Is multiculturalism a bad thing for Europe?

[là bạn điên]

There are precious few jews in Kilburn. It is traditiionally Irish. There are a large number of Blacks , Pakistanis and ,recently , Somalis. Jews, no.

There is a a private Jewish day school in Kilburn which takes in Jews from Swiss cottage, Maida Vale and Hampstead perhaps you just don;t like teh Kids that go there..or you are some sort of anti semite.

Working class are you?

[NoraBrimstone]

Yep. Working class.

I don't actually have a problem with Jews. Lol

[kılıç_mehmet]

I have recently begun to believe that multiculturalism is not something a society should strive for, it would appear to promote segregation among demographics. I can remember a time not so long past when the "name of the game" with regards to immigration was integration.

Multiculturalism seems the complete opposite, I would also posit that the idea of multiculturalism was to hide the fact that integration was impossible given the explosive level of immigration which has followed the introduction of the word. Whole enclaves of European countries have become completely separate from the state with regard to social norms, given the need for social interaction with the main proponent of this (the greatest migration in European history) those of a middle Eastern background.

How much of a blunder was it?

Dare we take a few steps further into the future that goes in toe with a multiculturalist society before we start to see a cultural relativistic ways of thinking used when approaching the different proponents that make up our society, we need not.
It is already happening, the most recent example being the allowing of the segregation of men and women in English Universities in accordance with respecting religious freedom. I even remember earlier in the year seeing Lawerence Krauss threaten to walk out of a debate in a UK University unless they stopped the segregation. It has been practiced for quite some time.

What will happen next?

If we can segregate people based on biological differences in public places is this not an apartheid?

Is every step in toe with multiculturalism a step in towards a completely apartheid state?

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.

[theyear12013]

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.

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

Well, the US isn't multicultural at all. I'd say its more like a place where the type of people who are willing to discard their old identities go to. They go and leave behind their old customs, their old names and tribes.
In short, they emigrate to the US to be assimilated, and the US requires them to be assimilated into the system for them to properly participate.

As for the UK, I don't know what exactly is so attractive about the British culture for people to assimilate into it, but I would say that their immigrants are not the kind of people that come to the UK to be assimilated, because the UK is nothing like America. America was founded by immigrants, and is a state that thrives on immigrants.
The UK on the other hand, not a nation state per se, as it does have a large number of native minorities, the Celtic people that live under different names and have had a love-hate relationship with their English overlords, is a country that has had its experiences with internal ethnic strife.
The recent implementations of multiculturalism on the other hand also seeks to reconcile the aspects of the foreign cultures that are incompatible with the native culture, something which alienates the natives, and gives the immigrants the bravado to act in ways that would force the government to grant them more special privilages.
And its to no surprise. If you were to give your child 100 dollars a week, wouldn't that child demand a 150 next week?
They simply have not humbled their recent immigrants. İmmigrants of different cultures ought to be humble in the lands they emigrate to. They ought to realize that this country has been founded by a certain majority, which has probably lived and died here for centuries. They should try to seek harmony, instead of division. However if the majority lets them do things their way all the time, the minorities will indeed act in ways that would resemble the actions of a spoiled child. And that's what multiculturalism does for Europe today.

[theyear12013]

I think we agree. Its the humbling process. I have 1/4 Irish human ancestry and until I lived abroad -- I was always militant about the 'abuse' my 1/4 Irishness took from the American Wasp elite. I'm also a 1/4 English WASP human ancestry so it didn't make much sense ;-), but I realize now at some level what was done to the Irish in America was a humbling process that was necessary to create the new American identity -- devoid of smaller tribalism -- and immersed fully in the largest practical human institution with modern military technology: the nation-state.

But this gets to an interesting question -- why did multiculturalism come into being in Europe because before the 1960s it was not multicultural. Colonial guilt is not a sufficient answer. How did colonial guilt infect the academy and media?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, America is a sort of a "nation state" however it is a relatively new breed. In the old world, to qualify as a nation, a people must have a common culture, language and heritage. They also need a national goal to set the path for the nation to follow. As for America, it has the first two characteristics, but common heritage is often not the case, so there is a fourth element in the equation, which self-interest of the individual. The common self interests of the individuals of different heritage that live in America is what makes it a "nation", if I may be so bold to express my opinion.

As for why multiculturalism came into being...Well, I don't think that colonial guilt has anything to do with it, but rather with an extreme contempt towards nationalism due to WWII. The fact is, the American concept of internationalist capitalism which was also-anti nationalist and quite individualistic in nature made these countries become more and more cosmopolitan in their internal policies, while they brought more and more people from their ex-colonies as workers, some people thought that forcing immigrants to conform with the native culture was the doing of the fascistic nationalists that had a grip on the government, and they saw the solution in breaking the national spirit by bringing the native culture and traditions on the level of the culture of the immigrants, making them "equal" on paper, and soon thereafter in practice aswell, just to curb the national identity of the natives in order to conform with their more internationalist, cosmopolitan and humanist visions of the world.
But frankly, they both alienated the immigrants and the natives, now these two generally clash in Europe, as it comes to light that the natives and immigrants are actually not on the same level, and they never can be. The natives have lived and ruled those lands for centuries, they have a claim on those lands based on heritage and years of rule, they share a bond with their country, whereas the immigrants do not share any other bond than what made them emigrate to those lands, namely, better life standards, material desire. They do not have any spiritual connection to the country they live in, and find it hard to conform to the system if they are not required to do so, and well, the current policies of Western European countries do everything in their power to make them as comfortable as possible.
However, since they have no connections in those lands than perhaps a single generation going back, most of them also lack any real family savings and inheritance, which makes them poor in comparison to the natives, and this in itself gives them the impression that social justice does not exist, which is why, especially the younger generations are more involved with crime. Most immigrants live in ethnic enclaves and ghettos, which makes them even less willing to integrate. This tells me much about why multiculturalism is the epitome of failure for nation states.
Nations should build their internal policies on the identity of the founding majority. If one were to take into account ever marginal group and minority, it would simply create more division. I guess people have forgotten that the majority is not dependent on the minority, in fact, its the way around, it is the minority which has to conform with the majority. But in todays world, such realities are often ignored in favor of baseless idealism.

[Nineteen]

Nah its not bad , both side provides many mutual interests and benefits .

[là bạn điên]

There are two issues. The first is Multiculturalism as a description and the second as a policy.

Multiculturalism exists when a group migrates and fails to integrate with the host culture.

It is a policy when governments seek to foster this failure to integrate it and publicise this failure as a social good and name it 'diversity'.

Its roots are in Cultural Marxism and it seems to date from the Early 80's when it was opposed by a head teacher named Ray Honeyfood who was hounded out of his job by the Labour local Authority.

IMHO Multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster and has caused amazing levels of social division especially between Muslims and Non Muslims.

[Lemonvariable72]

The problem I think is that multicultural policy wants to paint all with the same brush and you can't. There is a huge between a working class Indian Hindu and fundamentalist from Iran. The problem is that Muslims (not all) seek to dominate, and when you create a culture designed for multiculturalism they see it as a weakness to exploit. Not to mention they are often more racist then anyone. However I do think we should accept people that are willing to accept the values that make the west strong. And we should not bent to those who would change that.