Multiculturalism

But it (mostly) hasn't worked.But you assumed that I thought it was bad. I don't.

I guess I am confused on your position.In what way has the "melting pot" not worked?Edited by Jon, : clarity

Of course it will. People mate because they feel attraction, not because of government policies. But it'll take a long time. A very long time. Besides, there are no other realistic alternatives.

What about sustained Multiculturalism? This seems to be an alternative that many people find not only realistic but absolutely ideal.

I'm not sure any alternatives exist that are more moral to enforce/enact. We can't force other people to change their perspective on gender roles. Take Shariah councils {courts} which operate under the Arbitration Act which allows adults to work things out for themselves as long as it is within UK law. They mostly act as matrimonial/divorce proceedings, they try to work with couples to keep the marriage together, though there does seem to be a bias against the women's interests.We can't stop it - it's perfectly legal (usually). And why wouldn't it be? They're all consenting adults. Maybe one party or both is there under some duress, but the same could be said of marriage counselling or other arbitration or even divorce proceedings in a UK court.So what to do. We could regulate arbitration in some way, this could remain within the general principles of the act:

quote:

---

the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;

---

By arguing the public interest angle while allowing the free consenting adults as much freedom as possible. I believe there are people doing this very thing right now.As far as I am concerned a multicultural society is a fact we need to learn how to navigate. Avenues to allow assimilation exist and are being used, but they take time, and it hasn't been much time for many of these cultures. It can be argued, for instance that there is an African-American culture distinct from the dominant culture even though they have shared the same country for centuries {just not in equal ways}.When I was born there were about 300,000 British Pakistanis. Today there are over a million. That's only in a few decades -so it's no surprise that assimilation isn't going to have occurred yet. As such we're stuck with a multicultural society.So what to do?Do we just carry on as if it wasn't happening?What if the government needs to give out information on registering to vote? Do we just give that out in English, even though it's a fact that English is not first language for many constituents and getting the registration correct? Could this have a prejudicial effect so as to result in effectively suppressing the British Pakistani/Indian/Arab vote?So some degree of multiculturalism is certainly required, if we are genuinely interested in fairness. The immigrants that arrive here are free to live life as they please, within UK law, even if it involves mostly speaking another language (which is fine - 'shampoo' is word we stole from India it's good for languages to collide - see also Jungle, Bungalow, Bandanna), but a certain melding/assimilation is always the result and I say let it happen.Do you have any specific issues with any particular action that might be taken differently?

Really? I figure that humans will eventually all be a fairly homogeneous group of light brown people.I mean, it used to be that "multiculturalism" was a German marrying an Italian, or an Irish marrying a French, or whatever. That's not even a thing anymore.Why shouldn't we expect that blacks and browns and yellows and whites won't all be mixing together and what we think of as "multiculturalism" today will also eventually no longer be a thing?

It may well happen - indeed, it seems likely. But, as I said, it will take a very, very long time. In the meantime, multiculturalism is what we have.

Rather obviously because we're not all shades of brown and what we have is multiculturalism with some blurring at the edges.

Then I guess you are against multiculturalism:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Multiculturulism:

​

As a prescriptive term, multiculturalism encourages ideologies and policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization.

---

The fact that we have many cultures living together is not at dispute here.At issue are the different ways people and government's can address the concerns that arise from culture contact. Multiculturalism, as political and social advocacy of cultural diversity, is one approach. It goes beyond simple respect of diversity (which I think we all agree is important) and outright promotes cultural diversity:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Multiculturalism in the U.S.:

​

In Pluralistic Universe (1909), William James espoused the idea of a "plural society." James saw pluralism as "crucial to the formation of philosophical and social humanism to help build a better, more egalitarian society.

---

quote:

---

"Multicultural Policy and Political Support in European Democracies" (Abstract):

​

In response to growing demographic diversity, European countries have selectively implemented political multiculturalism, a set of policies that seek to redefine prevailing conceptions of national identity.

---

When it comes to Multiculturalism as a political and sociological ideologyas opposed to a mere understanding of realitythere is a conscious aim at promoting diversity with a belief that it creates better societies and better citizens.According to available evidence, though, Multiculturalism actually creates worse societies and less-engaged citizens.In spite of this, Multiculturalism still seems to be the norm in policy.But it's not working and hasn't been.When do we give up and try something else?Jon

You're talking about Multiculturalism as the reality of multiple cultures existing in proximity of one another.But I'm talking about Multiculturalism as political and sociological ideologies that promote cultural diversity.

I wonder if there isn't an evolutionary biology argument for multiculturalism.Kinda like how with dogs, mutts tend to be healthier than pure breads.If our genetics all assimilate towards homogeneity, then wouldn't we, as a whole, be more susceptible to being wiped out by a disease, or something?

Yes, sounds good to me. As a general principle I'd agree. Do you have any specific issues with any particular action that might be taken differently? Such as? What kind of policies are you referring to? Such as?

So?

Check the OP. Also, I'd like to see about getting a copy of this article: Multicultural Policy and Political Support in European Democracies. I'm going to see if I can get it through any libraries. That's part of the reason for this thread: to explore alternatives to Multiculturalism policies. Off the top of my head I can think of many alternatives, but without considering them at length I cannot be sure if they are better or worse.

I see Robert Putnam is the only thing you put forward there but I'm not sure that constitutes an overview of 'available evidence'. He certainly raises some interesting points, but there are alternative perspectives out there too. For instance compare the monocultural societies (historically and contemporary) on concepts such as tolerance. Check your email. I'm interested in hearing other ideas so please do share.