Yeah, there is a lot of intermarriage, and I was talking only about instances where intermarriage isn’t applicable. But that covers the majority of cases for people of any obviously different “race” (accept maybe in Hawaii) for at least the first few generations.
Tiger Woods is seen as a (Black) American first and someone of Thai ancestry second. Most Americans can’t see past the African features to see the obvious Asian features that he has. Plus, he does self-identify as a Black American, all his talk about being CaBalAsian notwithstanding.
I think modern Islamic states are really f*cked up. It’s not because of Islam, but because they are Theocracies. Americans look really strange/inferior to foreigners. Europeans are horrified by capital punishment, asians by our disregard of elders, arabs by our lack of hospitality, and antarticans by our casual attire.
If you ranked countries by superiority of their culture America would be in the top 20, but I doubt it would make the top 5 (especially right now).
As to the OP, if you live in America learn English. But, please keep your culture as well. America without Chinese, French, Italian, African, Spanish, German, Jewish, etc. influences would be pretty drab; no pizza, blues/jazz, tacos, hot dogs, General Tso’s chicken, or bagels.
[quote=DanBlatherAs to the OP, if you live in America learn English. But, please keep your culture as well. America without Chinese, French, Italian, African, Spanish, German, Jewish, etc. influences would be pretty drab; no pizza, blues/jazz, tacos, hot dogs, General Tso’s chicken, or bagels.[/quote]
Well, this is my problem with multiculturalism: it’s either obvious or absurd. Of course we want Thai food and Spanish music. And of course it’s interesting and important to learn about other cultures. Is any one, any conservative, suggesting otherwise? But when you enter the realm of “no culture can pass any judgements on the practices of another culture” you’ve crossed into a mad and dangerous area.
That’s more reasonable. Anyone who’s read my threads knows I view myself as an aggressively bourgeois white male American fighting a tide of brainless cosmopolitanism, but I likes me some Thai food.
My family, for example, has no trace of the language of the place we came from and instead picked up the one spoken here. Same with the religion, the laws, the cultural celebrations, the customs, social structures, etc. They’ve been gone for generations. And yet, I know that I’m often not seen as “really American” first. Eventually, down the line, but not “first.”
The melting pot in many ways seems like a fable, and at times a particularly nasty one. Multiculturalism doesn’t have the same baggage.
More true words were never spoken. Side note: If you really do care for such things I suggest you take the next step and perhaps you should join Amnesty International? They really can use more help.
I’m sorry, but YES! Human Rights are for HUMANS. We should strive to change these customs around the world. This is what Amnesty International does.
Canada (and the US) DOES have these rights. Not only for those who move here, but also for those who travel to here, travel throught here, or even commit these acts anywhere else and THEN travel here (citizen or not).
Has anyone doubted this? What does this has to do with Multiculturism?
Again, I ask: Has anyone doubted this? What does this has to do with Multiculturism?
Ummm… wrong. Canada DOES provide funding to Canadians who want schooling in “Farsi, Swahili, Chinese, or any other language.” THIS is Multiculturism, and THIS is a Multicultural Country. If you don’t like it, get used to it, or move out.
No, we don’t.
Too late, I think you are the one that should move.
Why do you ask ( "what does this have to do with Muliticulturism)?—this is the heart of the issue! Some people DO doubt this.
When radically different cultures mix, somebody has to give up his values–either the hosts, or the new immigrant.
If the immigrant’s culture is based on sharia law, which is totally incompatible with any western country that practices equal rights, separation of church and state, etc. --then there’s big trouble brewing.
Right now, Canada seems willing to let muslim couples bypass Canadian divorce law and use Sharia, if both parties prefer to. But what about, say, a financial dispute between 2 Muslim businessmen? That would seem to be okay, too, if both parties prefer a Sharia court. So what happens when there is a 3rd businessman involved, who is not Muslim? Do you go by majority rule–2 out of 3 want to use Sharia law, so a Canadian atheist has to submit to an imam instead of a judge?. And what if the 3rd businessman is a woman:----does she have to dress in a black hijab or burka to enter the mosque and submit to a legal system that doesnt recognize her basic rights?
“Muticulturism” is fine–as long as it is restricted to sharing music and cuisine.
I am half-Samoan and nearly half Maori, with smatterings of old-English in their somewhere or other. New Zealand has always been a bi-cultural society, but over recent years has made a move towards multiculturism. The rights of the Tangata Whenua (People of the land) are enshrined in law by our founding document, The Treaty of Waitangi . Hon Justice Eddie Durie, former New Zealand High Court Judge helps define multiculturalism in New Zealand as:
…Multiculturalism, in New Zealand at least, is more than just sharing cuisine and music, its about embracing and welcoming the differences between cultures. There has been no attempt to incorporate Sharia law or any other legal systems-in fact a recent court decision it was ruled that the Burka couldn’t be worn in court. But that didn’t stop our female Prime Minister from turning up at a Mosque last week, wearing the correct head dress and using the correct entrance.
I’m pushed for time at the moment, but if anyone has any questions about multiculturism and how it applies in NZ, either myself or one of the Kiwi dopers will jump in with some answers…with the elections on at the moment multiculturism is a big issue, I’m sure they would have plenty to add…
Why would they doubt it? Canada does practice equal rights, separation of church and state, and we do have child protection laws. Can you show me otherwise?
There is no such thing as Canadian values, Canadians believe whatever-the-hell they want to believe and do whatever-the-hell they want to do within law, regardless of weather they are an immigrant, native-born, or even foreign visitor.
Let me see if I understand your position:
If… An Immigrant’s culture is based on Sharia law…
And… Sharia law is totally incompatible with any western country that practices equal rights…
Then… Big trouble is brewing.
Well… I have to ask for some clarification, because your statement doesn’t seem too damning, your estimate of “big trouble” is… what exactly? What is this “big trouble”? Every time the government releases a budget enough “Big trouble” brews that could break the country apart.
No, Ontario is thinking of letting it’s citizens opt for Islamic Arbitration to settle civil disputes. The rules of such arbitration have yet to be set, but it is already stated that (like any other outside arbitration) they cannot break existing Canadian law.
Again the exact laws have not been worked out yet, but if 2 NON-Muslim businessmen wanted their dispute settled by Islamic Arbitration, I believe they could have it done.
I believe that for outside Arbitration to work it would require consent from all parties.
Not if s/he doesn’t want to.
Again, not if s/he doesn’t want to.
I don’t like talking about Ontario Law because I am not a Lawyer or an expert in Ontario Law. Also personally, if I had a civil dispute I would not want it settled by Islamic arbitration, but this law is no for me or forced upon anyone. As far as I know:
Nothing is final, everything is in the discussion stage.
Ontario already allows religious-based arbitrations. Catholics, Jews, and even Ismaili Muslims have set up arbitration panels under this law. cite
Ontario’s form of Islamic arbitration will be VERY different then the Saudi Arabian working civil Shariah laws, and it will respect women’s rights or not exist. cite ,cite .
Official Multiculturalism is being redefined everyday. But the way I define Multiculturalism is the acceptance of diversity. Make of that what you will, but this is not be restricted to just music or cuisine. If you do not like what Canada has done, tough.
Yes, there is such a thing.The entire body of law as enacted by Canadian voters defines Canadian values–and these values are totally different than Sharia law.
Thanks for explaining that–I had understood that Ontario was thinking of allowing sharia courts, not sharia arbitration. But I do see a potential danger here of the slippery slope–big trouble could be brewing.
Diversity in music or cuisine is great, but it works because we all agree that each culture is equal. Arabic food is just as good as western food. But Arabic law is not as good as western law.
A country thrives when its music and cuisine are mutilcultural. A country is in big trouble, --and can die from civil war-- if its legal system is mutilcultural.
As long as there are iron-clad guarrantees that Sharia arbitration cannot break existing Canadian law, then the system should work. But then, it isnt really “muticultural”, is it?–the Muslims will have agreed that their system of sharia will be inferior to existing Canadian law, and must be changed to match Canadian society.And that is what all immigrants should agree to when adopting a new country
I have a similar anwer to banquet bear-
Again, I say–sharing is great–but please note the limits: your prime minister “welcomes” different cultures–but isn’t willing to share their dress code. She respects them by wearing proper head dress when visiting a mosque (just like tourists to the Vatican remove their hats). But in matters of official public policy, like using the court system, she demands that they remove their Burkas.
This isn’t muticultural equality–it is saying, "let’s be polite , but dont you dare try to force your culture onto us. Wear what you want in your private life and in your mosques, but in a public courtroom, you have to change to match our culture.
I say again, there is no such standerd thing as “Canadian values”, There is only Canadian law. If someone in Canada breaks such law they can be punished, otherwise they are free to hold any ‘values’, they want.
Again I ask: What slope? This has been done before under Ontario law, already with Jews and Catholics. If there is a slope it didn’t start with Muslims. What’s the ‘Big trouble’ you are talking about?
If that law takes place within the framework of western law then YES it IS just as good. At least as good as any other outside arbitration.
Maybe you need to tell Sudan this? Because, it is only with a multicultural legal system that they now have peace FROM civil war. Or maybe you don’t know the fact that Canada has always had a multicultural legal system. We have ‘Sentencing Circles’ for native affairs, and in fact Quebec is being governed by a completely different set of civil law, Napoleonic law while the rest of Canada being governed by British Common law.
Arbitration (weather Jewish, Christian, or Islamic) is not meant to be superior or inferior to Canadian civil law, just a different (and more accepting) choice for those willing to choose it. Marion Boyd defines arbitration as:
Your view that this will result in civil war seems over-the-top as it hasn’t already broken out with anyone else yet. In fact arbitration has the added bonus of making the law more reflective of the values of those who desire to follow them. Thus easing tension with the justice system.
Your definition of “values” evidently excludes the law. Under that definition, people anywhere can hold whatever “values” they please, whether they live in Canada or North Korea. So let’s drop the “values” jargon and talk about right and wrong. It’s wrong to forcibly mutilate women’s genitals. Fortunately, Canadian law prohibits this. Now, it is unlikely but conceivable that 50 million East Africans could immigrate to Canada next year. If they did so, and had their way with the laws, it might well become legal to forcibly mutilate women’s genitals (maybe those of someone you know) in Canada. But it would still be wrong.
In deciding whether a law is just, do you, reckful, look strictly at right and wrong, or do you think a wrong action should be legal if someone else thinks it’s OK and might be offended if you tried to stop them from doing it? That is the aspect of multiculturalism that most people cannot stomach.
Who met with me yesterday in a very small town in the middle of nowhere?
Two families of franco-canadiens who did not speak English (a house sale).
A family of Italians, most of whom did not speak English (an estate dispute).
A family of Poles, who barely spoke any English (drafting a will and powers of attorney).
An east Indian family that spoke extremely heavily accented (often incomprehensible) English (corporate contract litigation).
A status Canadian Indian who spoke a fair bit of English with a heavy Oji-Cree accent (insurance litigation).
I wish I had a better ear and memory for languages, for I really enjoy meeting people from diffferent cultures. Multiculturalism is fantastic! Extremely challenging to communicate sometimes, but well worth the effort.
[off topic]Oh, and on my drive to work yesterday (about once a month I take a break and hang out a shingle in a small community about six hours away in the middle of nowhere), I saw:
A bald eagle being chased by a raven,
A lynx (we watched each other for a couple of minutes),
A very large, fully decorated christmas tree in a forest,
Three dragons (mama, papa, and baby) in a lake,
A beaver lodge with a “For Sale” sign on it, and
An “Oli Good Spring” (Finnish).
I’ve already tried to make this point in this thread, but I wasn’t very explicit about it. When someone is victimized in a culture, is she automatically an outsider to her culture? Females all over the world may have their human rights violated in practices that are culturally sanctioned. Yet they share the culture. They don’t necessarily believe those practices should be a part of their own culture. There are right and wrong people in every culture. So by saying that there are people victimized in other cultures, even if the violations are culturally specific, there is resistance to it within the culture and people who resist it are not outsiders to that culture just because they believe in human rights. Victims and people who support victims are present in every culture, so it’s not a contradiction to say that a Muslim in Canada can not practice any aspect of sharia if it violates an individual’s human rights, and they would never be permitted to do that. That’s not because of the the culture of Canada overriding Muslim traditions, it’s because Canada enforces human rights. If you see Chinese people who respect human rights instead of abandoning girl infants, are they no longer Chinese? Are they adopting Western values? No, they are perfectly valid participants in Chinese culture. Those values are not contrary to any culture.
It’s as if you believe that if someone practices sharia without violating human rights, they are not really authentic Muslims since the culture can not value human rights since there are people in it who don’t. Or that if the majority of Muslims were not fundamentalists, a whole culture would cease to exist. It’s not necessary to define a culture by it’s worst defects. And it does show an ignorance of the reality of many people living in it. It dismisses every person within the culture who is working to improve conditions for the weak or disadvantaged by saying that they are not part of their own culture–they are outsiders. And there is an implication that they must be western-influenced to care about rights. As if people all over the world in every culture have not had their own ideas about their own individual rights.
People choose to come to Canada because they value freedom. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t bother to come here. By coming here they are not necessarily rejecting their culture, and they did not aquire those values by coming here or being influenced by us. I have friends who came here from just about everywhere and all of them came here for better opportunities for their families and for their kids. I don’t see them adopting new values because they came to Canada, I see them loving Canada because in free country, they can express their values without fear of the government or the police or the military or extremists.
The law is different from culture, but they reflect one another. Sometimes it takes revolutions and civil wars to make the law conform to the will of the people. In some places, people are not free to live according to their values because the government isn’t doing what the people want. Remember when the Taliban was taken out, people rejoiced. People didn’t enjoy being locked in their homes. And women are people, after all. They didn’t necessarily want to deck themselves out like Paris Hilton, but they were happy to be free. Most people value their own freedom, and that isn’t cultural. Some people ONLY value their own freedom, and nobody else’s, and that isn’t cultural either.
So you can really only say one culture is better than another if you believe that the people all over the world who share your values are really just westerners who got dropped by the stork into the wrong place. My view of it is that within every culture there are people who share my values, and that cultures evolve and progress at different speeds. I think it’s very wrong to imagine that there are some cultures in which the majority happily give up their human rights because they just don’t know right from wrong. All cultures evolve over time. Sometimes it’s in the interest of those in power to preserve and encourage traditions that keep the majority from expressing values like fairness or freedom of choice. That doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
So what it boils down to is, are human rights a western value? I don’t believe that. I’m lucky that I live in a country where human rights are protected, but I don’t think it’s because we value them more, I think it’s because we are at a time and place in our history where we have achieved that. And consistant with how I value people’s right to freely choose, I don’t say my culture is better than one where women choose a role that I wouldn’t choose. As long as they are free to choose it, I will respect their choice. There is nothing indiscriminate about why I respect cultures that are not my own. And it has nothing to do with food.
It is true that within a culture, there can be a diversity of opinion on many issues (many, but not all, because if a culture were indifferent to every possible issue, it wouldn’t be a culture.) I know plenty of Muslims. I expect them to abstain from alcohol. I’m not surprised when they do abstain from alcohol. But I try not to assume that a particular individual will abstain from alcohol just because he’s a Muslim. Maybe the guy got out of Saudi Arabia because he really likes wine, who knows? As to whether such a person is a “true Muslim” or not, I will leave between him and Allah.
As it is, the U.S. accepts hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year from cultures that are very different from American culture. pokey, you’re saying that we are wrong to assume, for instance, that an immigrant from a Muslim country would advocate cutting the hands off of thieves. However, many Muslims do believe this. Do you think we should admit such people as immigrants? If not, what’s the alternative? To subject every Muslim immigrant to a detailed, probing interview of his political beliefs before granting entry? Because that’s just not practical - the backlog would be so huge, nobody would ever get in.
The best alternative, it seems to me, is to admit reasonably small numbers of Muslims, to prevent Muslim immigrants from becoming geographically, linguistically or socially segregated, to act strongly against any tendencies for these immigrants to apply native traditions that conflict with American law and culture, and to require eventual assimilation. That way, fanatics won’t be able to develop a following or exert influence. I also believe that there is justification for holding Muslim immigrants to a standard of “Americanism” that we don’t consciously apply to native-born Americans. The alternative is to shut the door completely.
