Multiculturalism

Post Reply New Topic

The variety of life topic

Let us open this up.

Pros and cons of the multicultural persuasion. Let it all hang out!!

might want to define what you consider multiculturalism first... I'm just going on the theory of cultural contact breeds cultural diffusion...

Defining the terms topic

already we have controversy! I was worried if I narrowed it I would offend those who prefer open-ended terminology.

By multicultural I mean that many cultures in one country are tolerated, encouraged and respected, and that politics and government reflect this when enacting legislation. No one culture is dominant, and different languages are spoken/taught in schools. Different lifestyles are studied and racial/cultural discrimination of any culture is contrary to human rights.

Where does this lead??? Thoughts?

I do not see multiculturalism as inherrently positive or negative, and there is no neutral option in your poll.

I do believe that cultures that are at a base level opposed should never exist in the same country. Although cultures can compliment each other and have a positive effect upon one another.

I don't think multiculturalism is an inherently good thing, but it sure beats the alternatives, namely uniculturalism. My hope is that in a society where many cultures are present, the cream will float to the top.

I don't think that multiculturalism in terms of actually having multiple cultures is actually possible or at least plausible and workable. The most that is possible is intercultural trade (different societies but still a shared economy through trade) or tolerant uniculturalism (there is only one basic culture, but cosmetic differences such as minor religious practices, holidays, favorite activities, favorite foods, etc, are accepted so long as they do not interfere with the workings of that society).

The reason being that culture is pervasive, and can impact a large number of social relations to an extent that multiple cultures in the same area will just lead to conflict between cultures. The idea of "intercultural understanding" and "tolerance" in the first place, isn't an idea that is above culture, but still within a culture, and thus a true multiculturalism cannot necessarily work.

This idea can be seen at an extreme with well... terroristic Islam, but even relatively fundamentalist Christians have attacked the foundations of modern society because they see it as being based upon reducing the basis own culture to just a hobby. (which I argue is necessary for society)

A video with Christian philosopher JP Moreland, who basically argues that tolerance is a threat to Christianity by reducing it's truth cultural truth claims to only claims of a hobby. Here

I have to agree with AG that this is impossible. If multiple cultures coexist, they simply become one culture with varying components of the previous ones. The amalgamation of several cultures into one is possible, and perhaps a good thing, as is one culture borrowing from another, but multiple cultures existing directly alongside each other in such a fashion is simply inconceivable.

I'm going to jump on the AG band wagon too.

In before brusilov.

Multiculturalism is most definitely possible. There are many very distinct cultures in very close proximity all throughout New York City and the outer boroughs.

It seems our racists are seasonal posters- I expect that, like codarac, brusilov will appear from time to time with a flurry of posts, then mostly disappear.

You have to recognize that I would likely define this as either one of two things:
intercultural trade
or
tolerant uniculturalism
possibly a combination of both, but neither are multiculturalism.

I would bet in the case of New York, it is likely the latter. The reason I say that is simple:
Where do the children go to school(or what do they do for school)? What kind of economic arrangements are accepted by the people? What kind of legal arrangements dominate? What kind of social arrangements generally exist in New York? What drives the political structure?

In the end, what emerges, and what HAS TO emerge is the existence of a general defining culture for a grouping in an area that is considered part of the same society. Agreements on laws and rules and punishments, agreements on economic conventions, agreements on proper political dynamics, agreements on proper parenting and educational methods, agreements on social dynamics, etc, have to exist. The reason being that there is no such thing as a neutral position, so therefore for any of these things to work, there must be a single position to refer back to. If nothing of the sort exists, then there aren't multiple cultures coexisting, but rather different unicultural groups that are in close proximity but mostly detached.(which isn't the multi-cultural ideal)

In any case, I think a major thing involved here is language, as to me multiculturalism is practically defined as impossible from the get-go. Even if certain non-standard cultural practices are tolerated, this is likely just the result of the ideology of the dominant culture, rather than a work of "multiple cultures".

Bold idea topic

This is interesting. If multiculturalism is impossible as a definition, then why the controversy?

Is there then only a default culture tolerant of the minorities? This may explain Switzerland's prosperity, The Caribbean is also "multiple-cultured", but there have been problems due no doubt to its third world economy. The same might also be said of India.

You must be new here. You lose either way. Definition to broad, or too narrow. Too many poll options, or not enough options.

Last edited by monty on 19 Jun 2009, 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

I dunno - the Amish exist as a distinctly different culture inside the US... they have survived for centuries as very different, alongside a much bigger culture, not really being amalgamated or absorbed.

there is attempts at multiculturalism in australia as well. it is ok, but they do tend to coalesce in their native habits somewhat.

they can not fully assimilate with us. i guess that is not the point. i do not know how to see this except from my own neuronal arrangements.

at first we got italians, and they were hard workers and integrated well (that was before i was born but i read about it). we also got may brits. i think that happened in 1948.

i believe australians liked the italians better than the english people, because the english people whinged and whined so much about how england was better than here.

also there was some story going about (which i heard when i was a kid) that english people bathed only once per week.

italian people gave australia some very good culinary ideas, and also they were friendly.
english cultures were complaining, but they were polite and totally civilized.

after i was born, and i was about 10, they started to let asians into australia in large numbers (some people called it the "asian invasion"). they saw it as an avalanche of ant like people swarming into australia and clogging our streets and other utilities.

but asians are very hygienic and polite and they fit in well to a modern unruffled society, so australia apparently lost its worry about asians immigrating here by the mid 1990's.

but the lebanese people and the middle eastern people in australia are very undesirable i believe. they are so deeply rooted in their own pride of heritage, and they look scornfully on the antics of the free western citizens of australia.

they are very testosterone laden, and they demand that we act like them and believe in their god or we will pay.
how dare they. they are granted citizenship in our country and then they pack together and still hate western ideals and they pack rape innocent australian girls.

i do not think all middle eastern people in australia are like that, but a percentage of that population is, and that percentage is too high in my opinion.