What is the ultimate goal of the multicultural movement?

Post Reply New Topic

True.

IMO, skin color is only a small part of racism. I actually think, as weird as it sounds, that racism is mostly discrimination of a person's accent. Someone who speaks in a strong accent will probably suffer more racism on average than a person of the same race who speaks the dominant language with no accent.

It also has to do with aspects of the culture people might find offensive or simply dislike. I think skin color is only like, 25% of it.

I will never understand wackos who capitalise "White" and go on and on about "anti-White policies".

Why does this matter? I mean, seriously. Why is it that white people ought to feel solidarity with each other and feel threatened by non-white people?

If tomorrow, all of the white people in the world suddenly had dark skin, would that be extremely terrible? What exactly would be different? I guess I can think of a few negative effects. Like, the dating pool would be less diverse, and if you were attracted to physical properties that white people tend to have, then you'd be out of luck. But would it be the end of the world?

When people talk about disliking and fearing other cultures, that makes sense to me. But disliking and fearing other races? Seriously, isn't there more important stuff to worry about? It's like disliking and fearing left-handed people.

Last edited by Declension on 23 Mar 2012, 1:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well, people did use to fear left handed people. Hopefully one day the concept of racism will seem just as silly.

And people with unibrows

I actually agree with this. I find myself jumping to wild conclusions about people based on accent, far less so based on appearance. I try not to, but it is much more difficult for me personally to *not* judge someone for an accent than it is for me to *not* judge them based on appearance. Southern US accents, in particular, make me prejudicially think 'idiot,' even when, based on the person's actual words, they are intelligent. It is a constant battle with myself.

You're actually both (and several other people are) missing the point. You're not supposed to gradually accumulate a list of humans to not discriminate against; you're supposed to stop discriminating, period. Because people's human rights protect them from discrimination. Discriminating on the basis of culture or mental condition or sex or race or political affiliation etc. are all equally wrong. People should all be subject to the same laws, same treatment, same standards of living . . . so far as those do not encroach on their human rights, in which case their human rights should be respected.

So stop arguing about the semantics of what is race, what is religion, what is culture etc. The discrimination is what is wrong, the fear is what is irrational. - R

I was not trying to argue that my prejudice is rational or good; I was making the minor point that 'the color of their skin' (or the shape of their face) is not the factor that people generally have trouble with on a fundamental level. I *know* that this is something that I need to fight in myself, but it's a hell of a lot harder to relax around people who *sound* different than with people who *look* different. If Obama were exactly the same man and said exactly the same things, but with an LA accent, do you think he would have been elected president? His face didn't disqualify him, but an accent might have. Thus, telling people not to be biased 'on account of skin color' might actually be giving a lot of biases a free pass.

There are two ways of defining "multiculturalism".

1. If you understand multiculturalism literally, it's about different cultures mixing and sharing cultural values.

2. Or you understand it as several cultures co-existing. And usually, you have a dominant culture. In Britain you'd have British culture that dominates and, say, Indian and Chinese culture that exist separately.

What's literal about the first definition? It seems to me to be code for assimilation, which is step one away from multiculturalism, towards monoculture.

The second comes much closer to my experience of diversity (a superior word to multiculturalism, imo) in this country.

The problem with a strict "non-assimilation" policy is that you do have contrary values in many cultures. If you were to respect all those values equally, you'd have to accept that certain cultures are blatantly sexist and homophobic, that some have strong issues with free speech and so on. The problem when talking about "multiculturalism" is that it's not an accurate term in any regard because there is no real separation between culture and norms.

"Culture" as in art tends to be fine, but when one includes "traditions" and "customs" in with "culture" a problem is created, namely that many "traditions" and "customs" are unlawful or incompatible with the values held in the country one comes to.

Women being subservient in Islam is an example of something which is a part of the culture.

Men traditionally having to carry the burden of being the sole provider in certain cultures, lead to the women not learning the language and culture, which means the children tend to have poorer language skills and cultural interaction skills once they start socializing.

Hatred for homosexuality is something which is against the law, yet is tolerated if it can be argued from a religious or cultural basis.

A degree of assimilation when it comes to major formal and informal norms is required in order for cultures to coexist within the same space. For instance, if a country which requires courts to be unbiased in regards to gender cannot coexist with Sharia for instance. The idea that it's ok to rape women who do not cover themselves according to the culture of one person, does not work very well with the concept of women being allowed to dress as they please. I can keep coming with examples, but we can't get away from that assimilation to a degree is required.

Multiculturalism wants to make us all the same. Once it suceeds it will go away. How come all brilliant ideas self destruct?

Mostly because they weren't brilliant ideas to begin with. For one, it assumes that all cultures are equal but some cultures have contributed a lot to positive advancements in human life and culture whereas others have negative contributions.

Thank you TM. I glad to see thinking is making a comeback.

That does not seem to be the case at all here in Canada

Yeah, in Canada multiculturalism refers to the "Cultural Mosaic." That there are many cultures interacting but each retaining their separate identity.