Is multiculturalism at odds with the welfare state

Great Debates
1

Peter Beinart was on NPR recently and he mentioned how the welfare state (which I assume means social safety net, wealth redistribution, low GINI coefficient) is not compatible with multiculturalism. In a multicultural society, people start to feel angry and resentful about welfare or government intervention because they feel it is benefiting the ‘others’ who they feel are foreign or inferior.

It is easy to see examples of this in the US when it comes to blacks and latinos, many dog whistle statements are made about how they benefit from welfare programs by people opposed to the programs.

But is this argument that multiculturalism goes against the welfare state, or you need a racially and culturally homogeneous society to have a welfare state founded on valid social science? He used the example of the Scandinavian nations as homogeneous, which is accurate, but isn’t Canada kind of a melting pot and they have a decent welfare state?

If it is true, can anything be done about it? Can you have a mixed society full of racial, religious & ethnic tension and still have a welfare state and redistribution of income?

2

I can definitely see where he’s coming from- in the face of group-based inequalities, it’s a pretty easy progression to assuming that those other groups are taking an undue share. Especially when the inequality between the groups isn’t that great, and it’s seen as competition. You see this in the US where the working and lower-middle class whites show considerable animus toward blacks and hispanics. On the flip side, most of your white liberals tend to be drawn from strata of white society where there isn’t much perceived competition.

This also tends to reinforce existing negative attitudes about other groups/cultures.

OTOH, in a homogenous society, the welfare state is relatively easily thought of as taking care of your own; there’s not competition between groups.

Canada is not a good example; it’s about 81% white, as opposed to the US, which is only 65% or so white, and the biggest “visible minority populations” are South Asian and Chinese, neither of whom are typically lower socioeconomic status.

3

Multiculturalism is harder to implement when your populace is stuck in a primitive Us/Them rut. The problem isn’t welfare state vs. multiculturalism. The problem is that Us/Them based on skin color or some other superficial garbage defeats most efforts to accept different cultures or to work together as a community aiming for a good life for everyone, not just some tiny fraction.

4

Canada appears to have such a large non-white population because its biggest city, Toronto, is a majority-minority city (where less than half the population are not visible minorities). Most of its other major cities have fairly large non-white populations, but this isn’t very different from the US or the UK.

Because there’s less segregation in Canada*, a Canadian living in a relatively poor neighbourhood is very likely to live beside white and non-white welfare recipients. Welfare is despised in Canada much like in the US, and there’s even issues of racial prejudice, but I think there’s a lot less talk about race in Canadian welfare commentary.

*The unofficial kind. Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in Canada.

5

Sounds like a rather sneaky effort to stir up trouble between potential allies, in order to fool them into defeating their own best interests.

A claim that those various groups are incapable of finding common ground, and seeing the bigger picture in all things, requires that we support and expand certain prejudices against each other. And then of course, after we purposely undermine our faith in our own ideas for how best to serve the United States best interests, we can take the next logical step, and turn over permanent leadership of the entire country, to people who we are certain want to see us all fail, for their sake.

The thing is, the people who believe that we should have care for all, be made a part of the core value of the country, have never said that they want to do this for only one racial or cultural subgroup. It is the opponents of mutual care, who have always been the ones to push that narrow view.

6

That’s kind of begging the question though, isn’t it? Multiculturalism is still “real” multiculturalism if ethnic minorities are middle class rather than poor. And if you don’t like Canada as an example, you can sub in New Zealand (74% European , 15% Maori , 12% Asian) which still has a much more robust social safety net than the US. Or, going back over to Europe, it doesn’t seem like large numbers of immigrants in France have really dented the population’s liking for social welfare programs. There may be a bit of a battle going on over there about how much social welfare protection to have, but it seems to still be very much along traditional labour vs big business lines, rather than ethnic ones.

Comparing the US to Scandinavia doesn’t seem that productive, anyway, in terms of what you actually do about the problem of having disadvantaged minority groups in your population. If you say “social welfare is accepted more in Sweden because it’s more homogenous”… well, okay, maybe. Maybe it’s because Sweden is physically smaller. Maybe it’s because America was founded by curmudgeonly independents who positively WANTED to get out into the wilderness away from civilisation and build their own log shack with their own hands. But not having “multiculturalism” - however you define it - isn’t going to actually do anything about the underlying situation that you are, factually, living in a very large country and the ethnic minorities in that country do, in fact, exist. Was American society less divided before “multiculturalism”? Seems to me like it was more divided - in fact, that there were very rigid barriers between different ethnic groups and a much stronger taboo against multi-ethnic marriage - which is the best way of actually moving toward a united society.

It seems to me that things are the other way around - the US is actually unusually resistant (for a western country) to high levels of social welfare spending and the “oh well, it’s just used to benefit THOSE people” is being trotted out to explain away a resistance that’s already there for other reasons and is deeply baked into the way a lot of Americans see themselves, particularly in rural areas - as independent people who don’t need help, and are fully capable of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

7

…as a New Zealand Samoan/Maori living in a multi-cultural country with a history of a strong welfare state (although under the last nine years of a National Government that state has been underfunded) I have to ask Peter Beinart what the fuck is he talking about? Does he even understand what multiculturalism means? How a welfare state works?

No it isn’t true. I live in a society that proves him wrong. There must be some nuance to his position that you’ve missed in the OP because I don’t see how one thing would affect the other at all.

Can you explain how this works? This seems to be a take on “American individualism” and is something that is very “American centric” but that isn’t how the rest of the world views the welfare state at all by and large.

8

Okay, I am obviously not understanding how to use this new look of the SDMB. I’m trying to put two quotes from two different posters in this message. Anyway, bump said:

Then, Kimera757 said:

These quotes indicate that we need to settle on a definition of “multicultural” that works for everybody.

For my part, as a Canadian, I know what Canada’s definition of “multicultural” is, and it has nothing to do with white/non-white. For example, Russians, Ukranians, Britons, Italians, Greeks, Norwegians–all are white, but Canada sees them as six different cultures. Nigerians, Jamaicans, Barbadians, Senegalese–all may be black, but Canada sees them as four different cultures. Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans–brown, but three different cultures. And so on. Race and skin colour plays no part in the Canadian definition of “multiculturalism.” It’s the ethnicity that counts.

Based on the remarks of the above quoted posters, I’m unsure if we’re all looking at the same definition of “multiculturalism.” It seems to me that the American definition of the word is based on race: Black, White, Hispanic. Meanwhile, the Canadian definition has nothing to do with race, but with ethnicity (French, Malaysian, Columbian, Irish, Thai, etc.). I cannot speak for other immigrant countries, such as Australia; but it seems to me that until we settle on a single definition for “multiculturalism,” our American friends and those of us in Canada, and possibly the rest of the world, will be talking past each other.

9

Visible homogeneity of itself doesn’t guarantee acceptance of a welfare state amongst those who feel they’re contributing to other’s indolence or greed: that was felt just as much across any other divide that could be invented.

It’s all a matter of how “belonging” is defined and expressed, and how “othering” is combatted.

10

Oh yeah, I would definitely agree that this applies in Australia, nearly word for word. The commonly used phrase for talking about multiculturalism is “CALD” - Culturally and Linguistically Diverse" - and it’s very much national origin based.

11

IME if you click the word link “Multi Quote” that does nothing. But if you click the icon (quote bubble overlaid with plus sign), that works to select the post and the icon changes color/shade to show it’s been activated.

The other 3 options in that area work correctly, where clicking either the link or the icon triggers the corresponding action.

*Tres *annoying.

12

That is just not the reality of the situation, I’m sorry.

CANADIANS absolutely do not see Britons and Italians as distinct cultures in the same way they do Jamaicans and Senegalese, and I doubt very sincerely that most Canadians

  1. Could find Senegal on a map or tell you anything about it, or
  2. Would even see “Norwegian” as a distinct culture Canada has.

As any Black person can tell you, in Canada, you are perceived as Black first, and Jamaican/Barbadian/Nigerian second if at all. My brother in law is not pulled over several times a year because his parents are from Trinidad. He’s pulled over several times a year because he’s Black. He and my sister don’t get mean sideways glances and mutterings because a guy of Trinidadian descent married a woman of British and German descent. They get sideways glances and mutterings because he’s Black and she’s white. Whatever Pollyanna story the government tells you or you’re telling yourself, that’s real life truth. Or ask a First Nations kid anywhere if he thinks the cops give a shit if he’s Okanagan or Anishinaabe.

I’m guessing you’re white. (I apologize, I think we’ve met but I have a very poor memory nowadays.) This is not how life actually works in Canada.

You seem to be saying race, as in white/black/Asian/south Asian/First Nations/etc. doesn’t count in Canada. It very much does. Probably MORE than national origin. Really, no one gives a shit if your family came from Holland or England; if you’re white, you’re white. People very much do care if you’re black. Especially police officers.

13

Which isn’t associated with the multicultural approach the Canada State attempts to take with immigrants.

Officially the intent is to allow cultural practices to flourish as opposed to being discarded in favour of established British/French norms.

Now that said, personal interaction based on skin colour is definitely a problem. We can’t leave Toronto’s carding problems out of how people interact and we can’t ignore what the Indian Act did to first nation/canadian relations. However the policy is ethnic/cultural not racial and geared to avoiding a mandate of homogenization.

14

Canada’s minorities are mostly relatively recent immigrants and Canada’s immigration system is heavily biased toward people who have either money or in demand skills. Thus most of Canada’s welfare system was created before it became diverse and its minorities are much less likely to use welfare than in the US.

15

Immigration and race aside, French Canadians are culturally distinct, at least to an extent.

16

Let’s reverse the scenario. In the near future, most retirees will be white and most workers will be brown. How eager will the workers be to shell out more taxes to support the elderly white folks?

17

As Rick Jay and others have said, Black is definitely a thing in Canada. But it remains the case that it is not nearly the thing it is in the US. I grew up in the US, but have lived in Canada for the last 49 years. It just does not feel the same. When a black moved into a white block in Philadelphia, all the whites hurried up to get out. When that happened a few blocks from here, there was no reaction and no one is trying to sell.

And even where it seems obvious that one ethnic group is benefiting from welfare, this causes no reaction, as far as I can tell. I still think that race underlies every political decision in the US, the idea that “they” will benefit more than “we”. Whatever happens to Rick Jay’s BIL (and I completely agree it is deplorable) it doesn’t translate into “Let’s stop welfare.”

WAG: I think the American oligarchs encourage this attitude to deflect attention from the fact that they are running things largely for their own benefit.

18

To be fair that might be 49 years speaking, rather than national differences( which I’m sure do still exist ). I very much doubt a black person moving into a white block in today’s Philadelphia would trigger white flight in as dramatic a fashion as it did a half century ago. Some things have improved, even if just a bit.

19

I think the relationship between support for social welfare spending and support for multiculturalism is really complicated, and that the story Beinart is telling is a bit of a Just So story.

20

You’d have to ask them. Has anyone asked them?