The problem with multiculturalism

Sun Devil

Sun Devil

Death and Taxes
I actually want to thank Phill Rabbit for giving me an idea of a thread regarding multiculturalism, in which gave me the idea to actually continue on with the discussion of the pros and cons of multiculturalism. In the following I will submit some argument's for an against multiculturalism and hopefully with enough people commenting in this thread we can continue to discuss some of our personal issues regarding this subject. I will make every attempt to not burden anyone here with a "wall of text" but will take snippets from various sources that I feel are strongly for or against the OP.

The argument against multiculturalism

"The multicultural project in its contemporary form suffers from two grievous flaws: the filter is too wide, allowing into the country unskilled people who are poorly equipped to participate in a modern, technologically oriented economy and who consequently become a financial burden to the nation, disproportionately swelling the welfare rolls; and, no less critical, many of these immigrant groups import the hatreds, prejudices and conflicts of their countries of origin, sequester themselves with official approval into closed or aggressive enclaves, and often cause violence and disruption in the public life of their new home."

Of course, in those cases where immigrant societies, while preserving their cultural habits and religious beliefs in the private sphere, make every effort to integrate into the public domain, to respect the laws, assumptions and folkways of their host, and to contribute to the economic vitality of their adopted country—in such cases, multiculturalism may be said to have succeeded. We are, after all, a country of immigrants. Nearly everyone has an ancestor who was not born here. But in every Western country, whether in North America, Europe or parts of Australasia, there is one immigrant group whose more radical members refuse to adapt to the heritage culture, insist on the supremacy of their ideas and customs, shamelessly milk the dole, create havoc and mayhem, and pose a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the larger population.

See Reference:http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-solway/the-problem-with-multiculturalism/


The argument for multiculturalism

"Immigrants are a source of diverse knowledge and experience. They can increase innovation, creativity and prosperity in our city. New residents also enrich the cultural fabric of Burnaby by introducing new foods, music, traditions, beliefs and interests.

The Benefits of Hiring Immigrants

•Immigrants can help your business tap into new local and international markets, and expand your customer base through improved cultural awareness and communications.
•Enhance creativity, productivity, and decision-making through diverse approaches.
•Attract and retain top talent in an environment of labour shortages.
•Achieve a competitive edge by engaging more effectively with diverse customers, clients, suppliers and partner companies internationally.
•Enhance your corporate image among international customers.
•Reduce training costs by sourcing international skills and experience from the local immigrant community.


See Reference:http://www.bipt.ca/community/benefits-multiculturalism

 
Bro, you're asking for WAAAAYYYY more than you're going to get. Hell, getting Philly to cite a single source has been a fruitless effort for everyone so far. I don't think he even knows what multiculturalism is.
 
Patrick Pearse said:
Bro, you're asking for WAAAAYYYY more than you're going to get. Hell, getting Philly to cite a single source has been a fruitless effort for everyone so far. I don't think he even knows what multiculturalism is.
Click to expand...

LOL nah I wasn't asking Philly to come here and discuss the why's and how's I was just thanking him of giving me the idea of the current topic....LOL
 
My Opinion on the OP

I will play devil's advocate here and be against multiculturalism. I firmly believe that in essence, it does polarize society leaving open the possibility of racism and societal backlash between ethnic groups. Using California for example, as everyone knows there is a huge influx of immigrants (both illegal and legal but more so illegal here) that has shifted the social demographic in favor of one particular ethnic group which many politicians here have capitalized on (most notably Obama) in hopes of gaining voting favor. I think this in part looking from the political aspect this is one of the main reasons why the implementation of immigration has been relaxed because of the fact that politicians understand that allowing illegal immigrants to obtain licenses will also allow them (politicians) to draw in influence from this particular demographic which in turn isolates other groups who are thus consequently become the minority in terms of political influence.

Another issue I have with multiculturalism is that a lot of immigrants who want to call their new land "home" still maintain that militant attitude of nationalism. Although the United States allows for individualism, often times the benefits of liberty and freedom of speech allows some militants from within the immigrant ranks to display their hatred. It appears to be a double edged sword in some cases since those militants while seeking a new life in a land that allows freedom of speech also in turn, condemns the country they call home while boasting about the cultural pride of the nation they left behind.

In addition to the above, multiculturalism also forces others to bend to the will of a particular ethnic demographic which can also keep someone from obtaining a job opportunity. For example I was recently turned down a really good job in the county because the job preferred someone that could speak spanish. Although the description said "preferred" it was not an actual requirement for the job. From my understanding of that situation from speaking to someone on the inside they actually took someone that was less qualified than me both academically and experience wise for the simple fact of a language issue. Thus potentially forcing me to possibly move out of the state as the social demographics are continually shifting to suit the needs of the continuous influx of immigrants. I personally do not like the idea that I have to accommadate another foreign culture that decides to come here willfully and risk the opportunities that born Americans ought to have. Because of multiculturalism and the polarization of other Americans, this will lead to cultural hostilities and resentment.
 
Abraxas said:
I think you have to differentiate between multiculturalism and multi ethnicity, they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a big difference. If we are talking about an influx of people of different cultures that may determine the political and social shift of society I don't see why I would need to make a differentiation.
 
Sun Devil said:
I don't think there is a big difference. If we are talking about an influx of people of different cultures that may determine the political and social shift of society I don't see why I would need to make a differentiation.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference. Take for example, the Roman Empire. Multiethnic, but monolithic in culture (more or less).
 
Sun Devil said:
I don't think there is a big difference. If we are talking about an influx of people of different cultures that may determine the political and social shift of society I don't see why I would need to make a differentiation.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference, the former is about having many cultures existing alongside each other without much interaction whilst the latter is about integrating into the indigenous culture.
 
Patrick Pearse said:
There is a huge difference. Take for example, the Roman Empire. Multiethnic, but monolithic in culture (more or less).
Click to expand...

I find it hardly difficult to separate culture and ethnic identity. I see your point with the Roman Empire example but for purposes of this thread I'm essentially referring to the influx of various cultures from different countries. A good example are Filipinos who identify with the filipino culture of the phillipines etc. Quite obviously here in southern California we have signs and phone services that accomodate people of this particular culture by having services in Tagalog. This is essentially what I'm saying.
 
Abraxas said:
There is a big difference, the former is about having many cultures existing alongside each other without much interaction whilst the latter is about integrating into the indigenous culture.
Click to expand...

Multiculturalism is about interaction and the listed problems that were stated was about how the influx of people from different countries whose cultures are foreign can essentially polarize society. As stated in the OP one of the problems with multiculturalism is the fact that people among the culture who immigrate into a first-world society whose laws are relaxed when it comes to free speech is that people tend to demonize their host country while boasting the former country from which they fled. Nothing in my OP mentioned a specific ethnic group nor was I alluding to that fact.
 
Abraxas said:
There is a big difference, the former is about having many cultures existing alongside each other without much interaction whilst the latter is about integrating into the indigenous culture.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure that there will be those who disagree with this; but I believe that America has accepted multiculturalism, in our "short" history, then most other nations have.
 
I find that multiculturism serves only to divide. This country became great by means of the melting pot because positive elements of these diverse peoples inspired and negative ones could not readily survive. If you want to be french theres France, argintinian, Argentina but if you want to be american then be american. Greatness here is a result of us being mutts. Our whole is very much more than the sum of our parts.
 
Celticguy said:
I find that multiculturism serves only to divide. This country became great by means of the melting pot because positive elements of these diverse peoples inspired and negative ones could not readily survive. If you want to be french theres France, argintinian, Argentina but if you want to be american then be american. Greatness here is a result of us being mutts. Our whole is very much more than the sum of our parts.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. But do consequences outweigh the benefits?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
While I'm sure that there will be those who disagree with this; but I believe that America has accepted multiculturalism, in our "short" history, then most other nations have.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that having a situation where most inner cities are populated by minorities and the rich whilst the middle classes live in the suburbs can really be classified as a successful integration policy.
 
Sun Devil said:
I actually want to thank Phill Rabbit for giving me an idea of a thread regarding multiculturalism, in which gave me the idea to actually continue on with the discussion of the pros and cons of multiculturalism. In the following I will submit some argument's for an against multiculturalism and hopefully with enough people commenting in this thread we can continue to discuss some of our personal issues regarding this subject. I will make every attempt to not burden anyone here with a "wall of text" but will take snippets from various sources that I feel are strongly for or against the OP.

The argument against multiculturalism

"The multicultural project in its contemporary form suffers from two grievous flaws: the filter is too wide, allowing into the country unskilled people who are poorly equipped to participate in a modern, technologically oriented economy and who consequently become a financial burden to the nation, disproportionately swelling the welfare rolls; and, no less critical, many of these immigrant groups import the hatreds, prejudices and conflicts of their countries of origin, sequester themselves with official approval into closed or aggressive enclaves, and often cause violence and disruption in the public life of their new home."

Of course, in those cases where immigrant societies, while preserving their cultural habits and religious beliefs in the private sphere, make every effort to integrate into the public domain, to respect the laws, assumptions and folkways of their host, and to contribute to the economic vitality of their adopted country—in such cases, multiculturalism may be said to have succeeded. We are, after all, a country of immigrants. Nearly everyone has an ancestor who was not born here. But in every Western country, whether in North America, Europe or parts of Australasia, there is one immigrant group whose more radical members refuse to adapt to the heritage culture, insist on the supremacy of their ideas and customs, shamelessly milk the dole, create havoc and mayhem, and pose a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the larger population.

See Reference:http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-solway/the-problem-with-multiculturalism/


The argument for multiculturalism

"Immigrants are a source of diverse knowledge and experience. They can increase innovation, creativity and prosperity in our city. New residents also enrich the cultural fabric of Burnaby by introducing new foods, music, traditions, beliefs and interests.

The Benefits of Hiring Immigrants

•Immigrants can help your business tap into new local and international markets, and expand your customer base through improved cultural awareness and communications.
•Enhance creativity, productivity, and decision-making through diverse approaches.
•Attract and retain top talent in an environment of labour shortages.
•Achieve a competitive edge by engaging more effectively with diverse customers, clients, suppliers and partner companies internationally.
•Enhance your corporate image among international customers.
•Reduce training costs by sourcing international skills and experience from the local immigrant community.


See Reference:http://www.bipt.ca/community/benefits-multiculturalism
Click to expand...

I don't think these sources are talking about the same thing, or what you claim they are discussing: immigration is not multiculturalism. Immigration may have the effect of creating in the long term a multicultural society, but they are not the same thing nor does one necessarily lead to the other. In short, the juxtaposition of these two pieces with their rather different focuses is striking but probably not helpful or educational.

The first fragment condemns immigration, while merely using the rhetoric of "multiculturalism," which on the right has been demonized in the same way that the word "liberal" has, to create a kind of hysteria that has nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with immigration and the anti-immigration stand it is proposing. The second snippet forgoes such multicultural rhetoric because it has no need to demonize and simply talks about the positive results of immigration. Again probably not relevant to a discussion of multiculturalism.

In short, these two pieces present a rather confused and confusing mix of different and contradictory claims that may or may not have anything to do with multiculturalism proper but certainly do not enlighten us as to what it is or why it is important. I would offer multiculturalism is not the same thing as immigration. In fact, immigration refers to the act of coming to the country; multiculturalism refers to the condition created by many diverse populations all struggling to maintain their cultural identity in the face of a dominant majority opinion that tends to claim that their culture is superior and that this culture is geographically contingent and that residing in a certain geographical area means that certain cultural imperatives apply. Multiculturalism seems to imply some sort of unspoken resistance to this notion of cultural supremacy. This is different and only tangentially related to immigration and the problems associated with immigration which is not culturally driven but more generally economically driven.

I wrote in short paragraphs although this all works just as well as one long paragraph.
 
Dantès said:
I don't think these sources are talking about the same thing, or what you claim they are discussing: immigration is not multiculturalism. Immigration may have the effect of creating in the long term a multicultural society, but they are not the same thing nor does one necessarily lead to the other. In short, the juxtaposition of these two pieces with their rather different focuses is striking but probably not helpful or educational.

The first fragment condemns immigration, while merely using the rhetoric of "multiculturalism," which on the right has been demonized in the same way that the word "liberal" has, to create a kind of hysteria that has nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with immigration and the anti-immigration stand it is proposing. The second snippet forgoes such multicultural rhetoric because it has no need to demonize and simply talks about the positive results of immigration. Again probably not relevant to a discussion of multiculturalism.

In short, these two pieces present a rather confused and confusing mix of different and contradictory claims that may or may not have anything to do with multiculturalism proper but certainly do not enlighten us as to what it is or why it is important. I would offer multiculturalism is not the same thing as immigration. In fact, immigration refers to the act of coming to the country; multiculturalism refers to the condition created by many diverse populations all struggling to maintain their cultural identity in the face of a dominant majority opinion that tends to claim that their culture is superior and that this culture is geographically contingent and that residing in a certain geographical area means that certain cultural imperatives apply. Multiculturalism seems to imply some sort of unspoken resistance to this notion of cultural supremacy. This is different and only tangentially related to immigration and the problems associated with immigration which is not culturally driven but more generally economically driven.

I wrote in short paragraphs although this all works just as well as one long paragraph.
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at it differently. Without the influx of people from various countries we wouldn't have such diversity as we do today, so yes, immigration is not the same as multiculturalism in the sense of definition however one can be a proxy to the other is basically the gist of what this thread is about. This is why we hear of situations like that of Europe when it comes to the influx of immigrants. For example Britain, for instance. A lot of issues concerning the influx of immigrants, militant behavior and Islamophobia are all a part of the discussing concerning their continued "multicultural society." A lot of people against immigration along with the multicultural policies is the fact that many immigrants do not acclimate to "English culture."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top