rivalries boiled over, deep-seated antagonisms are born anew.

(4)
Meanwhile, in developing Asia, another geopolitical trend began to emerge. With the fall of the Berlin Wall came the opening of new markets, as a newly export-oriented China abandoned central planning in favour of a market economy.

The waking dragon was itself preceded by an earlier wave of "tiger economies" along the Pacific Rim, from Japan in the north down to Singapore in the south. Eventually, even perennial laggard India got pulled along by the growth momentum to become a giant dynamo in its own right.

All these has led to the gradual shifting of economic power from West to East and, along with it, attendant geopolitical power.

And, with power comes pride. Three billion people in formerly poor Asia are now increasingly eager to assert themselves in world affairs, and refuse to be thumbed down again by their former colonial masters.

(5)
Finally, on a much lower but no less important scale, industrial society itself has changed. In what is now popularly dubbed the "post-industrial" world, a revolution in communications technology has turned the global village into an even smaller and more congested place.

In an era when almost anyone can become an overnight sensation through online media, it has become easier than ever before for individuals of all persuasions to push their messages across the world.

And this has led, ironically, to a growing trend for people to pigeonhole themselves according to their backgrounds and interests. Human curiosity, I would argue, has not grown any broader in spite of the greater availability of information. It seems, rather, to have made it easier for birds of a feather to flock together, giving rise to a polarisation of beliefs rather than an integration of ideas.

==========

Put all the above factors together, and you'd have what I think may well be the "grand narrative" of our time: a search for personal identity amid increasing homogenisation. People from all kinds of backgrounds are struggling to assert their identities, sometimes at the expense of an existing social fabric. It's a new form of tribalism, one that thrives on a global scale.

The ongoing effort to balance incumbent values with these newly assertive grassroots sentiments is what contributes to the growing feeling that "multiculturalism" is failing all around the world. It is partly caused by a failure of leaders to appreciate the emotions that drive these sentiments, and it will require a paradigm shift of sorts before we can find ways to unify otherwise divisive views.

[Decagon]

I take multiculturalism to mean that conflicts usually relegated within a homogeneous population between people of different creed or economic backgrounds can be spread out to other ethnic groups as a whole regardless of their beliefs or wealth. People who are chill and get along seem to not care about the multi part.

The US is a great blend of people. I spent some of my formative years in a very white part of the midwest where my family and I faced a lot less racism than when we lived in many of the racially diverse parts of California and New Jersey. Hell if I know how that works.

[solomon]

I think Multiculturalism is naturally interpreted in a different fashion in the Old World as opposed to the New World.

In the Americas, we are a blend of a bunch of different ethnicities and backgrounds. Even just "White" people are are huge blend (in the US anyways).

In Europe ethnically you have people determined as "British" "French" and "German" for example, who have dominated their countries identities for centuries. Only recently are they dealing with large scale immigration from abroad.

Simply speaking, in teh Americas people largely treat their nationality as citizenship not ethnicity where as in Europe a lot of people treat their nationality and citizenship as one in the same.

[Jaden]

I see multiculturalism more like monoculturalism. When you are exposed to other cultures and accept them as viable ways of doing things, it also means losing some faith and respect to your own culture. As a result you become neutral to culture.

If all people understood all cultures, they would cease to be special the way they are now. People would see culture as tradition, not necessarily a part of who they are. History, not mystery. Not ways of life, but more like fashion. The population would become more united, thus monoculturalism.

[flying ^]

somewhere on the other side of the atlantic...

multiculturalism like this is NOT sustainable

[solomon]

The above vid is interesting.

I have seen a similar documentary from the German public net ARD about similar strife occuring in a part of Germany.

Naturally as modern secular Western Societies, violence against innocent people under the guise of religion is intolerable in all circumstances.

Still, while there is a question of how tolerant established societies should be of CERTAIN CULTURAL PRACTICES, the vid is a bit of a whitewash. It essentially confounds Islam with violence/repressiveness again in a simple manner.

Victim of Multiculturalism.......BAD WORDING. The lady was a victim of racism. It should be typified as such.

Multiculturalism should not be compounded with racial intolerance.

As for the sharia issue, I have yet to hear Muslims for sharia want to push it on the major society, I was under the impression that they want it for their own circles.

Mind you I don't think that it links up with most western nations law, but still clarification should be made.

Also the veil issue, that's weak I am afraid. Is the state going to spend money investigating weither or not it's being forced on women or weither they do it out of their own freewill. And if it is their own choice, does the state have a right to meddle in a private affair, when it's really causing no harm to anyone else.

That is ultimately a weak video that attempts a couple of unique different issues together. There some legitimacy there, but it's rife for hijacking by extremists on the other side as well.

================================================== ===
Again, if you come to another country and attack a NATIVE who has commited no other crime than being a different ethnic group, you either deserve to get your teeth knocked on or to be sent back to your original country. I whole heartedly believe that. That kind of problem should be addressed.

Yet also (again because I am an American minority), I fear that at it's very worse people will just bristle at the fact that they have to deal with others who don't walk to the beat of the largely White majority. And they will use some unfortunate instances to create racist policies that are largely window dressing and don't address real issues. (like the veil deal). We can't expect people to totally distance themselves from their heritage.

[synaesthetic]

*puts on flame shield*

The problem with saying "Oh, it's just extremist Muslims" is the undeniable fact that if their philosophy wasn't violent, patriarchal, demeaning to women, incredibly hostile to science and eternally stuck in the dark ages, their extremism wouldn't even be bad.

I mean, come on. "Extremism" just means "taking something to extremes." The extremism can only be so dangerous if the core beliefs themselves are inherently bad!

And before people immediately start accusing me of racism, by "bad" I don't mean "evil," but as in "bad idea" bad--and ultimately, all Judeo-Christian theologies are inherently bad ideas. They do not fit the shape of the modern world, which is why they lash out at the modern world so frequently. There are no real, quantifiable benefits gained through following a barbaric philosophy from two thousand years ago. And there are a whole mess of downsides to zealously following these myths.

I am not a racist, and I don't care what color you are--you're all human to me. What I do care about is bad ideas and bad beliefs. I also don't really appreciate the idea of equating a religion with a "race."

Random thoughts on "cultural appropriation" for those who may be interested:

a) We're all one race--the human race. Some of us look different. Some of us speak different languages. We've all got the same DNA, so sit down, shut up and stop being assholes to people because they look different than you.

b) The more I hear about the "horrors" of white privilege from [mostly white] elitist douchebags trying to make themselves look tolerant and superior, the more I want to punch kittens.

It's understandable that minorities in predominately white cultures will experience problems, but I get really fucking sick of mostly-white hipster assholes throwing around "white privilege" and essentially claiming that white people are racist simply because they're white people.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Asuras]

On what syn has said.

Spoiler for Rant:

I have been shot down so many times at my school for trying to make a club.

Now let's see here. There is the...
African American Club
Latino Club
Asian and Pacific Islanders Club
Gay Straight Alliance
Even a Leo Club...
A bunch of others etc etc etc

I have asked several times, even bringing in a typed document describing why it's perfectly fine. What is it that I wanted?

A Caucasian Club.

"No."
"Why?"
"You know why."

...

I am so [insert vulgar adverb here] tired of white people being universally labeled as inherently racist or dominating. We're not the idiots dozens of years ago. We're perfectly fine people. There are racists in other nationalities too! Why just us?
When will the idea of white guilt be forgotten? BLAH.

[synaesthetic]

Probably not until hostile aliens show up and give humans as a whole something to hate.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Asuras

On what syn has said.

Spoiler for Rant:

I have been shot down so many times at my school for trying to make a club.

Now let's see here. There is the...
African American Club
Latino Club
Asian and Pacific Islanders Club
Gay Straight Alliance
Even a Leo Club...
A bunch of others etc etc etc

I have asked several times, even bringing in a typed document describing why it's perfectly fine. What is it that I wanted?

A Caucasian Club.

"No."
"Why?"
"You know why."

...

I am so [insert vulgar adverb here] tired of white people being universally labeled as inherently racist or dominating. We're not the idiots dozens of years ago. We're perfectly fine people. There are racists in other nationalities too! Why just us?
When will the idea of white guilt be forgotten? BLAH.

Every culture, every race, every ethnic - has its set of idiots, bigots, supremacists, etc. I used to have to pick a friend at the end of the block in high school because his father was a bigot (they were black, I was white, my girlfriend was Japanese, another friend was Latino, etc)

Maybe if you tried an Irish club? or Scandinavian club? shoot under the radar

But... I do have to say (personal family experience) that there *still* very active racists in the Euro-57 branch that self-titles as "white people".

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

But... I do have to say (personal family experience) that there *still* very active racists in the Euro-57 branch that self-titles as "white people".

The Russians are white people too. So why do they hate the Russians in the 1970s and 80s?

[Ithekro]

I think just about every American high school in the last 15 years has had someone think up a white man's club, and figured it would be shot down immediately, and never actually done it. Usually its the members of the band or nerd groups that think of it really, because we see the hypocrasy in the club system where the main argument against it is, "you are the majority, you don't need a club to gather safely. Otherwise you will be considered to be a racist member of the KKK or Neo-Nazi party, or something similar".


Russians because of the Cold War....enemies directly of the nation. Basically an undeclared war with no battles, only casualties.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The Russians are white people too. So why do they hate the Russians in the 1970s and 80s?

Oddly... there's a lot more comraderie between the Cold Warriors of the US and Soviet factions possibly because of that sensed "equality". They understood each other while they fought over the proper way to split up a loaf of bread.

[NorthernFallout]

Misunderstand me the right way... I know the large majority of multiculturalism is just fine, and I agree. I only need to look at my own surroundings, hell even my own uni which is filled with many cultures, and that works fine (and is very interesting from time to time). But when you have a vocal minority backed up by politicians for easy points and extremely liberal Swedish people that wants to turn Sweden into Iran because it's the "right thing to do, Swedish-style", multiculturalism has resulted in:

- The Swedish national song being racist.
- Other traditional Swedish songs being racist.
- Waving the Swedish flag or talking of how much one loves ones country is racist (or nazi).
- You cannot criticize Islam or other religions, otherwise you are racist. Christianity is a fine target from the other side though.
- Being racist against Swedes are fine. The other way is a death sin.
- Swedes are treated more harshly for crimes and gets a lot more media space. Other cultures are quieted down because "their circumstances are different".
- Criticizing our immigration politics makes you racist. Even if we have the most generous in the world, probably.
- Attacking firefighters and ambulances due to religious inter-culture wars in the more density heavy areas is fine.

Of course it differs in different parts of the country depending on the density, but it's been my experience. So a bit of bitterness isn't strange. So on a small scale, I like multiculturalism. On a national scale, not so much.

Oh and (more radical) Islam is just misunderstood. Discriminating women is just part of their culture and should be respected! (This said by FEMALE uni students).

Wait. Right. And now I'll be called a racist \o/

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's understandable that minorities in predominately white cultures will experience problems, but I get really fucking sick of mostly-white hipster assholes throwing around "white privilege" and essentially claiming that white people are racist simply because they're white people.

And I think this best describes my target hate. If you're a white, and male, Swede in this case, you are racist and misogynistic by default. Thanks, politicians and hipsters!

[TurkeyPotPie]

The idea that "multiculturalism" (as practiced now) is something that is good and must be implemented is something that only seems to infect the West (especially "progressive" white folks). I think cultural suicide is a more appropriate description. Instead of assimilation, multiculturalism promotes Balkanization and the tolerance of ideas and mores that are antithetical to modern liberal Western society.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

*puts on flame shield*

The problem with saying "Oh, it's just extremist Muslims" is the undeniable fact that if their philosophy wasn't violent, patriarchal, demeaning to women, incredibly hostile to science and eternally stuck in the dark ages, their extremism wouldn't even be bad.

Undeniable fact...

I deny it.

I mean, come on. "Extremism" just means "taking something to extremes." The extremism can only be so dangerous if the core beliefs themselves are inherently bad!

Slippery Slope argument. Does that mean anything that can be taken to an extreme is inherently bad? Does that include political ideologies?

[MeoTwister5]

It's actually strange to call Islam anti-science when it's the advancements made by Islamic middle-eastern cultures in science, mathematics and the arts that helped pull Europe's head out of its ass, end the Dark Ages. Hell, one could say that the European renaissance is just the ME's own period extending westward,

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

It's actually strange to call Islam anti-science when it's the advancements made by Islamic middle-eastern cultures in science, mathematics and the arts that helped pull Europe's head out of its ass, end the Dark Ages. Hell, one could say that the European renaissance is just the ME's own period extending westward,

Present anti-science both in East and West is due to misguided religious fundamentalists.

One thing I really do not understand is why they are considered fundamental teaching within their own respected schools when they themselves many NOT be actually following the original teaching with many interpretation entering into the text so many time by so many people that some meaning had been lost in translation.