Multicultarism , is there a down side for Europe or others?

[muy_thaiguy]

I think there are only a handful of countries that could be considered "monocultural" so to speak. Japan, North Korea, and maybe Mongolia. Japan is pretty close, Mongolia only has 1 city in the entire country where half the people live, and the other half are nomads. And North Korea is pretty closed off from the outside world.

I guess I can speak a bit about Japan, but are North Korea and Mongolia really the societies we want to emulate?

Just making a list of some cultures that could be quite "monocultural." Never said anything about emulating them.

[Phatscotty]

mono-cultural. I feel like this is the first time I have ever heard or seen that word.

[Symmetry]

I think there are only a handful of countries that could be considered "monocultural" so to speak. Japan, North Korea, and maybe Mongolia. Japan is pretty close, Mongolia only has 1 city in the entire country where half the people live, and the other half are nomads. And North Korea is pretty closed off from the outside world.

I guess I can speak a bit about Japan, but are North Korea and Mongolia really the societies we want to emulate?

Just making a list of some cultures that could be quite "monocultural." Never said anything about emulating them.

No worries- apologies if I implied that was directed at you, it was kind of a wider question. Phatscotty and Saxi have the question, and are working on a list of countries that work well without multiculturalism.

[Phatscotty]

I asked for the pro's of multiculturalism a long time ago. I can list some of my own, but I wanted to see other peoples answers before I hogged all the best ones.

[Symmetry]

As a heads up- the Vatican does pretty well., but consider that a freebie.

[muy_thaiguy]

mono-cultural. I feel like this is the first time I have ever heard or seen that word.

No clue of it is a word, but I feel it fits with the current discussion.

[Symmetry]

Mono-culture

I'm still open to hearing which system is employed anywhere that is not multi-cultural.

On a side note, and because I'm extremely pedantic, Multicultarism is not a word. Player! I'm talking to you here!

[Qwert]

well from wikipedia,only two country can call multinational
Russia and UK.
""Generally, in the early modern era, multinational states proved to be less successful than nation-states.""
""In 2011 Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron said in a speech that "state multiculturalism has failed".[49]""
In Europe(except UK who are again if you split in 4 country are also national state),Asia(except India) and Africa(except South Africa,Madagascar,
These is all Clean States.

[Woodruff]

I've lived in Japan, which is fairly mono-cultural

Fairly? Japan is seriously about as homogenous as it can get.

[Woodruff]

A Somali does not have to turn Cajun. Lulz. But the somali should try to learn the language and accept the education system of the land he chose to emigrate to.

Our own people don't accept the educational system of the land...why must the Somali immigrant?

[radiojake]

you have a problem with the demand that immigrants assimilate to the country they moved to?

Immigrants have to accept the culture of the country they move into, the country does not have to assimilate to the immigrant. Afterall, there is nothing saying a country must accept immigrants.

They shouldn't get too pushy in their host countries, or they might find they are not welcome any longer.

If they do not respect their host's culture, then what is the reason the host should respect theirs?

I accept though that someone who wants their culture conserved is a "cultural conservative"

Does anyone else see the irony? I don't remember the Europeans who colonised North America assimilating to the cultures of the indigenous inhabitants. Is this just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' ?

Fucking hypocrite

[Nobunaga]

... Before this discussion drags on, perhaps someone (Player, that's you) should define the term, Multiculturalism.

... Your initial post (Player again) said that you valued multiculturalism. I am curious if your understanding of the term is the same as those who have posted here (myself included).

...

[Nobunaga]

you have a problem with the demand that immigrants assimilate to the country they moved to?

Immigrants have to accept the culture of the country they move into, the country does not have to assimilate to the immigrant. Afterall, there is nothing saying a country must accept immigrants.

They shouldn't get too pushy in their host countries, or they might find they are not welcome any longer.

If they do not respect their host's culture, then what is the reason the host should respect theirs?

I accept though that someone who wants their culture conserved is a "cultural conservative"

Does anyone else see the irony? I don't remember the Europeans who colonised North America assimilating to the cultures of the indigenous inhabitants. Is this just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' ?

Fucking hypocrite

... Europeans did not land on the shores of North America to find a single, unified culture. They found a "multicultural" land of hundreds, and some of them at war with one another.

... (which might offer an clue as to why the native Americans were so quickly and easily slaughtered).

...

[radiojake]

you have a problem with the demand that immigrants assimilate to the country they moved to?

Immigrants have to accept the culture of the country they move into, the country does not have to assimilate to the immigrant. Afterall, there is nothing saying a country must accept immigrants.

They shouldn't get too pushy in their host countries, or they might find they are not welcome any longer.

If they do not respect their host's culture, then what is the reason the host should respect theirs?

I accept though that someone who wants their culture conserved is a "cultural conservative"

Does anyone else see the irony? I don't remember the Europeans who colonised North America assimilating to the cultures of the indigenous inhabitants. Is this just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' ?

Fucking hypocrite

... Europeans did not land on the shores of North America to find a single, unified culture. They found a "multicultural" land of hundreds, and some of them at war with one another.

...

I know, that is why I said 'cultures', as in, a plurality of cultures;

[PLAYER57832]

... Before this discussion drags on, perhaps someone (Player, that's you) should define the term, Multiculturalism.

... Your initial post (Player again) said that you valued multiculturalism. I am curious if your understanding of the term is the same as those who have posted here (myself included).

...

I think having people who come from different experiences and different views is important. Howeve, the irony is that the more we are exposed to various ideas, other cultures, the more our own culture changes.

We used to talk about the "melting pot" here in the US. Now, folks say we are more like a casserole, where some parts are melted together and some chunks stay recognizable. But, that is not an easy process. And, is it really best? I don't know. The truth is that the whole idea of a static culture is just wrong. Things have, in the past seemed rather static, because change was mostly gradual, but interspersed with wars and such that made great changes. Today, with TV and the internet, things are changing very rapidly in our own lifetimes.

That process is hard for some, no matter how you slice it. We do have to find ways to set boundaries. Mistakes were made in the past by Europe, by the US, etc. However, we can learn from those lessons and move forward. I don't think anyone benefits from a kind of "revenge" or "tit for tat". (you overran us, now we will overrun you). However, if you go to other countries, those that were overrun by "us", there is a lot of anger. And, facing that anger, a lot of people both in the US and in Europe react in kind.

So, in short.. defining multiculturalism is part of the problem. Just what is it? What should it be?

[PLAYER57832]

... Europeans did not land on the shores of North America to find a single, unified culture. They found a "multicultural" land of hundreds, and some of them at war with one another.

... (which might offer an clue as to why the native Americans were so quickly and easily slaughtered).

...

I don't want to drive this into a tangent, but the real reason Native Americans were so easily slaughtered was that they had already been devastated by diseases. Plymouth, for example, had had a thriving village that had only recently been abandoned. It is thought that Cortez, etc brought the Plague, perhaps smallpox as well.

[Nobunaga]

you have a problem with the demand that immigrants assimilate to the country they moved to?

Immigrants have to accept the culture of the country they move into, the country does not have to assimilate to the immigrant. Afterall, there is nothing saying a country must accept immigrants.

They shouldn't get too pushy in their host countries, or they might find they are not welcome any longer.

If they do not respect their host's culture, then what is the reason the host should respect theirs?

I accept though that someone who wants their culture conserved is a "cultural conservative"

Does anyone else see the irony? I don't remember the Europeans who colonised North America assimilating to the cultures of the indigenous inhabitants. Is this just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' ?

Fucking hypocrite

... Europeans did not land on the shores of North America to find a single, unified culture. They found a "multicultural" land of hundreds, and some of them at war with one another.

...

I know, that is why I said 'cultures', as in, a plurality of cultures;

... My bad.

... As for "Is this just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' ? ", well, you're speaking of North America in the early 1600's. The United States and its culture wouldn't be seen for another hundred fifty or so years.

... And perhaps some colonists became true immigrants and assimilated themselves. Roanoke is still a mystery, eh?

...

[Nobunaga]

... Before this discussion drags on, perhaps someone (Player, that's you) should define the term, Multiculturalism.

... Your initial post (Player again) said that you valued multiculturalism. I am curious if your understanding of the term is the same as those who have posted here (myself included).

...

I think having people who come from different experiences and different views is important. Howeve, the irony is that the more we are exposed to various ideas, other cultures, the more our own culture changes.

We used to talk about the "melting pot" here in the US. Now, folks say we are more like a casserole, where some parts are melted together and some chunks stay recognizable. But, that is not an easy process. And, is it really best? I don't know. The truth is that the whole idea of a static culture is just wrong. Things have, in the past seemed rather static, because change was mostly gradual, but interspersed with wars and such that made great changes. Today, with TV and the internet, things are changing very rapidly in our own lifetimes.

That process is hard for some, no matter how you slice it. We do have to find ways to set boundaries. Mistakes were made in the past by Europe, by the US, etc. However, we can learn from those lessons and move forward. I don't think anyone benefits from a kind of "revenge" or "tit for tat". (you overran us, now we will overrun you). However, if you go to other countries, those that were overrun by "us", there is a lot of anger. And, facing that anger, a lot of people both in the US and in Europe react in kind.

So, in short.. defining multiculturalism is part of the problem. Just what is it? What should it be?

... Multiculturalism is popularly discussed as a concept by which no one culture is superior, or should take precedence over any other within a nation.

... Whereas American culture is based on the individual, the individual American is the focus and has value, multiculturalism values the group (of like individuals) over all else.

... In the past people flocked to the United States to be part of the American dream, where they could be valued for their individual efforts. They largely kept the cultures of their home countries within their families and communities, but first and foremost they were American citizens. They adopted the English language, they took part in the political processes, they abided by US law.

... That still goes on today, I see it in the local Vietnamese and Chinese communities. But I know a lot of immigrants do not rate themselves as Americans first. They still see themselves as belonging to the culture of whatever nation it is they came from, where American culture is something happening in the background, having little effect on them.

...

[PLAYER57832]

Your definition is better than mine.

[BigBallinStalin]

so many conservatives advocate the state control of culture

huh?

Conservatives tend to to be in favor of the status quo, they tend to be traditional, and they tend to resist change; therefore, they tend to vote for politicians who advertise such a message. These politicians via state control will enact legislation that maintains the current culture.

[PLAYER57832]

... Multiculturalism is popularly discussed as a concept by which no one culture is superior, or should take precedence over any other within a nation.
.

This is a good definition, but I don't believe it is possible to acheive for more than an "eye blink". The reason is because cultures don't stay beside each other and remain the same. In fact, no culture stays the same... ever. Some cultures might change very slowly and others more quickly, but they all change. Today, with instand communication through the internet and TV, change is coming even more quickly.

The real question is not "how to keep culture from changing", it is "how to manage that change so it causes the least pain". I think, in a country like Norway or France, that means taking steps to hang onto parts of the past, the "base" culture, if you will. In countries like the US, Canada and Australia, that means something closer to what you describe, where new parts are allowed to enter and meld. However, by "meld", I do not mean the old "melting pot" idea, per se. Rather, a combination of cultures sharing and individual pieces remaining the same. For example, first generation people tend to want to celebrate the holidays they remember, keep the same religion, and may be slow to adopt the new language (sometimes because they have little choice.. that is older people have a hard time aquiring new languages). They, of course, cannot excape realities of how they were raised. That my father was a boy in WWII has undoubtedly impacted him and there are certain things about "how he is" that I can attribute to the country/region of this birth. My brothers and I, however, only retain snippets of even the traditions with which we were raised. I cook certain foods, but have not been able to keep even many traditions I would like to have passed on simply because I live in the town where my husband was born, he already had children and therefore his parents have a much stronger say in things like how we celebrate holidays than I do.

I certainly do not maintain my father's culture. At the same time, wehn I returned, I could say that in many ways the culture my father remembered itself no longer existed as he remembered it.. and I don't just mean because his memory was skewed. I mean that things really and truly have changed.

[thegreekdog]

This is an interesting thread.

I have a couple of points and questions:

(1) By way of background, I did read an interesting New Yorker article a couple of months ago on multi-culturalism in England. It appears, at least to me, that the resistance to "multi-culturalism" in England, for example, is less about multi-culturalism and more about the "overthrow" of British culture by immigrants. In other words, the status quo is that the British cutlure predominates in England. The pro-British British (if that's the appropriate phrase) are concerned about, for example, Muslims who come to England and make bones about turning England into a Muslim nation. I don't know whether that's an appropriate basis for the reaction (i.e. I'm not sure if all Muslims want to make England a Muslim nation). However, if a group started coming to England and made waves about making England into a country like their home country (or one that most resembled their culture) to the exclusion or insignificance of the status quo predominant culture, I can understand the reaction.

(2) If it's true that some cultures that are external to a particular European's culture and that these external cultures want to predominate, I'm not sure the use of the term "multi-culturalism" is appropriate. If the Muslims in England want to dominate England, that is not multi-culturalism. If, on the other hand, Muslims want to live side-by-side with the historic English in a "more than one" culture, then that appears to be multi-culturalism.

(3) I don't know what has changed between the early 20th century and 2011, but in the United States there were mono-cultured groups in cities (for example, many Greeks settled in towns in New Jersey, in Chicago, and in New York City). These mono-cultured groups gradually assimilated (usually in the second or third generation). Most assuredly, certain cultural values were kept, but there is no doubt that most second or third generation Greeks have adopted the American culture (whether for good or bad). So the questions are: (a) Are there certain cultures that will not assimilate; and (b) Will most non-domestic cultures (i.e. Mexicans in the United States) assimilate at some point.

EDIT (forgot some stuff):

(4) It would be interesting to understand how traditionally emigrating countries see multi-culturalism. For example, would Pakistanis or Mexicans appreciate Brits or Americans coming to their countries and demanding the things that these cultures demand from the English and Americans? And if they wouldn't (or don't), why aren't we talking about them?

(5) Is there not a reason why people go to other countries? Are these reasons not related in some way to the culture of the nation they are going to? Why would someone escaping from Mexico for example, want to reinstitute Mexican culture in the United States?

[comic boy]

Police chief Dave McLuckie has called for Roma to be thrown out of European football. Mr McLuckie said: "Roma should be banned from these competitions. They should not be allowed to enter from the start because the authorities are not able to look after the people who come to their city to watch football. They should just be banned from European football."

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/7 ... z1T4qCKLcI

Just imagine if, in a more developed country like Canada or Australia - a police chief said, "Blacks should be banned from sporting events. They tend to cause trouble. Blacks should not be allowed in stadiums."

Oh Dear Saxi you really got hold of the wrong end of the stick on that one
Roma is the name of an Italian football team , they are based in Rome hence the name , the supporters of the club have a history of violence hence the article.
For future reference if an article originates from a British source , especially if the subject is sport related , then assume Roma to be a reference to the club rather than a group of gypsies

[comic boy]

Thegreekdog is spot on in regard to the current situation in Britain, we have always to a point welcomed other cultures but the expectation is that assimilation should take place and in the past this has largely happened.
I dont view multicultarism as a problem if it proceeds in a natural and orderly fashion, but that can only happen over a lengthy period , we are talking decades rather than merely years.
The problem is that certain liberals wish to hurry the process , they think ' positive action ' and legislation can prevail over centuries of tradition, I have no doubt they are well meaning but in truth they are hugely misguided.
By positively pushing a majority agenda then by definition the majority gets discrinated against, many people are highly resistant to change and if pushed tend to get angry, this breeds resentment and fuels the fascist elements in society .
Social engineering is a tricky and sensitive business, it can succeed only when conditions allow , an economic slump is not the time . When people feel secure and prosperous they embrace new ideas, in times of woe they entrench and glory in the past.

[BigBallinStalin]

... Multiculturalism is popularly discussed as a concept by which no one culture is superior, or should take precedence over any other within a nation.
.

This is a good definition, but I don't believe it is possible to acheive for more than an "eye blink". The reason is because cultures don't stay beside each other and remain the same. In fact, no culture stays the same... ever. Some cultures might change very slowly and others more quickly, but they all change. Today, with instand communication through the internet and TV, change is coming even more quickly.

The real question is not "how to keep culture from changing", it is "how to manage that change so it causes the least pain". I think, in a country like Norway or France, that means taking steps to hang onto parts of the past, the "base" culture, if you will.

How much of culture can be effectively managed?

And more importantly, why should culture be managed? A "culture" is a composed of various subcultures with their respective individuals, so are we discussing the management of a culture, the dominant culture, or certain subcultures?