Multiculturalism is simply accepting that people from different backgrounds - race, religion, langugae, economic development, education etc - have differring views on the world and, if we are to live together there has to be tolerance by both sides of those views.
Not all 'views on the world' are equal, and not allin fact very few of themshould be tolerated.
There's no doubt at all that the extreme Islam position is not tolerable in our society, but we are not innocent of provocation and we are equally guilty of not explaining and enforcing our own values on immigrants wanting to enter our country, to the extent that we've actually encouraged practices that are against our own laws by ignoring them - FGM is an obvious example.
Well yeah. To say we are 'equally guilty of not explaining and enforcing our own values on immigrants wanting to enter our country, to the extent that we've actually encouraged practices that are against our own laws by ignoring them' is to say we are guilty of Multiculturalism.
And then we had these stupid and unnecessary wars that made everything many, many times worse - what the hell were we thinking?.
When Somalis fled their war-torn homeland over the last two decades, many took with them the seeds of discord underlying the conflict.
Following the collapse of the dictatorship that ruled Somalia in the early 1990s, a renewed focus on tribalism fueled civil war, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.
"We have seen parents, youngsters get raped in front of us by other tribe, killed by other tribe," said Shacido Shaie, a 29-year-old Somali activist in the Twin Cities. "They killed someone you loved. They destroyed the entire country. You can never forget that."
Many Somalis found new homes in Europe and the United States. Like immigrants from other countries, they often became targets of racism. But in the last five years, they've focused on a different kind of prejudice how some in the Somali community discriminate against other Somalis from different tribes.
If anything, much of the fear about the change in culture I hear expressed, even from you is regards to the dilution of Anglo-Saxon Culture and not just Western culture.
What Anglo-Saxon culture? The majority of European people in the U.S. are of German heritage. They speak a language descendant from a long-dead Anglo-Saxon dialect. They practice forms of government founded in Greece and Rome. Their religious beliefs have their origins in the Middle East with a long-haired, hippy Jew.
The notion that we live in an Anglo-Saxon (or to use the pop-culture term WASP) culture is just sociologist buzzwording meant to sound intellectual and deep but in reality void of all meaning and usefulnessnot to mention false.
Our culture is Western. And that's really the only sensible way to describe it.
'Guilty of multiculturalism' is a strange thing to say.
I was using your own wording for the sake of parallelism, obviously.
We've been naive in thinking that other cultures will adopt to our laws if we don't educate a enforce them.
That navet is Multiculturalism. The failure of many in the West to stand up for the freedoms and liberties that make the West the wonderful place to live that it is and the willingness to instead bow to the anti-freedom ideologies of terrorists and the religiously backwards is exactly why Multiculturalism is a problem. When you believe that all values are equal, you lose the incentive to stand up for those that are actually superior.
quote:Bruce Bawer in Surrender (2009):
Multiculturalism, a peculiarly Western set of attitudes about the non-Western world, doesn't mean viewing people with non-Western backgrounds as individuals and caring whether they live under governments that grant them the same liberties we enjoy; it means exalting non-Western groups, treating their collective values (however illiberal) as sacrosanct, and either choosing not to notice their lack of freedom or pretending that there's no such thing as freedom or, alternatively, taking the attitude that while freedom may be fine for us, because we're Westerners, a lack of freedom is just as good, if not better, for them, because, well, that's their culture and who are we to criticize it? (p. 19)
You seem entirely to agree that it is misplaced to hold cultural sensitivities above individual liberties or relax our enforcement of liberating laws at the behest of cultures that have no respect for such liberties. Yet you appear equally unwilling to apply the label Multiculturalism to these things
But Multiculturalism is exactly what it is. It's time to start calling it for what it is.
Jon writes:
Tangle writes:
And then we had these stupid and unnecessary wars that made everything many, many times worse - what the hell were we thinking?.
In fact, the distinction between Western and Anglo-Saxon is more revealing of exactly how much this country has changed. Clearly the beginnings of our country were dominated by British influence. But we are not all that much like England anymore.
No. We're like France, and Denmark, and Germany, and... We are heirs to the great Western tradition whose development has been the establishment and recognition of individual liberties, self-government, and personal freedoms. The way these things manifest in the different countries represents only a superficial distinction and does not detract from their universality not only in the West but in the world as a whole.
The distinction between Western and Anglo-Saxon is meaningfully nonexistent.
What you are doing instead is simply taking the status quo, however you define it, and saying that you don't want to tolerate more changes.
No I am not. And if you read the thread you will see I have identified plenty of room for improvement in Western (which includes American) cultural practices.
I really don't care much that you don't like that.
I have no problem with it.
I doubt you'll be able to convince anyone except the most reactionary wing that things should have been different.
I doubt I'll want to.
Bring yourself up to speed on my position, and then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion instead of you simply asserting lies about me.
We educate more, require learning our language and laws, do not put up with the breaking of laws for cultural reasons, inspect schools to see that they're following the curriculum etc etc
Maybe. But it might just be a pipe dream to think we can educate people away from backwardness and extremism.
Most of what you suggest I have also suggested. But they are all impossible to implement while Multiculturalism rules the day.
The good is cuisine, an appreciation and understanding of difference leading in the long term to political resolution of territorial disputes, the importation of talent and a workforce - our public transport system wouldn't have run without West India immigration after the war and our NHS would collapse without Asian - and other nationalities - doctors and nurses.
And where do you think the USA would be without immigration of its huddled masses?
Well those might be some benefits of different cultures, but I don't see how any of those things are dependent on Multiculturalism the ideology as opposed to simply Multiculturalism the reality.
You're still unnecessarily hung up on the word 'multiculuralism'
I'm not hung up on the word. I'm hung up on the mentality of placating barbarians who despise the very ideologies that bring them to the West to begin with.
it's a description of an idea which has a large number of aspects, only a few of which are problematic.
We aren't talking about the description of Multiculturalism. Really; we're over 1000 posts in. I can't believe I am still telling people this.
There's no way out of this, we have to work ways of living together it's the only way forward.
I think we all know that. Do you have any suggestions on how we might do that? Do you have any responses to anything else I posted in my replies to you?
Of course we can,mwe did it with Christianity. You're just expecting it to happen tomorrow and of course it won't.
Since lives are at stake, we should take whichever path makes it happen the quickest.
What happens when those who are backward take too long to turn around?
Slavery and segregation were not ended in the south by building more schools.
Or, more likely, the USshas its own definition of what a liberal is, like it seems to have it's own definition of what multiculturalism is - ie both are extreme and bad.
The U.S. has a definition of 'liberal' that isn't necessarily bad, but that does typically associate it with Multiculturalism and Islam-pandering. That is why U.S. liberals speaking against Multiculturalism and Islam is seen as an 'intrigue'and hence get attention and stir up dust.
And, of course, as with most labels, 'liberal' is, indeed, often thrown about with the intent of being derisive.
But discussing whether a position is liberal or not really isn't the intention of this thread. I think that anyone can participate meaningfully, as participation by folks such as me (who identifies with neither label) and Faith (who probably identifies with the conservative label) and ringo (who would probably be called a liberal) demonstrates.
Though I can agree the differences between U.S. liberals and U.K. liberals might be an interesting topic; it's not the topic of this thread and entirely irrelevant.
I think they have been very effective, the vast majority of Muslims in Western societies now share our values - that is why those that don't are causing a problem. They are concerned that their primitive version is getting diluted.
Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it.
Notice that not even a technical majority opposed it (which would have been the Western position). The same goes for a poll in 2005 which found that 37% of British Muslims felt British Jews were "legitimate targets as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East" ("Muslim Poll" (PDF) from Populus p. 22). Only 35% thought Jews weren't "legitimate targets".
Zero percent of British Muslims found homosexuality to be morally acceptable:
The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed.
That percentage isn't even close to the Western views of the rest of the British population:
But, according to the latest British Social Attitudes survey, only one in five people now disapproves of gay or lesbian relationships in principle.
And what effect does education have on this?
Well, apparently exactly the opposite effect you think it does. To add some meat to Sam Harris' mention that extremism increases as affluence increases, 5% of British Muslims in general said they would not report someone they knew was planning to carry out a terror attack ("UK Muslims Back Blair's Bid to Throw Out Fanatics" from The Scotsman) while 10% of British Muslim students said they would not tell ("The Voice of Muslim Students" (PDF — click 'download') from FOSIS p. 36).
Where are these vast majorities? Where has education been very effective in assimilating Muslims into Western culture?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
