Does multiculturalism defeat the purpose of countries?

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence suggests the second half of your sentence above is certainly true. I can't see why more people don't see it, or don't consider its implications. Non-whites are not playing this feel-good multicultural game. They preach about tolerance and equality when they are minorities in Western lands, but they do not practice it as majorities in their own ancestral lands. It is quite clear they do not want "equality"; they (quite understandably) want what is good for themselves and their kin, and so only preach about equality when it serves their interests. They only get away with it because of the nature of the Western liberal zeitgeist and the elites who inhabit it (who - be they globalists, capitalists, Marxists, careerists or anything else - have somehow decided that the destruction of the West's racial homogenity serves their interests too, regardless of whether people call it "multiculturalism" or some other name).

Words are the shapers of reality for bureaucrats like visagrunt.
Visagrunt, you remind me of a guy called Dussel who used to post here. I prefer your avatar to his though.

Honestly, I hesitate to use the word "they", for a group of different people, many of whom don't know each other or have significant connection in any way other than skin color. I mean, the minorities in Western lands may not really be that deeply connected to the majorities in ancestral lands at all.

Even further, couldn't you talk about ideological opportunism from a large number of different people, rather than just minorities? To single out that group just seems ad hoc.

If the non-western countries lack immigration of people from other cultures, its kinda difficult to embrace multiculturalism.

He'll just refer back to asian nations, such as Japan, which are strict on immigration.

Quite the contrary, codarac. Words do not shape reality--rather, it is the precision of language that ensures that when we communicate we can avoid ambiguity.

Take the distinction between human rights and civil liberties. The right to life and the right to bodily integrity are two human rights. These are so fundamental that no society can properly function where these rights are not respected. Civil liberties, on the other hand, are much more fluid. Freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination are all examples of the latter.

The right to life is no sop to political correctness. Whereas a policy of multiculturalism may manifest itself in the context of civil liberties.

I would have thought that WP would be one place where precision of language was a value more commonly held.

Politics, society and culture topic

What is a country for? A home, a homeland, some place that is a homebase?

Is it desireable to be loyal to where one is born, grew up, was educated, employed, etc.? this is indeed a complex topic.

How much influence does a person or cultural/religious group have in changing the land in which he/she resides? Demographics?Politics? Economics?

Problems incorporating different cultures seems to happen when the existing structures either are unable or unwilling to assist in helping the immigrant peoples adapt and become part of the country. Certain groups become ghettoized and separate and this is not multiculturalism at all. We see this on a smaller scale in Canada in terms of homeless people and First nations who are isolated on '"reserves," and in the US in the deep and dirty south. In many countries like France there are huge enclaves of Islamic immigrants who have been in France for generations and have never felt part of the main society, and were mostly even excluded. The result is high mistrust, poverty, at best, and high crime rates at worst. These ghettoes are also breeding grounds for politicized religious fundamentalism--and even terrorism.

The solution? It is impossible to repair much of the damage, but it is important to understand that the traditional French solution did not work (0f course). Multiculturalism works when a country incorporates the most functional and fair of practices of human/constitutional rights and civil liberties to be fair to all groups. Read Visagrunt's posts.

The Chechens want to break away from Russia and start the next Iran in that region, and the world does not need another Islamic Republic. Putin is just trying to keep Russia together.

Russia is only semi multicultural and Islam really doesn't have a place in Russian society anymore. Ever since the end of the Soviet Union, it's brought nothing but terrorism to Moscow and St Petersburg, violence against Jews and Christians, and increased crime rates. Most of the "Muslim" countries near Russia are abandoning Islam and especially the political version of it, because political Islam brings nothing but problems to the world. Groups like the Uzbeks and Kazakhs were Muslims living under the Russian sphere of influence for centuries, and now that they have their own countries (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc) they're no longer hardcore Muslims. And because of this, they get bullied by Iran constantly because these countries are secular. All of the post Soviet bloc countries broke away from multiculturalism and chose self determination and nationalism instead.

Maybe Russia isn't the best example. Other Eastern European countries like the Czech and Slovak Republics, Belarus, Poland, etc do not open their borders to Muslims and their way of life. It's incompatible with Slavic society and we won't listen to any human rights group that tries to tell us otherwise. Japan and Korea can be the Eastern example, as said earlier in this thread, and look how advanced Japan and Korea are because they are truly Japanese and truly Korean, respectively. The standard of living in Eastern Europe and far east Asia is getting better and better every year, and that is something that is completely disconnected to multiculturalism. Again, this is something a Canadian or American would not understand, because their societies were built on multicultural principles and they tend to think the whole world works like America. (i.e. the Iraq War) Slavic and other European societies weren't built on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, simple as that, and the politically correct that force it on citizens of their own country do not have their country's best interests in mind.

I'll consider standard of living, Scandanivian countries always have the highest results in those polls and they are not multicultural at all. Everyone is either Lutheran or agnostic, with some Jews but, the truth is, the Jews never cause problems. Same can not be said for Muslims. The exception to the Scandinavian high SOL is Sweden, a country losing their national identity, in the past 20 years their ridiculous leftist government is basically begging Muslims and all of the problems they bring to come in to Sweden. And this goes back to the original question of the topic, multiculturalism does not belong in Europe, because if Sweden has its own ethnic group in a minority, than what is the point of there even being Sweden? The purpose and self determination of the country's people would be defeated by multiculturalism.

so i'm not the only one who sees the irony of having our open mindedness make up for the lack thereof seen in some immigrants in europe. this is why muslims who kill their family members in europe get ligher sentences than other murderers, condoning mysogyny for the sake of being "pc":roll:

Last edited by petitesouris on 13 Aug 2010, 7:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

chechnya already has become like iran with its use of the sharia law and while putin has worked with chechnya's so called leader, the province is kept under control, yet at the expense of having a dictator who commits war crimes.

also, even if russia is trying to control islam within its own borders, it is helping iran construct nuclear weapons, which is a worse threat to countries than islamic immigration.

Last edited by petitesouris on 14 Aug 2010, 1:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.

nicely argued. contrary to what most nationalists or advocates of collective rights would argue, most human rights groups do not try to westernize other areas of the world. in other words, eliminating hate crimes to keep people "in their place" is paramount, but it is fine for people to follow their traditions and family values if they are not harmful. only people in a certain place could overcome their own regressive attitudes, however appalling, and the first step to eliminate them is to end barbaric punishments that serve to uphold them.

+1

Multiculturalism is a key component of a liberal democracy. Liberal democracy proposes a state of secular laws and an equal right to participate by all. It does not really recognize an official culture or religion but tolerates a diversity of different customs and points of view within the bounds that people are not attacking each other over it. To an extent, cultures and religions must change a little bit to accept this Zeitgeist of tolerance and diversity. This does lessen the kind of militant nationalism that creates divisive conflict, but it hasn't eliminated distinct nation-states yet. Canada and the United States are both liberal democracies with similar traditions and dominant cultures, but they have not assimilated each other.

If you head further to the left, some strands of socialism propose an internationalism, seeing national differences as irrelevant to the real conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Anarchists don't believe in the utility of the state to begin with.

despotic countries often use that excuse. cultural relativism takes its worst form in international relations, where objectionable leaders are not really challenged.

traditional governments often critique individual rights, claiming that their abbrogation is for the good of society. the fallacy of this arguement is that while the concept of societal welfare is nebulous, the effects of the death penalty and corporal punishment on persecuted individuals are quite real. the vagueness of what benefits the nation as a whole is convenient for governments, especially when they can make national security crises appear longer. also, is convicting someone of treason, after a fair trial, the same as beheading someone for eating pork governments, cultures, and religions are not merely "things" but are made of people, that should be protected by the government, instead of becoming slaves to it.

perhaps this arguement is also vague, as no one would compare modern china to sudan, and neither does challenging governments mean that military intervention should happen, which is what occured in iraq. yet, claiming that all countries have competent leaders leads to slower responses in genocides.

Last edited by petitesouris on 15 Aug 2010, 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

NeantHumane topic