On August 12 2012 00:34 Eps wrote: Does the Cultural Mosiac theory work? It depends if individuals from other countries come into the Host country with intentions to follow their own personal beliefs when it infringes the Host country's law.
Which the host country can enforce (i.e., the criminal justice system) and perhaps even prevent with better social institutions (e.g., second language courses, employment services, social assistance). From some of the posts in this thread, it's like European nations never legislated against rape, theft and other crimes and thus are powerless against the hordes of inferior cultural mongrels wreaking havoc in their nation.
On August 12 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote: [Seeing entire parts of cities slowly become worse and worse over the years means nothing, right? Hearing weekly about incidents where women in public are yelled at, spat on or worse just because they don't conform to Islamic standards is okay, right? Having gay couples bullied into moving by young muslims isn't worrying, right?
The criminal actions of individuals can and are treated as such. If there is a higher prevalence of crime in particular social groups (e.g., poor blacks in North America, poor middle-easterners/Muslims in Europe, poor gypsies) then there is a social and economic issue that could be better understood and ameliorated via sociological and other empirical examination, not conjecture about perceived "cultural" "inferiority".
Cultural mosaic has ever been the predecessor to a melting pot. People don't just assimilate a few years after they get off the boat. It takes time, and invariably the host country is changed by the assimilation as well as the assimilatees themselves. But assimilation does eventually happen. Intermarriage speeds it up.
Religion is a thorny issue in this, however, and does stand as an impediment to assimilation due to the fundamentalist tendencies of older religions. Abrahamic religions specifically have been able to keep their believers successfully segregated - to an extent - from the rest of society in a lot of countries.
On August 11 2012 23:57 Portlandian wrote: Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
The idea that diversity is working out so well for Canada is a lie. Racial gaps in crime rates persist, though they keep it under wraps to protect the feelings of people like you who have bought into the multicult myth. There are also racial gaps in education, which are being addressed with things like "Afrocentric" schooling in Toronto which is pretty contrary to the whole ideal of multiculturalism. Maybe they should have stayed in Africa if they need Afrocentric schooling?
To maintain this facade of multicultural utopia Canadians have abolished all semblance of free speech. While people mindlessly chant "diversity is strength" the reality is that diversity is so divisive that everyone must adhere to strict speech restrictions to avoid breaking the peace. They also have laws which mandate racial discrimination in hiring to enforce equal outcomes. Unfairness is standard in multicultural societies. Every group agitates for special privileges, and politicians are all too happy to give favors for votes.
Police routinely suppress racial data in Canada, study says
The study notes that Canadian research has shown that black people are pulled over more often than other groups and that aboriginals are over-represented in prisons.
One possible explanation is that racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, putting them at greater risk of involvement in crime, the study says. But another possibility is systemic discrimination by police based on race.
In order to get to the bottom of why over-representation exists, there needs to be a systematic collection and reporting of racial data, the study says.
On August 12 2012 00:20 blinken wrote: Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
This is the type of braindead emotional mush that is typical of people who support multiculturalism.
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
On August 11 2012 23:57 Portlandian wrote: Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
I agree, multiculturalism is just another tool to consilidate the power of those who enforce it on our societies
As is all social policy. What does that tell us though? That governments attempt to keep countries running in the way that they want them to (which is hopefully the way their constituents want their country to be run)? That's not really saying anything about anything. Governments allow immigration because it fills demands for skilled and unskilled labour. This can have all sorts of implications like those discussed in this thread already, but to simply point out that immigration policy is part of the state apparatus contributes nothing.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
Or we just send them to Canada because apparently you people are gifted at making model citizens from barbarians, right?
Should we just slowly let our countries be taken over by extremis? These people don't want to change. They want to come here, live of our socialist policies, invite more relatives over and slowly convert my country into an Islamic state.
And I know full well that there are tons of good foreign people. It's the culture that some have what's wrong, not the place they come from.
Do you really think that's what in the head of the average Muslim joe ? Leaving in a shitty ghetto and trying to subjugate your country rather than marrying the girl he loves, having a good job, some kids and a house ?
I know Muslims are on average more devote than Christians, and I also know that some European country recieves a lot of middle-eastern muslims whom are far more radical than the North africans, but really, don't be delusionned. On one hand, there is a huge proportion of Muslims in Europe who deserve a kick in the ass because they're criminals and delinquents who don't respect the country in which they or their parents emigrate to, but on the other, this has nothing to do with the core values of Islam. Islam doesn't absolve rapes, thefts, and mindless agressions. Your leftist politicians do.
Still, I acknowledge that there might be some clash between Europe and Islam since it is a foreign religion, but these issues are grossly overexagerated by the mass media propaganda.
I know the Islam isn't inherently bad, it's what the people make of it what's bad. The culture of those people is bad, even if the things they practice aren't based on the Quran.
Most of the devote Muslims (not talking about the crazy middle-eastern wanting to establish the sharia in gb or whatever) have a culture which is pretty much what was the European culture in the late 19th. Respect of the elders, respect of authority, male/female distinction, being proud of your heritage, being proud of your masculinity...
It spiraled out of control because the immigration was massive and that the leftist politicians escused aggressions, thefts... because of the economical difficulties these immigrants were facing.
You wouldn't find anything in the QU'ran escusing rape on a christian because of economical difficulties. That's 100% decadent societal-leftist culture. People need to start blaming all the politicians who opened gates to this massive immigration, and all the founders of these so called anti-racist lobbies which for some reason florished everywhere in Europe at pretty much the same time.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
The criminal actions of individuals can and are treated as such. If there is a higher prevalence of crime in particular social groups (e.g., poor blacks in North America, poor middle-easterners/Muslims in Europe, poor gypsies) then there is a social and economic issue that could be better understood and ameliorated via sociological and other empirical examination, not conjecture about perceived "cultural" "inferiority".
Or maybe, just maybe it is because of the mindset (their culture) some of those people have:
Which the host country can enforce (i.e., the criminal justice system) and perhaps even prevent with better social institutions (e.g., second language courses, employment services, social assistance)
All of this is present in my country and yet things don't get better, I wonder why?
Most of the devote Muslims (not talking about the crazy middle-eastern wanting to establish the sharia in gb or whatever) have a culture which is pretty much what was the European culture in the late 19th. Respect of the elders, respect of authority, male/female distinction, being proud of your heritage, being proud of your masculinity...
It spiraled out of control because the immigration was massive and that the leftist politicians escused aggressions, thefts... because of the economical difficulties these immigrants were facing.
You wouldn't find anything in the QU'ran escusing rape on a christian because of economical difficulties. That's 100% decadent societal-leftist culture. People need to start blaming all the politicians who opened gates to this massive immigration, and all the founders of these so called anti-racist lobbies which for some reason florished everywhere in Europe at pretty much the same time.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
The idea that diversity is working out so well for Canada is a lie. Racial gaps in crime rates persist, though they keep it under wraps to protect the feelings of people like you who have bought into the multicult myth. There are also racial gaps in education, which are being addressed with things like "Afrocentric" schooling in Toronto which is pretty contrary to the whole ideal of multiculturalism. Maybe they should have stayed in Africa if they need Afrocentric schooling?
To maintain this facade of multicultural utopia Canadians have abolished all semblance of free speech. While people mindlessly chant "diversity is strength" the reality is that diversity is so divisive that everyone must adhere to strict speech restrictions to avoid breaking the peace. They also have laws which mandate racial discrimination in hiring to enforce equal outcomes. Unfairness is standard in multicultural societies. Every group agitates for special privileges, and politicians are all too happy to give favors for votes.
Police routinely suppress racial data in Canada, study says
The study notes that Canadian research has shown that black people are pulled over more often than other groups and that aboriginals are over-represented in prisons.
One possible explanation is that racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, putting them at greater risk of involvement in crime, the study says. But another possibility is systemic discrimination by police based on race.
In order to get to the bottom of why over-representation exists, there needs to be a systematic collection and reporting of racial data, the study says.
On August 12 2012 00:20 blinken wrote: Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
This is the type of braindead emotional mush that is typical of people who support multiculturalism.
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
First of all, what's your definition of culture? I take it that we're discussing culture defined as a value/belief system shared by a group and transmitted from one/some individuals to others.
If that's what your definition is as well, I don't understand how you can conflate differences in crime rate between racial groups (e.g., black and white people), suppression of free speech (for which you haven't provided a Canadian example) and the fact that police cover up racial data with the fact that there are people of different national/ethnic/"cultural" backgrounds inhabiting Canada. I don't care about any sort of mushy harmonious society stuff, but I fail to see how people of diverse backgrounds occupying the same designated land mass and going about their daily lives is causally related to any of the things you mentioned.
Not all black people think the same way or share the same culture. Not all white people think the same or share the same culture. You haven't presented any evidence of aspects of particular black or whatever cultures that cause social ills. Also the article you posted only indicates that police are covering up racial profiling as it says "“whitewashing” of criminal data makes it virtually impossible for researchers to gauge whether police are dealing with racial and ethnic minority groups in an equitable manner." Racial profiling by law enforcement is common practice in Canada. Just look up "racial profiling Canada" in Google scholar if you want to read up on it and form a more educated opinion.
On August 11 2012 22:52 D10 wrote: I cant really fathom how most of western society works, because it must be so radically different from Brazil.
We are a multicultural society, unlike america and many countries where specific cultures are segretated, here its blend beyond recognition, and the ones who strive for their "original" culture are seen more like medieval reenactors than as a culture per se.
The secret I think is to be somewhat chauvinist while being broad minded.
Dont expect everyone to be the same/act the same and you wont be surprised.
lol that's because you have been living together for many generations in Brazil. Latin America, to me, while not perfect, is the as close as it gets to the end result of integration. I mean you guys have a majority who are mestizos in many countries.
This shit takes time. Just like how the mindset of my parents, grandparents and my generation towards others here in Malaysia are different as we slowly identify more with the place we've been living in for generations.
The first few generations can be quite hateful and while being undesirable, I find that completely normal and natural.
Although they aren't demonstrating in the streets, White people aren't exactly being model citizens everywhere else either. And yes, do they segregate themselves.
Governments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages.
You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars.
Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital
Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. Inclusive immigration went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration - because there is simply no way to do it without it raising red flags towards racism and prejudice in our cultural politics. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
Governments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages.
You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars.
Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital
Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
I'm just as skeptical or cynical about politicians as the next guy, so I'm not basing my claim on government propaganda, but actual data that isn't at all hard to find. We do have a doctor shortage that is relieved to an extent by foreign-trained doctors (and would be relieved to a greater extent if foreign credentials were better recognized) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17360
Most Canadian-born citizens would not qualify for immigration under the current point system. Most immigrants have professional degrees, can speak English and/or have a large amount of assets. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp
Whether employers (who are completely independent of the state) want to hire individuals with foreign credentials is entirely up to them. The government doesn't care if people from China or Pakistan with PhDs are running convenience stores and driving cabs instead of being engineers and doctors, because they can't vote and thus have no voice in the democratic process. But by the time they've lived here long enough to become citizens, they've usually moved to the middle class burbs. Just look at the demographics for any Canadian upper middle class suburb of a metropolitan city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia This doesn't make life harder for whitey McCanadian or drive down wages because it's not like their stealing jobs or preventing white/non-immigrant Canadian people from being involved in the political process.
Putnam's study is rife with confounds. You cannot infer causation from the correlation between increased diversity and, say decreased civic participation or charity, not just because of all of the other possible causal factors, but because "diversity" isn't even a variable that you can isolate. It's just rubbish.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. It has no tangible effect on freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. You are positing that it does. The burden is thus on you to provide evidence. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do go hand in hand, as immigrants have cultures that differ from those of the host country (i.e., there is a multitude of cultures resulting in large part from immigration).
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
Multiculturism can only function properly if everyone is sticking their reproductive organs in other ones and end up having some really mixed race that creates exotic people.
Muslims believe thieves should have their hands amputated, apostates should be executed, and those who commit adultery be stoned to death. Sane people don't. Ergo, multiculturalism doesn't work.
On August 11 2012 23:57 Portlandian wrote: Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
I agree, multiculturalism is just another tool to consilidate the power of those who enforce it on our societies
As is all social policy. What does that tell us though? That governments attempt to keep countries running in the way that they want them to (which is hopefully the way their constituents want their country to be run)? That's not really saying anything about anything. Governments allow immigration because it fills demands for skilled and unskilled labour. This can have all sorts of implications like those discussed in this thread already, but to simply point out that immigration policy is part of the state apparatus contributes nothing.
no, the original goal of social policy was to create equal opportunities (participation in cultural life, equal opportunities on the job market, social integration etc.). This is not the case anymore. Today's social policy, atleast in my country (of course i cannot say anything about Canada), aims towards the conservation of the status quo.
National governments do not run countries anymore, they are run by functional elites. The political system is a part of this elite, whether it plays a dominant role is up for debate. If you are interested in how modern "power" works, you could read stuff from Suzanne Keller, Charles Wright Mills, or even Pierre Bourdieu.
The immigration from workers is no problem. They pay the same taxes as all their coworkers. Their points of view might be different in some questions, but they are the same in others (where do all my taxes go to?).
In my country the constitution got degraded to a mere piece of paper. Let's just look at the latest "save the €" actions from european governments. The treaty of Lisbon clearly states the "no bailout" clause (art. 125 AEUV). Nobody even cared, politicians just go through with it. My own government is busy assuring me that there won't be Eurobonds because they would be unconstitutional in Germany. We'll have them in 5 years, unconstitutional or not.
Point is, our functional elites do not care about constitutions and law, we got sold out. The immigration in western countries from people who will land at the social bottom (often very religous but politically uninterested and uneducated) just makes sure that the people get divided socially, politically and culturally. It prevents society from finding common grounds which would lead the majority to saying "stop this shit right now".
Multiculturalism can work but mostly it doesn't. And religion is mostly the cause of it. People with different religions have very different opinions. It's really bad in Europe cause most of our immigrants are all Islamist. And most of the Islam are still trying to force their religion upon others.
In Belgium's capital Brussels, women can't even walk around for 100meters without being harassed and called a whore by Islamic men because they show too much skin. (even with a skirt that comes below the knees).
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy.
EPT
)
