Is multi-culturalism dangerous?

[Sunstone]

The United States has survived as a country -- without having to fight more than one civil war -- largely because it has successfully assimilated generation after generation of immigrants -- instead of allowing each ethnic group to preserve all aspects of their culture. Basically, the US lets you keep your favorite dances and your favorite desserts, but strongly discourages you from keeping cultural traditions that compete or interfere with certain core American values. However much English and sociology departments like to hold it up as a banner, genuine multi-culturalism is a horse that never ran in America.

 

[dust1n]

Diversity only works when respect and tolerance are mutual. Otherwise you end up with foreign cultures trying to impose themselves on their host country.

And it never works the other way around... or at least not enough to mention it.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm highly in favour of Multiracialism, however I'm skeptical of Multiculturalism. It's the heavy cultural baggage and ideologies that make me concerned. I don't mind where you're from, or what colour your skin is, but if you're bringing with you very heavy cultural baggage and ideological extremes that're potentially incompatible with the host nation, then I may get a little concerned.

 

[Flankerl]

The United States has survived as a country -- without having to fight more than one civil war -- largely because it has successfully assimilated generation after generation of immigrants -- instead of allowing each ethnic group to preserve all aspects of their culture. Basically, the US lets you keep your favorite dances and your favorite desserts, but strongly discourages you from keeping cultural traditions that compete or interfere with certain core American values. However much English and sociology departments like to hold it up as a banner, genuine multi-culturalism is a horse that never ran in America.

Which is what politicians of various european countries will never understand.



But the US has an unfair advantage. If you are from africa or middle easter asia you simply cant get to the US that easy. You need money and its far more expensive than just to go to europe. Which is why the US usually ends up with people who are more easily integrated into society than european countries who usually get people who are simply poor and not educated.

 

[Penumbra]

The United States has survived as a country -- without having to fight more than one civil war -- largely because it has successfully assimilated generation after generation of immigrants -- instead of allowing each ethnic group to preserve all aspects of their culture. Basically, the US lets you keep your favorite dances and your favorite desserts, but strongly discourages you from keeping cultural traditions that compete or interfere with certain core American values. However much English and sociology departments like to hold it up as a banner, genuine multi-culturalism is a horse that never ran in America.

To explore this idea further, particularly the emphasized parts, what steps do you believe that American society takes to actively disallow or strongly discourage cultural traditions from competing with core American values?

 

[LuisDantas]

To explore this idea further, particularly the emphasized parts, what steps do you believe that American society takes to actively disallow or strongly discourage cultural traditions from competing with core American values?

If I may, it seems to me that presenting "America" as a quasi-real entity is chief among them. A related one is the frequent reference to the Founding Fathers, which I have criticized in other threads.

The implication (and a very artificial one it is) is that the USA do in some significant sense exist as more than simply the result of the choices and actions of its members. Almost as if there is some sort of primordial or perfect conception of "America" and people had an inherent duty to try and fulfill it.

Another element, a fairly subtle one, is the spread of specific understandings of certain values, particularly freedom and personal responsibility. It comes particularly clear in controversies about matters such as gun ownership, where there is a strong perceived yet quite artificial association of the virtuous quality with a certain stance, to the point that it becomes difficult to be even understood while presenting opposing views. In this example, while many Americans see gun ownership as the exercise of personal freedoms, it can as easily and arguably more properly be understood as a thread to those freedoms. But taking such a stance is apparently so unusual and ill-supported in American society that actually meeting or understanding it seems to be quite rare.

Quite often that takes the form of supporting a very specific, arguably decadent and destructive view of the relationship between the duties and rights of the individual and larger society. Despite Benjamin Franklyn's famous saying about the need to hang together, the definite trend in recent decades has been to give up on larger society and only care about it to the extent necessary to ensure a certain level of domain over one's immediate environment. While that may be presented as a respectful move (and, indeed, as necessary for multi-culturalism itself to even exist), the current levels of such isolationism don't seem to be either reasonable, wise or even sustainable to me.

 

[Sunstone]

To explore this idea further, particularly the emphasized parts, what steps do you believe that American society takes to actively disallow or strongly discourage cultural traditions from competing with core American values?

I think most of the ways in which competition with core American values is accomplished are rather subtle to describe, but also rather obvious to anyone who's been there. My first wife was a first generation Czech immigrant, and most of our circle of friends were also first or second generation immigrants. All or nearly all of those people -- who numbered maybe 40 or 50 people -- were hugely concerned with blending into American culture. I cannot recall even a single one of that crowd who was more concerned with keeping his or her cultural heritage than they were with "becoming American", except they tended to strongly prefer their traditional cuisine, holiday traditions, and such things as those. I gather that was largely because of many pressures -- some subtle, a few not so subtle -- to assimilate. For instance, they all seemed aware of -- or at least, they all believed -- that their prospects for good job compensation significantly depended on how "American" they seemed to employers. Of course, this group of immigrants was comprised almost entirely of professionals, so they were able to get jobs. But, as my mother-in-law, for instance, put it: "The more you are like an American to them, the better they pay you."

Thomas Sowell, in his book Ethnic America, somewhere points out that first and second generation immigrants to the US typically make an effort to assimilate. Then, the third generation or so sometimes takes an interest in their cultural heritage and, say, reads up on the old country. But by that time they have dropped from their cultural heritage many notions and traditions that conflict with American values, such as a notion there is something inherently wrong with trying to raise one's station in life.

 

[Penumbra]

If I may, it seems to me that presenting "America" as a quasi-real entity is chief among them. A related one is the frequent reference to the Founding Fathers, which I have criticized in other threads.

The implication (and a very artificial one it is) is that the USA do in some significant sense exist as more than simply the result of the choices and actions of its members. Almost as if there is some sort of primordial or perfect conception of "America" and people had an inherent duty to try and fulfill it.

There's a lot there, Luis, that wasn't in the post you responded to. "America", as in the United States of America, is indeed a real entity as it is a defined federation, and in this context was brought up because the post I responded to was specifically about the United States.

I brought up this particular country because Sunstone brought it up, and it was reasonable for him to bring it up because he was talking about that particular country.

Another element, a fairly subtle one, is the spread of specific understandings of certain values, particularly freedom and personal responsibility. It comes particularly clear in controversies about matters such as gun ownership, where there is a strong perceived yet quite artificial association of the virtuous quality with a certain stance, to the point that it becomes difficult to be even understood while presenting opposing views. In this example, while many Americans see gun ownership as the exercise of personal freedoms, it can as easily and arguably more properly be understood as a thread to those freedoms. But taking such a stance is apparently so unusual and ill-supported in American society that actually meeting or understanding it seems to be quite rare.

Quite often that takes the form of supporting a very specific, arguably decadent and destructive view of the relationship between the duties and rights of the individual and larger society. Despite Benjamin Franklyn's famous saying about the need to hang together, the definite trend in recent decades has been to give up on larger society and only care about it to the extent necessary to ensure a certain level of domain over one's immediate environment. While that may be presented as a respectful move (and, indeed, as necessary for multi-culturalism itself to even exist), the current levels of such isolationism don't seem to be either reasonable, wise or even sustainable to me.

I guess my only real question here is, have you been to the U.S.? Lived here?

For someone to talk about the nuances of American culture so casually, whether accurate or not, it sounds as though you must have visited for a while.

Personally, I'd be pretty cautious about stating facts about the nuances of Brazilian culture, because most of what I know about Brazil is found on Wikipedia rather than from a real world understanding of the country and the people. I wouldn't be confident enough to describe Brazilian culture to a Brazilian citizen unless I was pretty well acquainted with that culture.

 

[Penumbra]

I think most of the ways in which competition with core American values is accomplished are rather subtle to describe, but also rather obvious to anyone who's been there. My first wife was a first generation Czech immigrant, and most of our circle of friends were also first or second generation immigrants. All or nearly all of those people -- who numbered maybe 40 or 50 people -- were hugely concerned with blending into American culture. I cannot recall even a single one of that crowd who was more concerned with keeping his or her cultural heritage than they were with "becoming American", except they tended to strongly prefer their traditional cuisine, holiday traditions, and such things as those. I gather that was largely because of many pressures -- some subtle, a few not so subtle -- to assimilate. For instance, they all seemed aware of -- or at least, they all believed -- that their prospects for good job compensation significantly depended on how "American" they seemed to employers. Of course, this group of immigrants was comprised almost entirely of professionals, so they were able to get jobs. But, as my mother-in-law, for instance, put it: "The more you are like an American to them, the better they pay you."

Thomas Sowell, in his book Ethnic America, somewhere points out that first and second generation immigrants to the US typically make an effort to assimilate. Then, the third generation or so sometimes takes an interest in their cultural heritage and, say, reads up on the old country. But by that time they have dropped from their cultural heritage many notions and traditions that conflict with American values, such as a notion there is something inherently wrong with trying to raise one's station in life.

The bolded part best describes my question. What's the difference between a society that convinces immigrants to adopt to their culture, compared to immigrants that are self-motivated to adopt to that culture? Do some cultures have more specific aspects that put more pressure on immigrants to blend in?

For example, if we contrast culture in the U.S. to Britain which was featured in the OP, are British managers more relaxed about hiring an employee that is clearly not fully adopted to British culture, whereas American managers are more likely to be focused on such things? Or France, Germany, or Sweden?

I'm also interested in the contrast of immigrants over time. Irish immigrants from the 1800's seem very well integrated compared to Mexican immigrants, for a statistical example. There are tenfold more people in the U.S. that have a partial Irish descent than the population of Ireland.

There could be a language difference (as in, Irish immigrants already spoke English, whereas Mexican immigrants often do not). Or it could be that in the 50 years after mass Irish immigration, they were indeed rather isolated, but now looking at it a century and a half later, it seems rather well blended compared to the more recent Mexican immigration.

Or another comparison would be, say, Irish immigrants in the 1800s in the U.S. compared to immigrants of Muslim countries to Britain today (in which both tend to speak English, I believe). Or Mexican immigrants in the U.S. today compared to Muslim immigrants to Britain today.

 

[LuisDantas]

I really don't know whether I should ask you to forgive something from my post, Penumbra (and since I don't know, it wouldn't be very sincere, so for the moment I will not), but that is just how I am, for good or worse. I don't acknowledge any country as "real", and certainly not due to just happening to live there for nearly all of my life, much less due to legal and similar standings.

Communities are real, as long as they keep existing. Their attributes and particularly their sense of identity, however, are a moving target at best. I guess my personal story allows me to realize that a bit more easily and more emphatically than the average person would.

Since you asked, I have only a very brief direct experience with the USA. I also happen to think it matters little. I can hardly even pretend to be much more aware of Brazilian society just because I live here and happen to "be" one of them. Any attempts at describing the nuances of communities with hundreds of millions of people are by definition pretentious if not dangerous, so I might as well accept that unavoidability and nevertheless jump right in, since the attempt must be made anyway.

 

[Assad91]

Does this mean that wherever large groups of Muslims settle, they will usurp the local authority and institute their own laws? Do we see any other cultures or religious groups do this?

Yeah. I mean, look at all the "Sharia zones" around the nonislamic world

 

[Penumbra]

I really don't know whether I should ask you to forgive something from my post, Penumbra (and since I don't know, it wouldn't be very sincere, so for the moment I will not), but that is just how I am, for good or worse. I don't acknowledge any country as "real", and certainly not due to just happening to live there for nearly all of my life, much less due to legal and similar standings.

No, there's nothing to ask forgiveness for in the post. I just find aspects of it to be somewhat unusual. I wouldn't have commented on it if it were not in response to my post, where rather specific implications and apparent criticisms have been brought up.

Communities are real, as long as they keep existing. Their attributes and particularly their sense of identity, however, are a moving target at best. I guess my personal story allows me to realize that a bit more easily and more emphatically than the average person would.

Since you asked, I have only a very brief direct experience with the USA. I also happen to think it matters little. I can hardly even pretend to be much more aware of Brazilian society just because I live here and happen to "be" one of them. Any attempts at describing the nuances of communities with hundreds of millions of people are by definition pretentious if not dangerous, so I might as well accept that unavoidability and nevertheless jump right in, since the attempt must be made anyway.

I would venture that living in a country and interacting with hundreds or thousands of people there, compared to not doing so, does matter to a certain extent when it comes to knowledge of that culture. People can of course be knowledgeable about a culture in various ways, with one of the larger ones being to directly experience multiple aspects of it. I think you're selling yourself short if you believe that you are less knowledgeable about Brazilian culture than someone like myself who has never been there, for example. I think you're living there does indeed assist your knowledge of at least a significant subset of the subcultures there.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's just the casualness with which you described your view of and criticized American culture seemed rather curious to me. It was presented as a direct cultural intimacy rather than from a somewhat outside perspective. If I were to react to a news story in Brazil, it would likely sound rather external and detached, even if concerned or excited.

To go back to your earlier post, I guess there are two statements worth exploring.

In this example, while many Americans see gun ownership as the exercise of personal freedoms, it can as easily and arguably more properly be understood as a thread to those freedoms. But taking such a stance is apparently so unusual and ill-supported in American society that actually meeting or understanding it seems to be quite rare.

Most of the people I'm familiar with are either against handgun ownership, or are in favor of much heavier restrictions on gun ownership. I'm in a Democratic state, though. Nationwide, there is a leaning towards more strict gun ownership, seeing as how the U.S. basically has the least restrictive gun laws among developed countries and many people want a more reasonable policy.

Here are some recent statistics:
Guns

Despite Benjamin Franklyn's famous saying about the need to hang together, the definite trend in recent decades has been to give up on larger society and only care about it to the extent necessary to ensure a certain level of domain over one's immediate environment.

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this statement (I think it could be considered correct in some contexts and likely incorrect in some other contexts), but my question here would be, what sources or reasons are you basing this statement on?

 

[Breathe]

I'm highly in favour of Multiracialism, however I'm skeptical of Multiculturalism. It's the heavy cultural baggage and ideologies that make me concerned. I don't mind where you're from, or what colour your skin is, but if you're bringing with you very heavy cultural baggage and ideological extremes that're potentially incompatible with the host nation, then I may get a little concerned.

Yeah, that's a good point. I've found most people where I live are usually ok with different races, but not so good with different culture.

I know that people get irritable, as well, when things are attempted to be pushed upon them, such as the "encouragement" not to eat in offices during Ramadan out of respect for Muslims staff and clients, which some places have tried in the past.

Something that recently annoyed me was when I had to talk to the police about witnessing an assault, it was a South Asian lady. I asked if she shook hands, and she replied, "Not with white people", (no word of a lie!) so I said I'll speak to someone else, then. The other police offer said me talking to him (as he was white) instead of her was "kind of racist of me", to which I replied that she was racist for what she said, and I don't plan on speaking to racists if I can help it.

 

[Me Myself]

Multiculturalism, when done right, is amazing.

Multiculturalism, when done badly, can cause a lot of hassle.

Unfortunately, Britain's ****-poor attempt at multiculturalism has caused way too many people to live in small enclaves where people don't like others, an us-vs-them mentality, clinging to ancient doctrines and nationalities. Thankfully, not always, but way too many.

And unfortunately, when people live in closed-off us-vs-them societies, frustration and hatred between groups can build and grow.

When the failures of this form of multiculturalism are ignored, or called racist and dismissed -- as it merely angers and alienates a lot of people who've encountered problems, and it encourages many people who've noticed the problems to support racist groups, because they feel ignored. This has happened with Britain for quite a while.

... And then, the UK government did a complete 180 turn and effectively blamed the immigrants and their descendants, alienating them and also making some natives think that the immigrants and their descendants are responsible.


As for the video, it's not that Muslim extremists are taking over the UK, but they are becoming more and more vocal. They're a tiny number of people, but they're given a lot of leeway (more than a lot of other groups would be if they did this crap) and are made out to be the representation of Muslims; they aren't.

There's many Muslims who do not want to live under shari'a; I expect that out of a majority of Muslims who do support shari'a, more than half would actually hate living in a shari'a state if they did; the idea is more appealing than it would actually be.

Sometimes, though, I see a elements of current, mainstream British 'culture', and I'd rather live under a shari'a controlled government. I can understand why some people would support it when they see the failures of modern Britain.


I don't know what we could do to undo the screw ups of previous British multiculturalism; I don't think we can... :sad:

I agree with all f this.

(Except the speciric olitical comments about Britain, to which
I do not either agree or disagree given my lack of knowledge on the subject.)

Multiculturalism, as so many oer things, depends on the execution and context.

 

[Me Myself]

Now I have read the artcile.

That **** looks scary as ****.

 

[Breathe]

Now I have read the artcile.

That **** looks scary as ****.

Yeah, it really does. I've not seen it where I live though, thankfully. But I actually met a couple, once, who lived in one of the Islam-majority areas here; they actually wore "Islamic" clothes, kept a copy of the Qur'an in the house, and had Islamized their front door and living room.

All that, despite being Christians, because of threats and abuse they had, including broken windows and spraypainted windows.

The police did nothing about it and didn't move them, because there was no threat, they just wanted to move because they were one of the only white families there.


And then politicians scratch their head at the rise of the far right. >_>

 

[Musty]

Even without immigrants most countries have a multicultural society. I went to school in a largely white area but there was ample opportunity for cultural differences rooted in differences in income. The kids living in the social housing were very different culturally from the kids living in massive detached houses with horses in the surrounding lands.

When we talk about immigrants integrating into multicultural society I'm unclear which part of British society we're referring too. My suspicion is that since most immigrants seem to end up in the lower tiers of the society at least part of the societal tension arises from conflict between poor/wealthy cultures rather than dueto specifics of their native culture.

How often do we hear about culture tensions between wealth immigrants and their wealthy British neighbors?

 

[Kerr]

Yeah, that's a good point. I've found most people where I live are usually ok with different races, but not so good with different culture.

I know that people get irritable, as well, when things are attempted to be pushed upon them, such as the "encouragement" not to eat in offices during Ramadan out of respect for Muslims staff and clients, which some places have tried in the past.

I think there is a difference between respecting another culture and "adapting" to it. In your example, I dont mind Muslims fasting during Ramadan. But what you described, to not eat in the offices during Ramadan, seems quite silly, especially considering that its only one party that does the "adaptation". "Adapting" might be the wrong word, though.

Of course, I dont mind if someone decides to do that out of their own free will .

Something that recently annoyed me was when I had to talk to the police about witnessing an assault, it was a South Asian lady. I asked if she shook hands, and she replied, "Not with white people", (no word of a lie!) so I said I'll speak to someone else, then. The other police offer said me talking to him (as he was white) instead of her was "kind of racist of me", to which I replied that she was racist for what she said, and I don't plan on speaking to racists if I can help it.

Racism isnt multiculturalism, though. Its quite the opposite.

On the other hand I think I would probably be annoying to people of some cultures because I dont drink alcohol or eat meat. Thats not going to change no matter where I live (maybe I can compromize the last one if I would starve or something, but not otherwise).

 

[Breathe]

Racism isnt multiculturalism, though. Its quite the opposite.

Yeah, you're right; racism isn't multiculturalism. But I should, apparently, have accepted that she wouldn't shake hands with white people. To the other police officer, that was part of her culture (Was it now? :sarcastic) and so by not accepting that, I was the one being "kind of racist".

So in a way, there's a problem with rather backwards cultural norms being accepted; I don't think they should.

On the other hand I think I would probably be annoying to people of some cultures because I dont drink alcohol or eat meat. Thats not going to change no matter where I live (maybe I can compromize the last one if I would starve or something, but not otherwise).

Same here. We're the life of the party.

Honestly, I think the non-drinking movement is starting to grow a bit where I live; I seem to be bumping into teetotallers left, right and centre recently.

 

[Kerr]

Yeah, you're right; racism isn't multiculturalism. But I should, apparently, have accepted that she wouldn't shake hands with white people. To the other police officer, that was part of her culture (Was it now? :sarcastic) and so by not accepting that, I was the one being "kind of racist".

So in a way, there's a problem with rather backwards cultural norms being accepted; I don't think they should.

A good idea taken too far tends to become a horrible idea .

In all seriousness, though, isnt multiculturalism supposed to go both ways and not just one way?

Same here. We're the life of the party.

Honestly, I think the non-drinking movement is starting to grow a bit where I live; I seem to be bumping into teetotallers left, right and centre recently.

Fun story, but once I was at a party and a guy started to suspect I was a police. I think he was so drunk the only reason he could think of that I didnt drink was that I was an undercover police officer spying on them. Because, you know, thats what the police do. Spy on drunk people.