Im writing this from a European perspective, I dont know how the climate is in the US.
Anyway there is almost dogma in Europe (especially in the mass-media) that multiculturalism is something everybody should strive for. Personally I am not convinced of this, at all. Now my question is ,not so much if it is a good thing or not. But why is it so controversial to be against this ideal? It is almost that you are labeled a racist if you think otherwise. Is this based on anything, is there any evidence that multicultural societies work better? What is this notion based on.
For the record: Nothing against immigration in principle, I am myself an immigrant. Still I dont think multiculturalism is the solution. Assimilation I think is they key where a homogenous society is something to work for.
Key question: Where is the evidence that an MC society works better than a homogenous society? to me it seems purely emotionally based. What are the pros, really? you can still let people immigrate into a country, but they would have to assimilate (sorry if my english sucks)
Japan’s lack of looting & orderly response to the recent disaster is a good example of the value of rejecting multiculturalism. As John Derbyshire notes:
And Japan and Nazi Germany’s behavior during WWII demonstrates the other side of rejecting other cultures. As does the ruthlessness of the European imperial age.
The dogmas of social liberalism cannot be defended rationally, so they are defended with invective, and politically correct censorship. Those questioning those dogmas are not answered. They are shouted down. Sometimes they lose their jobs.
Japan’s current situation appears to be based more on a nearly uniform standard of living than on any specific cultural traits. Until someone actually studies the situation, all the claims about Japanese culture preventing looting are simply politically inspired wild assed guesses.
As to one question of the OP: it is not so much that one is racist if one does not embrace multiculturalism as it is that too many opponents of multiculturalism have been racists or employed racist arguments in their opposition. Those opponents have become lightning rods for the arguments of proponents of multiculturalism and some of the bad feeling spills over onto others who are considered to be “fellow travellers” of the racists.
Multiculturalism has many different meanings as it is commonly used that range from simple common courtesy based “sensitivity to other cultural norms” to “belief in the intrinsic equality of all cultures” with stops at all points in between. How is it meant in the OP?
The huge backlash over the Asians in the Libraryviral video has been causing the word multiculturalism to be used in media a lot for the last few days. I’m not at all sure what the term means when some people use it: is “disrespectful of multiculturalism” another way of saying racist or is it referring to something on a bigger scale?
Can you say “psychological projection”? Social liberalism is easy to defend rationally; it’s the other side that can’t do so, and tends to try to shout down opponents. Or kill them.
I do not consider your comment to be a flame attack, but flaming is prohibited here. On other internet forums I have been flamed for questioning the liberal dogma that race is only a social construct, and that any racial differences that are not cosmetic are due exclusively to differing environments, and somehow the fault of white malevolence.
I’m hoping someone will swoop in with some cites here, but I’m almost certain that the assimilation thing is a red herring, since it turns out that assimilation happens even in the most multicultural of societies without any intentional poking or prodding within the course of just two generations.
When has someone lost his job or gotten into any trouble at all for maintaining that race is only a social construct, that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire, or that most Roman Catholic pedophile priests who abuse boys are not homosexuals?
Because historically, people claiming such things have been both malevolent and either liars or deluded. And because race is an artificial construct, like it or not. Why should anyone believe that your particular set of racial categories just happens to reflect reality?
I find the older immigrants tend to want to assimilate more than the younger ones.
When I worked in H/R, one of the oddest complaints I got was that we gave H/R instruction, to the workers in Spanish and Polish. The older Spanish and Polish people almost to 100% told me that it was a waste to do that and the younger ones should be learning English.
It wasn’t a hard core complaint but more like an observation how the older people felt they needed to assimilate and learn English. The younger ones were like, “Why can’t Americans learn our language”
I was raised by parents form Yugoslavia in America and I was the only non-bilingual member of my family as my parents thought it was important that I speak English properly without any accent, so they refused to allow anything but English toward me.
I will also note that you have never “questioned” that race is a social construct on this message board. You have indicated that you do not share that view, but you have never actually posted anything to support your apparent contention that race is something other than a social construct. This is not the thread in which to do it, but you really have never provided a reason for anyone else to accept your already biologically disproven beliefs.
Being against multiculturism implies you believe some cultures are better than others.
There is no doubt that many measures would suggest to confirm this idea… the problem is: who gets to decide and what measure do they use.
As a way of copping out and not having to perform this judgement, many prefer to just avoid the question and suggest that all cultures are “equally good”. This leads to a belief that multiculturism is also good.
I listen to the British PM’s talk a couple weeks back, and I mostly agree with it. I assume you have listened to it too. What was your opinion on the things he addressed?
