Integration is if McDonalds started selling the McGyro or McFalafel.
Multiculturalism is protesting the McGyro or McFalafel because you think it’s exploitation and only those of Mediterranean origins should be able to make those foods.
That being said, I think I sickened myself by the mental image of what a McGyro would taste like. McDonalds would probably try putting thousand island dressing on it as a ‘secret sauce’ or something. Ugh.
Come on. He could have said fried chicken, cole slaw and ice cream.
:smack: Nobody’s required. It’s fine for the Spanish family to bring gyros, if they know how to make good ones. If they do, it’s because they have been living in a multicultural society.
Huh? I’ve never heard that. Got something to back it up? Sounds more like something the anti-globalization crowd would glom onto.
I meant they wouldn’t dream of going to Saudi Arabia and demanding that they change their values to Canadian or American values.
I don’t want to take this too far, because I don’t want to sound like I’m some sort of ethnocentric snot or an isolationist or something. I’m not. My real point was that there is a difference between accepting other cultures, and treating your own like it is evil or at best that it’s irrelevant.
If a turban and a ceremonial dagger are cultural trappings that deserve to be respected, then surely the uniform of the RCMP is also a cultural trapping that deserves to be defended? And yet, when a Sikh man demanded to be allowed to wear his turban and dagger instead of the traditional Mountie headdress, multiculturalists here backed him up, and ultimately it was allowed. Now, this isn’t that big a deal, but it seems to me that a line was crossed from “respect all cultures”, to “their culture trumps ours”. Or perhaps that our ‘culture’ is nothing more than the willingness to live in a society composed of other people’s cultures, and we have no intrinsic culture of our own worth defending.
As another trivial example, there are plenty of people who think that a McDonalds in Japan is a sign of American cultural imperialism and something to be embarrassed about, but an authentic Japanese restaurant in New York is a sign of multicultural acceptance and a good thing. Holding those two beliefs at the same time would indicate that you don’t think much of your own culture.
Another example is the insistence of some that Native Americans were peace-loving environmentalists who were good stewards of the land, and Europeans were a bunch of smallpox-carrying, treacherous thugs who destroyed the Native’s lives with guns and whiskey. That’s pretty much what I was taught in school, and my daughter was taught much the same thing this year. That whole narrative is filled with the assumption that Native culture was better than ours, that they were better people and that we were awful.
The truth of course is in between. Native Americans and Canadians were plenty warlike before we arrived. The Iroquois had lived in a state of constant conflict with their neighbors for centuries. When Natives had the ability to do so, they didn’t have a problem with herding buffalo off cliffs by the thousands, then taking what they could use and leaving the rest to rot.
The Europeans did lots of really scummy things, but they also did a lot of good things. And if you consider the context in which good and evil was carried out by both sides, it was a context that included a lot of hunger, sometimes starvation, and competition for scarce resources between peoples on the ragged edge of existence. It wasn’t a case of a superior culture being dominated by an inferior culture.
It doesn’t matter which three foods he chooses, his argument–that homogeneity in people will lead to homogeneity in food options–is simply wrong.
Suppose that the Spanish family, the Thai family, the Swedish family, and all the other families in the neighborhood hold a big meeting. At this meeting, each family goes up, one by one, and teaches all the others the techniques of their cooking style. After this, they produce a giant cookbook of every recipe in the neighborhood. At this point, the families are as homogeneous–neighborhood is as integrated (with respect to food)–as they will ever be. However, the idea that the food presented at the potlucks will instantly become homogeneous is self-evidently ridiculous. People have different tastes and skills that aren’t explained by the culture of their ancestors. So, I fail to see why integration is a bad thing.
Unless, what everyone here means by “multiculturalism is good” is something like “totalitarianism is bad”. In that case, yes, I agree that totalitarianism is bad.
OK, same question. Who are these people? Are these multicultural “types” or just Muslims or Muslim sympathizers? If you can point to some specific people, that would help.
Bad example. “They” didn’t make everyone where a turban. “They” just wanted to be able to wear one themselves. And it isn’t just a cultural issue-- it’s a religious requirement, much like an Orthodox Jew wearing a yarmulke.
I think that’s another bad example. More classism than multiculturalism. They probably wouldn’t be embarrassed to see a Ruth’s Chris restaurant in Japan and wouldn’t be too thrilled to see American businessmen reading Japanese porn comics on the train during their commute.
Yes, this seems to have lingered long after being debunked by historians.
The “Noble savage” myth far, far predates the modern concept of multiculturalism.
I’m aware of that, but it is still actively pushed. My daughter’s social studies unit this year was full of that stuff. And I wasn’t use it as a specific example of multiculturalism, but of the tendency some people have to denigrate their own culture in the name of respect for other cultures.
And the muzz family would mug and beat up everyone else because the food is not halal.
It was a sarcastic and offhand description of my personal opinion and interpretation of what people REALLY mean when they say ‘integration’ and ‘multiculturalism’. I view integration as things from different cultures get combined in unexpected ways. Multiculturalism is the view that XYZ person can do something because it’s cultural to them, while a person not in that culture doing it is bad and exploitative. These aren’t the dictionary definitions, so no, I have nothing to back it up other than personal observation.
As for anti-globalization? WTF? Where did globalization come into my sarcastic comment? Other than the fact it’d probably taste really horrible, I don’t care if McDonald’s makes a McGyro. However, I’m sure some would care and claim McDonalds is exploiting Mediterranean culture. Regardless, I’m actually pretty gung ho about globalization, but that’s a different topic.
**My bolding. **No, that is not what multiculturalism is–in my personal observation. Every subculture brings something to the party & everybody else can take home whatever they like. Or just decide that, say, sushi is not for them. Let me give you some examples. Please offer some to support your belief.
I’m writing from Texas–where Anglo & Scots-Irish settlers learned to handle cattle from the Mexican (Spanish-Indian) vaqueros. (Yes, there were some disagreements over the years; but we’ve worked things out.) Where salsa is the most popular condiment. Where half of* Tejano* music is polkas–learned from the Central European settlers who brought the beer along with their accordions. White boys can learn to play the blues–just as Chicanos can become rappers. Likewise, the Multi Ethnic Cultural Association in my neighborhood has a fine Mariachi band–but its graduates have also won scholarships to Juilliard. There’s nothing wrong with those Dead White Guys!
Houston is one of the homes of zydeco.
Houston’s mix is getting richer. Most of the kids go to the same schools; they will keep some of the “older” subculture but embrace the new. Every shop & restaurant will gladly serve patrons outside “their” subculture–to the delight of Houston foodies.
Multiculturalism could be a problem in stagnant areas where each inbred community has its own walled village & The Other is hated. But that’s not the reality here–or in most of the USA.
Please–I really would like to see specific examples of the bad side of multiculturalism. Not just expressions of vague unease that some people dare not to be WASPs.
Agreed.
Years ago, I had some corporate training on diversity. The first slide stated “diversity: working together despite our differences.” I said “excuse me, but that’s wrong: it should say ‘taking advantage of our differences,’ or if you prefer it in business-speak, ‘leveraging our differences.’”
It took the presenter several tries to understand what I was saying, but for some reason the rest of the trainees got it in one. “Diversity” as “tokenism” or “multiculturalism” as “flies in amber” don’t work, what’s valuable is the interfaces, the points of interaction and exchange.
Well, you’re new here, so maybe you don’t understand how Great Debates works. There are other forums for “opinions”, but if you throw something out here, you’re expected to back it up. The best I could interpret your post was that it would be something an anti-globalization proponent would put forth. I don’t see any evidence that it is related to multiculturalism, so if you want to withdraw it, fine. But don’t get your hackles up when someone calls you on a post in this forum. That’s the way it works. 
Multiculturalism, as usually expressed in America today, is a reaction against the idea, unchallenged for so long in our history, that white Christian English-speaking culture is the default “normal” American culture, the real American culture, and that all the others are merely tolerated. As Matt Damon said in The Good Shepherd, when Joe Pesci asked him, “What have you [WASPs] got?”: “The United States of America. It’s ours. The rest of you are just visiting.”
But, multiculturalism assumes different ethnic subcultures will, and should, keep in perpetuity the same distinctive identity their ancestors had when they got off the boat. There are countless reasons why that is not a good idea, if we’re all going to live together in one national community.
One alternative to multiculturalism is a reasserted Christian-consensus; another is White Nationalism. But a better alternative is a pan-racial, pan-religious Trans-American culture, full of diversities but oriented around a common center-of-gravity, which in fact already exists, though both multiculturalists and cultural conservatives persistently deny it or ignore it. See The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution, by Michael Lind, for an extensive and well-thought-out treatment of all this.
I don’t have the time or money to read that book. But one of the 5-star reviewers states that the “problems” Lind opposes began with integration & the civil rights movement. Surely that’s a misrepresentation…
It is a misrepresentation; though Lind argues at length that the civil rights movement, entirely praiseworthy in its initial goals, was hijacked by the ideas of racial quotas and group rights. It is worth noting that to Lind, class is more important than race; and he argues that multiculturalism has been a useful divide-and-rule tool in the hands of the white overclass.
And if you can find the time, you can find the book in your public library.
I don’t think Canadian culture and values are in serious danger of being denigrated. What you’re seeing is simply a willingness to admit the reality of Canadian history. The aboriginals were and are poorly treated by the white majority; that is not something anyone can reasonably question, even if the “noble savage” myth is commonly held. And, frankly, the noble savage thing isn’t something our schools came up with on their own; it’s common belief, at least from what I can tell. The idea that Canadian aboriginals lived in harmony with the land and were advanced stewards of ecology is as old as anyone I know, even though it’s utter bullshit. (It’s also not just a Canadian thing.)
I mean, that’s hardly the dumbest thing you’ll hear in a school. Wasn’t it your kid who was taught a beaver is an amphibian? I had a teacher who thought Labrador was part of Quebec even though on the map on our classroom wall it was the same colour as Newfoundland.
At least in my experience, Canadians have never in my lifetime been more sure of the truth of their values and the worthiness of their country. I don’t think we were nearly as aggressively patriotic 30 years ago as we are today, and I don’t think we as a country have ever been more confident in Canada as we are today. If multiculturalism is supposed to cause a lack of confidence in the nation’s values I for one am not seeing any meaningful evidence of it.
Eh, different words, same idea. What you call multiculturalism is what I call integration. It’s a semantic point rather than an actual disagreement.
As an offhand example, here is a college class labeled Multicultural America RAP. Reading the description, it’s clear a student won’t learn about how Minnesota was changed by the Swedish, how Texmex is a fusion of multiple cultures, how the Irish influenced Boston’s development, or any of the hundreds of other examples of subgroups integrating with and changing the society they immigrated to. Those are meaning to multiculturalism that I would support, and it sounds like you would to. Instead, the world multiculturalism here is nothing more than a code word for ‘black’. Under the name of multiculturalism, one culture is being studied, elevated, and researched at the expense of all other cultures. It’s being used to divide people into groups instead of combining them into a unique whole with with influences from each.
That’s the use of the word I hate. When the word is used as a label to separate black, Muslim, or hispanics from the whole of American culture. I have no more respect for this use of the word than I do for people ranting how Eminem or, earlier, Elvis became stars by stealing black music. This is also the use of the word I see the most. So I reject the word multicultural as little more than a harmful code word, in much the same way that I reject cosmopolite as a code word for jews. Give it enough time, if multicultural keeps being used this way then eventually it will have just as negative a connotation as the word ‘colored’ does today since it’s being used in exactly the same way.
You must be joking. Over half of this thread is opinion. Yeah, I’m new so if I’m doing something wrong feel free to tell me, but don’t try and convince me that Great Debates isn’t about opinion or that pure opinion, as opposed to the facts they’re based on, needs to be sourced. Is this some sort of humorous thing you tell new people just to see if they’ll believe it, kind of like how Australians warn travelers about drop bears? Perhaps I should cite that drop bear comment?
Is there an accepted definition of “multiculturalism” that includes this point? Your last “alternative” doesn’t sound that different from my impression of the multicultural ideal. I would never have expected cultures to remain static.
A beaver is amphibious . . . maybe the kid heard the word wrong.