(December 20, 2013 at 9:29 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Multiculturalism, as a policy is in a way, shooting your own foot.
A country needs social stability. This is archived by promoting a common language and common culture for its inhabitants, even if ethnically, the country has a lot of minorities, the minorities must conform to the culture of the majority in order to establish harmony.
So multiculturalism should not be the policy of any NATION STATE. But those who are not NATION STATES, like Switzerland, multiculturalism is applicable, when you divide the country into confederate states in which the minorities have access to their own press, language and culture without coming into too much contact with others for friction to arise. But if you try to establish multiculturalism in an etnically heterogenous area, you will most certainly fail.
Besides, multiculturalism does not add anything of significance to social progress, nor to the culture of a country. Especially for NATION STATES of the old world, which have their own culture and customs, this is impossible and prone to lead to more friction.
Kilic, I'm interested -- is your opinion informed by the Ottoman experience. Because I tend to agree -- after living abroad the deepness of minority and religious tribalism over hundreds and thousands of years means to create a modern nation state -- you cannot be tolerant of different cultural mores too much -- or the state itself will be dysfunctional. This is very hard for Brits and Americans to understand because their cultures are so dominant and so 'attractive' and clever in the way that they assimilate people they don't see that neither UK or US are actually 'multicultural'. They allow minorites to keep some of their original culture -- usually the most deeply held religious part ... while taking the rest of them. And I say this as a full throated member of the American tribe.
