Multiculturalism is the way to go?

Great Debates
41

RE: "… in a well functioning society such as Canadian … "

This is a description of temporal perception, not a description intertemporal outcome. As such, it is not a description of the merits of a society (which would require some sort of result to judge over time) but a description of the current state of human experience in society, despite the possible, and as yet unknown outcomes.

Canada is not so much a multi-cultural society, as an uncompetitive resource economy, with little or no productive innovation, that chose to sell off it’s resources to immigrants in order to create jobs that could not be obtained by capital concentration and intellectual competitiveness. There is vast cultural war going on between the french classes and the english, and the country does not even have a formal constitution because of it. But economically, it is simply doing what the US did in the nineteenth century: selling off land for redistributive ends, and calling it productivity. Productivity comes from increasing the amount of wealth created by the same number of people working fewer hours, and by that process, transitioning the economic status of individuals above their prior state.

The question remains as to whether the resulting civilization, over some period of time, when this economic construct is no longer possible, results in integration of the people by breeding and culture, or fragments the society into subclasses and civil unrest or civil war.

This is, before discussing the impact of debt expended in anticipation of productive increases in society that appear not to be realizable in a world wherein capitalism has been adopted, and therefore productivity is increasing, in vast civilizations heretofore hindered by their lack of institutions of calculation and incentives. (the most important of which is truth telling, and contract adherence, and non-corruption)

(For example, ontario is very close to financial collapse if the property values decline as they have in started to in western canada. This is compounded by the fact that the entire great lakes area, which was developed in order to manufacture goods for western expansion, is the only major resource area in north america that is in decline.)

The end result, which is evident already in canadian society, as well as all advanced western societies, is that the initial entrepreneurial class of immigrants integrates fairly well into the commercial order but remains culturally segmented in family and social orders. After the entrepreneurial class, he more primitive cultures are forming, as they do in europe and south america, a ring of perpetual poverty around the urban centers, and are forming a permanent dependent class that requires more financial support than is given to the aging domestic population.

Whether the political construct that is a remnant of the old english order, will persist under that diversity is open to question. Or, more likely per history, that society will re-fragment and political and cultural strife will ensue. Nationalism was the result of cultural differences seeking political status. Cultures do not integrate. Certain groups do assimilate. But cultures do not integrate.

Everyone is all happy under plenty. But under pressure, everyone reverts to his culture.

It may be worth noting that prior to the fall of the great monarchical orders in europe, most sub-populations existed in multicultural enclaves in the urban centers, and got along famously for the most part. THen democracy made nationalism possible - cultural states rather than poly-enclave states. And vast wars resulted from it.

Freedom of property and association is good for productivity. But political freedom leads to the problem of marginal indifferences that cannot be resolved between groups, because in the end, they lead to differences in social status that are intolerable by their elites. We can have multiculturalism, in that sense of enclaves if we wish to return to monarchy run by a homogenous dominant culture, and a plebeian multicultural house that redistributes productive gains from the creative and productive classes to the consumer classes. But status seeking among groups cannot function in a pure democracy without eventual civil unrest. There cannot be any hope of obtaining absolute cultural power if we wish to have enclaves. (Because we will not get integration. It does not happen.)

For this reason, parliamentary monarchy was possibly the finest form of government that we ever invented. It prevents the problem of king-of-the-hill games by minorities seeking to advance their status.

42

Untrue.

New York City is the safest large city in the USA. I don’t know exactly how many ethnicities are present in NYC. I do know, that at the municipal court where I work, we offer translation into 40 languages,

43

The first time that I became familiar with the concept of multiculturalism was when I was an editorial assistant for internationally published children’s Sunday school material. One of my duties was to tell artists and photographers what to depict and photograph. I was told from the beginning to be certain that these illustrations were “multi-cultural,” – including children of many “races,” backgrounds and countries.

That was in 1967.

Imagine my surprise when I began teaching in 1969 and my high school principal assigned me the task of evaluating the textbooks that were in the English department for this “multiculturalism content.” He made it very clear that he was opposed to the idea.

One comment about food before it is shrugged off as not being very meaningful. When I was growing up, in our house, spaghetti came out of a can and so did tamales. There was no “ethnic” food. We had not heard of pizza except in a Dean Martin song and we thought he was saying “piece of.” I had my first pizza when I was eighteen and my first taco when I was in my early twenties. Greek and mediterranean food came into my life in the late seventies possibly. Polynesian food came along in the Sixties and that led to Chinese food in the Seventies. Ethiopean food hit my neighborhood about five years ago. Now we have just about everything at the grocery stores. I have soups imported from Spain in my frig and one last samosa from my favorite Indian resaurant. And I know that many of the restaurants that I go to serve Americanized versions.

The melting into the pot comes naturally. And what is unique and special is preserved and treasured by still more people.

44

Well, as long as we come full circle.

45

Actually, as presented, here, Schumpeter is nothing more than a Randian philosophizing as an anti-Randian.
I have no idea whether that is Schumpter’s actual position, but that is what you have presented. The notion that capitalism is in danger of being destroyed by “intellectuals” has no basis in actual fact. It might have appeared true at a time when there were more Marxist and Socialist philosophers present in the market of ideas, (with a nervous fear that the Soviet Revolution might be repeated or that the later Cultural Revolution might succeed), but the collapse of the Soviet Union, the redirection of China to a market economy, and any number of other actual historical events have demonstrated that there is no basis in fact for the ideas presented in that post as Schumpeter’s.

= = =

Mod note: Your earlier reference to Schumpter appears to be directly quoted form another source in violation of Copyright. If I find that to be the case, I will have to remove the post. Please make sure that anything you post is your own work. Shorter quotations are permitted, provided that they are correctly attributed to copyrighted sources.
[ /Modding ]

46

Not really, no; a century ago, the “natural” state of affairs involved a whole bunch of different cultures spread o’er the face of the world; a century before that, likewise; a century before that, ditto; another, et cetera. Go back a millennium or two and it keeps on keeping on. And as of today, yep, still.

Monoculture isn’t yet the state of affairs – and it wasn’t back when Italy was getting the Renaissance underway while different stuff was brewing in feudal Japan and the Incas were off doing their own thing likewise, all while Tudor-era England maybe didn’t resemble Persia under the Shahs, sure as the Ottoman Empire maybe didn’t yet know that Australian aborigines existed.

What was the monoculture back then? China’s fabled Ming Dynasty? India’s less-fabled Delhi Sultanate? Possibly the Swiss Confederacy? Well, no; there just wasn’t one, is all – and today, Saudi Arabia is rather unlike Amsterdam, sure as North Korea doesn’t much resemble Manhattan and the Congo differs in some ways from Israel, plus Argentina just legalized gay marriage.

It ain’t.

The second part there hints at my answer to the first: it doesn’t so clearly suck. Plenty of folks believe their own culture is terrific, and they’re not entirely wrong; the culture in question typically has a number of things going for it, and so they don’t see a big problem with monoculture (so long as it’s their own) sure as they can readily overlook the good points of other cultures (for pretty much the same reason).

I dunno. They’ve managed it lots of times, in lots of different ways.

Do you figure there’s an American culture in the US, one that’s changed over time? Enough support from women voters recently got a black President elected, which is a sentence that wouldn’t have made a lot of sense decades ago – but then Prohibition came for some reason and went away for some reason, and then a bunch of other trends happened; how?

47

** The Other Waldo Pepper**, my intentions must be unclear. I don’t think there is or can be a monoculture. The whole line of thought that multiculturalism must be propped up is just rubbish to me. I tried to illustrate that by pointing out that multiculturalism is just another way of resisting change. The opposite of multiculturalism isn’t monoculture. Monoculture is impossible. The opposite of multiculturalism is integration. But integration isn’t anything to fear.

48

I would wholeheartedly dispute this.

Hyphenated American A can be fully integrated into a multicultural America - work and live side by side with other Americans with and without their own hyphens, celebrate the 4th of July, follow all laws, etc. - and have a heritage that they also enjoy whose traditions they also follow, and share willingly with those other Americans with and without their own hyphens.

Integration does not require giving up traditions of heritage and all becoming one grey mass of sameness - it does require also accepting some common values (which include respecting the rights of others to be different) and an additional identity and group membership as well.

When the founders of America made it clear that America would not establish a state religion, when the courts upheld that in America we each have the right to our own religious identities or none at all if that be our choice, “multiculturalism” was “propped up” - yet those actions did not prevent new immigrants with different religions from integrating, from becoming another morsel of the hodgepodge stew (or perhaps “stone soup” is a better metaphor?); rather it allowed for it.

The point of multiculturalism is that we can have multiple identities and multiple POVs and yet all still be respected and valued integrated members of the same group at the same time.

49

But various cultures that don’t get propped up do vanish. I don’t share your enthusiasm for assuming that monoculture is impossible; maybe it is, maybe it’s not.

Cite?

50

It’s not clear why you think we disagree.

That is the point of integration. What group of people at any time was a gray mass of robots all thinking alike? None, ever. The point of multiculturalism is to preserve one’s ways in spite of those around them. Integration is we both change; multiculturalism is neither of us change, we just live next door; you have your ways, and I have mine, and we grin and bear it. To put it metaphorically, multiculturalism is Jim Crow. To mutually recognize benefits, to draw in different customs, to merge strengths and shed weakness, this is integration. We don’t become one, we just come together.

When I think of multiculturalism, I think of segregation and discrimination. I think of people that don’t accept each other. Preservation of differences can only lead to segregation; to the extent that is appropriate in the context of cultures, multiculturalism just is segregation. How do you preserve a culture without it? If cultures don’t remain separate, then by definition they’ve integrated, they’ve merged, changing both in the process, like two parents creating a child, with parts from both but decidedly not either.

In the sense that the pro-multiculturalism folks think, yeah, they probably do, always. In some cases, we’ve seen they just get stamped out and lost forever. Life happens. But in most cases, they’re more of a tarbaby you punch than a roach underfoot. Japan was changed forever after WWII. It became decidedly “western” in a lot of ways. But you can’t travel to Japan without recognizing that their culture wasn’t obliterated. It wasn’t stamped out. And the impositions of the West did not come without a kind of cultural export of its own.

51

How do you classify the third alternative? You say that “In some cases, we’ve seen they just get stamped out and lost forever” – is that integration, or multiculturalism, or what? (Yes, I get that you think it’s often “more of a tarbaby you punch than a roach underfoot”. What do you call it when a culture does get the roach treatment?)

52

Your image of multiculturalism is a bit … odd … and unique … to me. I have never seen multiculturalism promoted as, nor previously heard it interpreted as, meaning no change and segregation. I have instead seen it promoted as seeing a benefit to having meaningful interchange with “the other” next door in a mutually respectful manner and being open to those other POVs as possibly having something of value. And both evolving some as a result. Multiculturalism is not having a Jewish school and a Catholic school, an urban Black business and a Native American one, a Pakistani neighborhood and an Ethiopian one - it is about trying to have all the traditions represented in the same institutions at the same time working together in pursuit of common goals. And the belief that that diversity brings more function than dysfunction to the institution. (Whether or not that belief is justified is the question of the op.)

The opposite of multiculturalism is imposition of the majority culture and suppression of any minority traditions, or exclusion of those who have them, not integration.

53

DSeid, I agree, it was never presented like that. It is exactly—exactly—what shocked me so much about the offhanded comment in The Economist. I resisted it, rejected it, it was totally alien to me: multiculturalism is about openness and sharing and…

Well, is it? Really? The more I struggled against the idea that multiculturalism was just conservativism in disguise (culturally speaking—this is not a political jab), the more I just proved the point I resisted.

In what sense is “Accept me as I am!” anything but a rallying cry for segregation?

What is the difference between integration and multiculturalism?

It cannot be, because this is no longer multiple cultures living side by side, it is two (or more) cultures merging. If multiculturalism is culture-preserving, then it cannot be what you suggest.

If I am wrong, it would not be the first time I use words inappropriately. It is, I admit, a very bad habit of mine, much of what leads me to avoid the SDMB, actually. But I do believe this really is the crux of the matter. Multiculturalism is, in a very important sense, culture-preserving. But I think that’s very bad. If that is what multiculturalism means, then I am against it. If that’s not what multiculturalism means, then I don’t know what integration means. What is integration, then, if you find my use of multiculturalism so strange?

54

In every sense.

There certainly is belief, more commonly held in Europe I think than in America, that preserving a culture of heritage is in opposition to integration. And it is true that Europe does have some immigrant communities that are very insular and who seem to the general public to place little importance on their national or European identity as well. Integration does require sharing some values and institutions.

But multiculturalism is not the mere presence of other cultures in the midst - and segregation is the result of not accepting people’s differences rather than a result of accepting them. Multiculturalism invites the diversity into a family of families.

France is a good example of that European belief: you are allowed to be part of us if so long as you give up that which you believe makes you you. New York and other places in the US are closer to the multiculturalism of which I speak. Vibrant by virtue of its diverse membership; all sharing in the identities of New Yorker and American while each also proudly themselves as well. I am not my brother and my brother is not me, accepting each other how we are, with our differences, is what allows us to be family. Not merged. Separate parts of a greater whole.

55

There’s nothing wrong with a border that can be freely crossed by anyone from either side at any time, as they wish. And there’s nothing wrong with people on either side who don’t choose to cross it much. That is a free society.

Separation is not segregation. Distinctive cultural neighborhoods are not automatically ghettos.

56

There’s nothing wrong with multiculturalism - so long as you you include your own culture as part of it.

A big problem with multiculturalism as it manifests itself today in the west is that it often comes with a tendency to denigrate our own culture. There’s something wrong with a system that has you believe that when you travel to another country you must obey and respect their culture, but if people from that culture come to yours - you must obey and respect their culture and allow them to ignore your own.

If you extend the right of another culture to protect itself and thrive even inside your own, then you should expect the same treatment for your own culture. But that’s often not the case. Multi-culti types will, for example, defend the right of Muslims to set up sharia law in Canada, but would never dream of demanding that Saudi Arabia allow western women to have all the rights of men inside Saudi Arabia - after all, they have a right to their own culture, don’t they?

That imbalance in attitude will inevitably lead to the destruction of western culture.

Multiculturalism is about right when it leads to tolerance of others’ beliefs and acceptance of other cultures within broad limits, while still allowing for the defense of your own and while demanding the human rights written into your own constitution.

Take immigration. In Canada, as children we were taught that Canada is cultural mosaic, while America was a Melting Pot. In Canada, people could come here and live with their culture intact, while in the U.S. people were expect to become Americans first, and accept American values.

I think in that case America had it right (although it’s now abandoning the Melting Pot for a mosaic of its own). I happen to be proud of western culture. Seeing a McDonalds in another country does not bother me. Hearing a Canadian rock band on German Radio makes me feel a little pride. My culture includes tolerance for all, the value of hard work, freedom to own property and deal with people without interference from others, respect for women, gays, and minorities. That’s worth defending.

Which brings me to the next problem with multiculturalism - the tendency of multiculturalists to refuse to pass judgment on other cultures. No, not all cultures are equal. No, they don’t all have an equal moral standing. If your culture includes stoning women to death for adultery or cutting off the clitorises of little girls, I have no problem saying your culture is screwed up. If your culture includes sentencing homosexuals to death or owning people as property or institutionalized rape of little boys by elders, then your culture is messed up and I have no problem saying it. I may not advocate invading your country to stop you from doing it, but I sure as hell am not going to pretend it’s all just a matter of judgment and that I have no right to declare that my culture is better than yours. I do, and I will.

And if you want to live in my country, you had better damned well leave your misogynistic, pedophilic, freedom-hating culture behind. And you can learn my language and respect my own culture. If you want to be a police officer in my country, you don’t get to wear your ceremonial dagger or a turban or the uniform of the police from the homeland, because my culture includes beaufiful, traditional red Mountie uniforms with nice black caps, and we like it that way.

If you want to bring your wife or daughter to my country, you better be ready to accept the fact that we’ll throw your ass in jail if you beat them. If you want to drive a car in my country, you’re going to have to take your damned burka off for your driver’s license photo. If women walking around in shorts and halter tops offends you, this might not be the country you want to move to, so don’t come here and then tell me my culture has to change to accommodate yours. If you are deeply offended by seeing certain pictures or reading certain words, you might not want to move here, because freedom of speech is part of my culture, and that’s the way we roll.

So don’t think of moving here and then demanding that my culture drop its freedom of speech to avoid offending you. It’s all part of the package, buddy.

And likewise, if I decide to move to your country, I accept that I’ll have to follow your laws, so long as I can do so within my conscience. And if I can’t, I won’t move to your country. I wouldn’t dream of moving to Saudi Arabia and demanding that my daughter be allowed to wear a halter and shorts to school, or that I be allowed to wear my traditional mountie uniform if I decide to become a cop. Because I respect your right to maintain your own culture just like I reserve the right to maintain my own.

That’s real multiculturalism. Unfortunately, too much of modern western multiculturalism is more akin to cultural self-loathing or of western cultural prostration at the feet of other cultures.

57

Is this really common? Are there liberal, multicultural proponents who “would never dream” of criticizing Saudi Arabia? Can you give us a cite showing someone who holds those views? I assume when you use the term multicultural “types” that you’re not talking about Muslim activists who want Sharia law in Canada, and who would be quite happy with women in Canada being treated like women in Saudi Arabia. Rather, you are talking about liberal, western activists or politicians who espouse multiculturalism.

58

If they had been celebrating Cinco de Mayo or Kwanzza, so what?

On Sunday, I spent the day at the park where the National Black Arts Festival was going on. Most of the attendees were black, but there were plenty of whites, Asians, and others enjoying themselves, too. To me, this is what multiculturalism means: Encouraging people to come together and celebrate the offerings from a culture that may or may not be the same as their own, because that culture is has value or relevance to society as whole.

59

Think of a neighborhood potluck. In an integrated one, everyone would bring potato salad, hot dogs and brownies.

But in a multicultural one, the Spanish family would bring pallela, the Thai family would bring noodles in peanut sauce, and the Swedish family would bring meatballs and the eating would be great!

It isn’t a sense of 'this is our culture, back off!" But rather 'this is our culture, let’s share it!"

60

Have you ever been to, or even heard of, a potluck where everyone brought the same three dishes? Has there ever been a culture, anywhere, that had only three different foods?

Is this really any better, living in a society everyone is required to cook foods associated with their ethnic group? Would it really be so bad if the Spanish family decided to bring gyros instead? What is this scenario? It’s neither multiculturalism nor integration.