Multiculturalsim
Discussion
PWeston said:
The two are rather inter-linked what with one being the product of the other.
It's fascistic to desire a culturally homogenous society? Really? Do you not acknowledge that there are rather egregious differences between some cultures? Or are you a moral relativist who is fine with polygamy and child marriage (extreme but all too common examples) so long as it's brown people doing it?
The bottom line is that government should not be sponsoring mass migration of any cultures...let alone the ones far less likely to integrate.
Yes it is fascist to desire a culturally homogeneous society. That's precisely what the Nazi's wanted; and went to some horrific extremes to achieve. To avoid violating Godwin's law fully... I could also use examples of the Rwandan genocide or the trail of tears, many others to iterate what happens when one cultural majority decides it wants a culturally homoegenous society, It's fascistic to desire a culturally homogenous society? Really? Do you not acknowledge that there are rather egregious differences between some cultures? Or are you a moral relativist who is fine with polygamy and child marriage (extreme but all too common examples) so long as it's brown people doing it?
The bottom line is that government should not be sponsoring mass migration of any cultures...let alone the ones far less likely to integrate.
The debate is about multiculturalism; but the true issue you wish to discuss is the immigration of muslims. I've no interest in going down that rabbit hole.
Edited by esxste on Wednesday 18th April 12:21
CaptainSlow said:
Eric Mc said:
I eat Indian food. It works for me.
Indian food in the UK is as a result of a multi-influenced mono-culture. Multiculturalism leads to lack of integration and division.
My definition is obviously different to your more narrow definition.
Eric Mc said:
CaptainSlow said:
Eric Mc said:
I eat Indian food. It works for me.
Indian food in the UK is as a result of a multi-influenced mono-culture. Multiculturalism leads to lack of integration and division.
My definition is obviously different to your more narrow definition.
People get multicultural and multiracial mixed up, which doesn't help.
esxste said:
Yes it is fascist to desire a culturally homogeneous society. That's precisely what the Nazi's wanted; and went to some horrific extremes to achieve. To avoid violating Godwin's law fully... I could also use examples of the Rwandan genocide or the trail of tears, many others to iterate what happens when one cultural majority decides it wants a culturally homoegenous society,
The debate is about multiculturalism; but the true issue you wish to discuss is the immigration of muslims. I've no interest in going down that rabbit hole.
The Nazis desired a RACIALLY homogenous society. If you're going to slur me at least be accurate. Jews in Germany in the 1930s were, by most accounts, perfectly integrated (they'd been there a long time!) and were not part of an entirely different sub-culture with opposing values. It is wholly dishonest to compare any critics of mass immigration to the Nazis - thankfully most reasonable people see through such asinine assertions.The debate is about multiculturalism; but the true issue you wish to discuss is the immigration of muslims. I've no interest in going down that rabbit hole.
Edited by esxste on Wednesday 18th April 12:21
Out of interest, do you regard the likes of modern day Japan and South Korea as fascistic countries? Do you think most Japanese or South Korean people hold fascist views? If so what should be done to re-educate them?
I live in a nation of immigrants.
My suburb is now considered to be largely Chinese. 20 years ago it was Dutch. 20 years before that it was Greek.
By and large in Australia, multiculturalism works. Migrants are Australians, but keep elements of their original culture - hence so much great food and excellent coffee.
The various waves of migrants seem to take about three generations to become just another part of the country - they keep the cuisine and some cultural elements, but the ethnicity gets blurred out due to marriage / partnerships outside their ethnic group.
I think this is true of the US too - for example New York is a patchwork of suburbs with different ethnicity, culture, and food - but they are all Americans.
I don't know how different Britain is, or why : maybe there's less cross - ethnic marriage?
My suburb is now considered to be largely Chinese. 20 years ago it was Dutch. 20 years before that it was Greek.
By and large in Australia, multiculturalism works. Migrants are Australians, but keep elements of their original culture - hence so much great food and excellent coffee.
The various waves of migrants seem to take about three generations to become just another part of the country - they keep the cuisine and some cultural elements, but the ethnicity gets blurred out due to marriage / partnerships outside their ethnic group.
I think this is true of the US too - for example New York is a patchwork of suburbs with different ethnicity, culture, and food - but they are all Americans.
I don't know how different Britain is, or why : maybe there's less cross - ethnic marriage?
PWeston said:
The Nazis desired a RACIALLY homogenous society.
If you're going to comment on the Nazis, at least learn about them. The Aryan ideal wasn't just racial, it was cultural too. The Nazi's had fully defined the perfect German, not simply the perfect white person. Nazism dictated that all other cultures and political systems were inferior, not just races. They weren't kind to the British, who were considered dirty and backwards for having a monarch, and the Americans were considered soft playboys without the stomach to fight. Both inferior to the Aryan Ubermech (I cant be arsed finding the Umlaut).PWeston said:
The Nazis desired a RACIALLY homogenous society
They blathered on an awful lot about "kultur" as well.They weren't as specific as you might like to think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Chamber_of_Cul...
wisbech said:
UK was multicultural long before immigration
If you look at pre war surveys, the middle class were a different culture to the working class - let alone going back to pre WW1 days
The UK was formed from two distinct cultures, English and Scottish so it was a multiculture from its inception. Irish and Welsh were added along the way. If you look at pre war surveys, the middle class were a different culture to the working class - let alone going back to pre WW1 days
I think that British culture has been improved by allowing others to enter it, we've taken the best from other cultures whilst leaving the worst parts behind.
Roofless Toothless said:
And yet we are told it is for the lack of young British kids who are willing to work in fields or do manual work that we need immigrants to keep our economy running.
In 1967 there was a film released called Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn played a middle class, liberal white couple who's daughter brings home her black boyfriend, Sydney Poitier, to meet them. Poitier is a very good looking doctor, immaculately dressed in a very expensive suit, with impeccable etiqutte and charm. The parents' professed liberal outlook is, of course, challenged by the need to accept their daughter might actually be intending to marry a black man. A comedy of manners ensues.
This film was selected by the Library Of Congress for preservation because of its social significance. It was one of the first times a relationship across the races had been treated this way in American cinema. But I was appalled by it. What the film seemed to be saying to me was that if you are young, good looking, well off, charming and professionally qualified, you might just be able to cut it amongst America's middle classes as a black man. What if the daughter had brought home a black bus driver, who didn't know which knife to use for the fish course?
To say that we can accept immigrants if they measure up to certain social or employment criteria is plain wrong. People of all classes and backgrounds can contribute to our society in their own ways. Aren't we all supposed to be sympathising with the Windrush immigrants presently? They were invited here to do menial jobs, not to be engineers or surgeons.
My own Grandfather arrived here in this country in 1906, a Jewish refugee from Russia, after absconding from the army. He couldn't speak a word of English, and never learned to read or write it, but he was willing to work. He brought up eight children and nineteen grandchildren, all of whom I think have contributed to this society, in a multicultural sort of way.
It is wrong to distinguish between the ones you are prepared to tolerate, and those you write off as drains on society. I am not sure what you mean by there being strong moral grounds against your view that immigration should be selective. I am hoping that it runs along the lines I have just described.
Good post. Predictably not appreciated by those who see society as some sort of accountancy exercise. Usually the same ones who struggle to see relationships as anything other than a balancing of the books.In 1967 there was a film released called Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn played a middle class, liberal white couple who's daughter brings home her black boyfriend, Sydney Poitier, to meet them. Poitier is a very good looking doctor, immaculately dressed in a very expensive suit, with impeccable etiqutte and charm. The parents' professed liberal outlook is, of course, challenged by the need to accept their daughter might actually be intending to marry a black man. A comedy of manners ensues.
This film was selected by the Library Of Congress for preservation because of its social significance. It was one of the first times a relationship across the races had been treated this way in American cinema. But I was appalled by it. What the film seemed to be saying to me was that if you are young, good looking, well off, charming and professionally qualified, you might just be able to cut it amongst America's middle classes as a black man. What if the daughter had brought home a black bus driver, who didn't know which knife to use for the fish course?
To say that we can accept immigrants if they measure up to certain social or employment criteria is plain wrong. People of all classes and backgrounds can contribute to our society in their own ways. Aren't we all supposed to be sympathising with the Windrush immigrants presently? They were invited here to do menial jobs, not to be engineers or surgeons.
My own Grandfather arrived here in this country in 1906, a Jewish refugee from Russia, after absconding from the army. He couldn't speak a word of English, and never learned to read or write it, but he was willing to work. He brought up eight children and nineteen grandchildren, all of whom I think have contributed to this society, in a multicultural sort of way.
It is wrong to distinguish between the ones you are prepared to tolerate, and those you write off as drains on society. I am not sure what you mean by there being strong moral grounds against your view that immigration should be selective. I am hoping that it runs along the lines I have just described.
I'd prefer multi-culturalism to mono-culturalism every time. Are ALL aspects of it good ALL the time? Of course not, but society is very resilient and over time it has brought many benefits.
To whomever posted about Japan and South Korea being examples of mono-culturalism - I assume you've never been?
captain_cynic said:
The UK was formed from two distinct cultures, English and Scottish so it was a multiculture from its inception. Irish and Welsh were added along the way.
I think that British culture has been improved by allowing others to enter it, we've taken the best from other cultures whilst leaving the worst parts behind.
Having watched Michael Wood last night on Alfred the Great, you can see a massive element of Scandanvian culture became part of the make-up too. We've always been multicultural - like it or not.I think that British culture has been improved by allowing others to enter it, we've taken the best from other cultures whilst leaving the worst parts behind.
Roman Rhodes said:
To whomever posted about Japan and South Korea being examples of mono-culturalism - I assume you've never been?
pre-1960 Australia is a better example of monoculturalism. Basically you were white British. Aborigines were discriminated against by law. This began to change with the influx of Post war Europeans (mainly Greeks and Italians). Now days elements of Greek, Italian, Viet, Chinese and other cultures are part of the Australian psyche, much to the chagrin of our racists and I believe it's made Australia extremely competitive despite Australia's small population.As for modern monocultures... Saudi Arabia would be a better example, a single culture enforced by law. I wouldn't consider the Saudi model one to follow.
Monocultures are bad as any society resistant to change is stagnating.
CaptainSlow said:
Eric Mc said:
CaptainSlow said:
Well the definition is important so better to be more specific than your more vague version.
People get multicultural and multiracial mixed up, which doesn't help.
I think a narrow definition indicates a narrow mind.People get multicultural and multiracial mixed up, which doesn't help.
A broad minded view of narrow minded arguments.
AW111 said:
I live in a nation of immigrants.
My suburb is now considered to be largely Chinese. 20 years ago it was Dutch. 20 years before that it was Greek.
By and large in Australia, multiculturalism works. Migrants are Australians, but keep elements of their original culture - hence so much great food and excellent coffee.
The various waves of migrants seem to take about three generations to become just another part of the country - they keep the cuisine and some cultural elements, but the ethnicity gets blurred out due to marriage / partnerships outside their ethnic group.
I think this is true of the US too - for example New York is a patchwork of suburbs with different ethnicity, culture, and food - but they are all Americans.
I don't know how different Britain is, or why : maybe there's less cross - ethnic marriage?
It isn't really any different.My suburb is now considered to be largely Chinese. 20 years ago it was Dutch. 20 years before that it was Greek.
By and large in Australia, multiculturalism works. Migrants are Australians, but keep elements of their original culture - hence so much great food and excellent coffee.
The various waves of migrants seem to take about three generations to become just another part of the country - they keep the cuisine and some cultural elements, but the ethnicity gets blurred out due to marriage / partnerships outside their ethnic group.
I think this is true of the US too - for example New York is a patchwork of suburbs with different ethnicity, culture, and food - but they are all Americans.
I don't know how different Britain is, or why : maybe there's less cross - ethnic marriage?
Eric Mc said:
CaptainSlow said:
Eric Mc said:
CaptainSlow said:
Well the definition is important so better to be more specific than your more vague version.
People get multicultural and multiracial mixed up, which doesn't help.
I think a narrow definition indicates a narrow mind.People get multicultural and multiracial mixed up, which doesn't help.
A broad minded view of narrow minded arguments.
AW111 said:
I live in a nation of immigrants.
My suburb is now considered to be largely Chinese. 20 years ago it was Dutch. 20 years before that it was Greek.
By and large in Australia, multiculturalism works. Migrants are Australians, but keep elements of their original culture - hence so much great food and excellent coffee.
The various waves of migrants seem to take about three generations to become just another part of the country - they keep the cuisine and some cultural elements, but the ethnicity gets blurred out due to marriage / partnerships outside their ethnic group.
This is one thing Australia and the UK has really done well, our societies are geared to letting people integrate. Of course it happens over time and I mean generations for the process to complete. What we don't do and is quite different to Americans, is create ghettos. What ethnicity you are does not dictate where you live. For integration to occur we need to let cultures mix. My suburb is now considered to be largely Chinese. 20 years ago it was Dutch. 20 years before that it was Greek.
By and large in Australia, multiculturalism works. Migrants are Australians, but keep elements of their original culture - hence so much great food and excellent coffee.
The various waves of migrants seem to take about three generations to become just another part of the country - they keep the cuisine and some cultural elements, but the ethnicity gets blurred out due to marriage / partnerships outside their ethnic group.
Eric Mc said:
Boydie88 said:
Eric Mc said:
The opposite of "multi culture" is "mono culture". If the OP is in favour of a mono culture, does he have a specific mono culture in mind?
If everything is multi cultural, you'll end up with no culture at all. Some cultures are better than others.Do you, by any chance, consider yourself to be part of this "better" culture?
t whilst hovering/standing/squatting over a toilet rather than using it properly probably isn't a brilliant one... Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff