Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm not sure I quite understand this obsession people have with quantify some kind of benefit with Multiculturalism.

Like what's the point? The reason I support multiculturalism is because I think it's wrong to discriminate immigrants on the basis of where they were born, not because I think Asians or Africans or Europeans have anything of benefit to add as a culture.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Camera Stellata
It can go either way can't it? It can either contradict preconceptions or confirm them. It's not necessarily going to humanise people and nor is a diverse society essential to seeing others as human beings.


You think it's healthy for a society to rely purely on myths and stereotypes about anyone not them?
N3bu
I'm not sure I quite understand this obsession people have with quantify some kind of benefit with Multiculturalism.

Like what's the point? The reason I support multiculturalism is because I think it's wrong to discriminate immigrants on the basis of where they were born, not because I think Asians or Africans or Europeans have anything of benefit to add as a culture.

I enjoy multicultural foods, traveling/exploring different cultures and I believe everyone ought to actively seek experience with different cultures, lifestyles and diverse viewpoints.

But, I think you're confusing multiculturalism as public policy (multikulit) with what would more be called 'diversity' and tolerance between different people. Multiculturalism seeks to preserve differences between cultures, and opposes reconciliation and two-way tolerance between viewpoints. It's the idea that immigrants shouldn't participate in the broader culture because that would lead to a weakening in the diversity of cultures.

Or to put it into the analogies: the multicultural 'mosaic' verses more reasonable 'melting pot'.

The multicultural ethnic conclaves that you find in Paris or Germany where poverty is high, education attainment is low and won't be able to find a soul that speaks French/German verses the ethnic communities in Chicago or New York where people are much more likely to be middle class, have an education and are able to communicate with the rest of society.

Multiculturalism is an awfully misguided and offensive ideology that can only ever lead to sectarianism, intercommunity distrust, social fracturing and worsening class divides.
Sen Natsu
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


Hey, it's like Mallard Fillmore except it made me laugh.
azulmagia
Sen Natsu
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


Hey, it's like Mallard Fillmore except it made me laugh.
It's a pic I'm finding I'm using quite often, because the same ******** words show up in the same arguments over and over. I swear you could just throw liberal, gungrabber, leftist, facist, communist, socialist, marxist, 1776, obongo, and a few homophobic slurs into a bag, pick them out at random and create every single argument.
WHell, he doesn't really explain how liberalism is like a religion. It makes no sense to compare liberals to Inquisitors wHen there is no liberal Inquisition, just a bunch of jerk*** college students. And I'm sure most wHite supremacists do not want to call themselves wHite supremacists, but... too bad.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Camera Stellata
Needless to say, the author of this video and his views are somewhat questionable. Anyone on ED-P fancy a crack at the five benefit challenge though?

I'm always told it enriches us but I'm not sure what that means
The question presents a series of unquestioned assumptions. How do you define a benefit? The food and music thing seems to trivialize cultures to a few narrow manifestations. Why some homogeneity be the default? This whole melting pot malarkey is frankly fiction, and has no real historical grounding, given anti-miscegenation laws, rampant racism, placing American Indians onto reservations, and so forth. Americanization was just something made up by people around the turn of the century who didn't like European immigrants or existing cultural groups like Cajuns or the Pennsylvania Dutch speaking foreign languages

The melting pot was never about non-whites integrating into American society; it was about immigrant whites integrating into the dominant white society. See the point about American history being kind of racist. And, y'know, it also didn't work.

What are the benefits of the melting pot? How would we even define the culture that is supposed to be dominant?

If you want benefits, think about globalization, and how allowing people to maintain their culture encourages multilingual American children, a standard sadly lacking from our education system. Think about how it makes us question whether our society is really so exceptional. Or how strong ties to other countries encourages migrant labor, which is necessary to our entire agricultural system. Or how it creates a demand overseas for spots at our universities, which drives our technological development with an influx of motivated, diverse students from overseas, who have worked hard to qualify at our schools and to develop their language skills. How about the fact that America wouldn't exist without a diverse, multinational culture that brought modern ideas of government and religion out of all areas of continental Europe together in a new country, founded by the English, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Germans, and no small amount of influence of Africans and American Indians.

I ask you, give me five benefits of homogeneity, of consistency, of being unexceptional. Because American culture, as it is today? Produced ******** Honey Boo Boo. Frankly, if the option is, let people keep doing what they're doing, or descending into American mediocrity, I know what I'd prefer.
Brothern
N3bu
I'm not sure I quite understand this obsession people have with quantify some kind of benefit with Multiculturalism.

Like what's the point? The reason I support multiculturalism is because I think it's wrong to discriminate immigrants on the basis of where they were born, not because I think Asians or Africans or Europeans have anything of benefit to add as a culture.

I enjoy multicultural foods, traveling/exploring different cultures and I believe everyone ought to actively seek experience with different cultures, lifestyles and diverse viewpoints.

But, I think you're confusing multiculturalism as public policy (multikulit) with what would more be called 'diversity' and tolerance between different people. Multiculturalism seeks to preserve differences between cultures, and opposes reconciliation and two-way tolerance between viewpoints. It's the idea that immigrants shouldn't participate in the broader culture because that would lead to a weakening in the diversity of cultures.

Or to put it into the analogies: the multicultural 'mosaic' verses more reasonable 'melting pot'.

The multicultural ethnic conclaves that you find in Paris or Germany where poverty is high, education attainment is low and won't be able to find a soul that speaks French/German verses the ethnic communities in Chicago or New York where people are much more likely to be middle class, have an education and are able to communicate with the rest of society.

Multiculturalism is an awfully misguided and offensive ideology that can only ever lead to sectarianism, intercommunity distrust, social fracturing and worsening class divides.

What the ******** is wrong with the rest of the world, where Multicultural policies lead to sectarianism and social fracturing? It's supposed to be about promoting equity and diversity among cultures, not about putting people in ethnic ghettos in some misguided attempt to save difference between cultures.

Almost every time Australia's had a racial problems it's always started by the poorer anglo-saxons essentially demanding assimilation from ethnic minorities which is what creates the victimisation and segregation of said minorities in the first place.

That aside my initial question still really hasn't been answered (by pretty much anyone ever and I've asked it at least three times across this board). Why must there be a benefit from diversity? Why can't the reason for allowing diversity just be "We don't feel like being a bunch of bigots."?
Multiculturalism as Public Policy and as a National Social Policy means three things in my country.

1. People who immigrate to Australia shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of their culture or place of birth.

2. Migrants in Australia have a right to express their cultural identity so long as it conforms with the laws of Australia (which shouldn't be made to discriminate against any minority), so no ritual sacrifices or anything crazy.

3. At present, something like 25% of Australia's workforce is made up of immigrants and 40% had at least one parent born outside of Australia.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Camera Stellata
Needless to say, the author of this video and his views are somewhat questionable. Anyone on ED-P fancy a crack at the five benefit challenge though?

I'm always told it enriches us but I'm not sure what that means


Here's my attempt:

1.) Understand and Appreciating other cultures and gaining Cultural Capital.
2.) It can keep personal prejudices at bay
3.) Learning to be able to view all points and not just your own point
4.) The more diverse a student body, the great the chances that one student will discuss racial issues or talk with a different racial group.
5.) Stronger commitment to multi-culturalism.
6.) Garnering intellectual self-confidence and social self-confidence in more globalized world.
7.) Contact with diverse peers can greatly enhance an educational experience
8.) People with different backgrounds can/will think of different ways to solve the same problem.
Revolutionary Justice's avatar

3,850 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Statustician 100
Considering the source I think there's probably more to the story than what is being told here.
Camera Stellata 's avatar

7,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Citizen 200
  • Full closet 200
Ban
The question presents a series of unquestioned assumptions. How do you define a benefit? The food and music thing seems to trivialize cultures to a few narrow manifestations. Why some homogeneity be the default? This whole melting pot malarkey is frankly fiction, and has no real historical grounding, given anti-miscegenation laws, rampant racism, placing American Indians onto reservations, and so forth. Americanization was just something made up by people around the turn of the century who didn't like European immigrants or existing cultural groups like Cajuns or the Pennsylvania Dutch speaking foreign languages

The melting pot was never about non-whites integrating into American society; it was about immigrant whites integrating into the dominant white society. See the point about American history being kind of racist. And, y'know, it also didn't work.

What are the benefits of the melting pot? How would we even define the culture that is supposed to be dominant?

If you want benefits, think about globalization, and how allowing people to maintain their culture encourages multilingual American children, a standard sadly lacking from our education system. Think about how it makes us question whether our society is really so exceptional. Or how strong ties to other countries encourages migrant labor, which is necessary to our entire agricultural system. Or how it creates a demand overseas for spots at our universities, which drives our technological development with an influx of motivated, diverse students from overseas, who have worked hard to qualify at our schools and to develop their language skills. How about the fact that America wouldn't exist without a diverse, multinational culture that brought modern ideas of government and religion out of all areas of continental Europe together in a new country, founded by the English, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Germans, and no small amount of influence of Africans and American Indians.

I ask you, give me five benefits of homogeneity, of consistency, of being unexceptional. Because American culture, as it is today? Produced ******** Honey Boo Boo. Frankly, if the option is, let people keep doing what they're doing, or descending into American mediocrity, I know what I'd prefer.
I was really just throwing the gauntlet down to those people who like to glibly tell us all how we draw "strength from diversity' and all that jazz but here goes:

Homogeneity helps avoid the divisive cultural distinctions between citizens being a cause of conflict or prejudice.

It guarantees some legitimacy in government by ensuring that it is at least elected by and composed of a group most people see as 'one of us'. I think you're seeing the first signs of this kind of disenfranchisement when you hear the complaints from American right wingers about Obama's mandate resting on immigrant votes.

Different cultures identify different ideas as sacred or profane. You're going to find it difficult to square the circle between the sanctity of the first amendment in American culture for example, with other non native cultures who regard blasphemy as profane.

The lack of any sense of shared allegiance is a security threat, particularly if national security relies upon conflict with the homeland of one or more of the immigrant groups.

Where people aren't encouraged to integrate they in many cases don't learn the host language and are economically impoverished as a result. These insular communities generally enforce tradition within their own communities, where the legitimate rules of law cannot operate.

I could elaborate more if we were talking about an ancient European nation state where I think the impact is even more dramatic because here nations and peoples are the same thing, but that's all I have to say on the US.
Camera Stellata 's avatar

7,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Citizen 200
  • Full closet 200
N3bu
Multiculturalism as Public Policy and as a National Social Policy means three things in my country.

1. People who immigrate to Australia shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of their culture or place of birth.

2. Migrants in Australia have a right to express their cultural identity so long as it conforms with the laws of Australia (which shouldn't be made to discriminate against any minority), so no ritual sacrifices or anything crazy.

3. At present, something like 25% of Australia's workforce is made up of immigrants and 40% had at least one parent born outside of Australia.
Aren't most of those immigrants from the UK and New Zealand...that's hardly multicultural.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Camera Stellata
Homogeneity helps avoid the divisive cultural distinctions between citizens being a cause of conflict or prejudice.
I'd argue the push towards homogeneity is a driving factor in conflict and prejudice. As noted, it certainly originated from a distaste for immigrant cultures. The desire to make people the same implies what you are transforming them into is better than what they are. That basic assumption, that people should conform, is much more divisive than any actual qualitative difference.

Camera Stellata
It guarantees some legitimacy in government by ensuring that it is at least elected by and composed of a group most people see as 'one of us'. I think you're seeing the first signs of this kind of disenfranchisement when you hear the complaints from American right wingers about Obama's mandate resting on immigrant votes.
I'd reject this ought of hand. The idea that anyone is disenfranchised by another citizen exercising their rights, simply because that citizen does not have the same political stance due to a different background is ridiculous. The legitimacy of our democracy is based on the notion that the electorate will be composed of many different people with many different interests and consensus must be reached. Otherwise, you merely have a tyranny of the majority.

Camera Stellata
Different cultures identify different ideas as sacred or profane. You're going to find it difficult to square the circle between the sanctity of the first amendment in American culture for example, with other non native cultures who regard blasphemy as profane.
Non-native? Hell, different religious groups that have been in America for hundreds of years believe blasphemy is profane. It wasn't even three years ago that a federal court had to strike down Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute. The whole point of the First Amendment, or at least the part about religion, is that people can have different ideas about what is sacred and what is profane.

Camera Stellata
The lack of any sense of shared allegiance is a security threat, particularly if national security relies upon conflict with the homeland of one or more of the immigrant groups.
Oh, that exists regardless of culture. Some of the most patriotic and integrated Americans possible still went into internment camps during WWII. It's guilt by association, and again seems more based some paranoia about difference rather than the actual difference itself.

Camera Stellata
Where people aren't encouraged to integrate they in many cases don't learn the host language and are economically impoverished as a result. These insular communities generally enforce tradition within their own communities, where the legitimate rules of law cannot operate.
Language is hardly a cause of being economically impoverished. Immigrants make up a disproportionate amount of small business owners. Go into plenty of businesses in an urban area and the one English speaker might be the kid working part time and going to school. As for the whole rule of law bit, that's a failure on the law enforcement end, plain and simple. Insular communities, whether immigrant or otherwise, enforce or create different rules because of a lack of trustworthy and consistent police presence. A lack of visible outside authority being consistently applied merely invites self-regulation of one sort or the other. That's just as true of Mott Street as it is Wall Street.
Camera Stellata
N3bu
Multiculturalism as Public Policy and as a National Social Policy means three things in my country.

1. People who immigrate to Australia shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of their culture or place of birth.

2. Migrants in Australia have a right to express their cultural identity so long as it conforms with the laws of Australia (which shouldn't be made to discriminate against any minority), so no ritual sacrifices or anything crazy.

3. At present, something like 25% of Australia's workforce is made up of immigrants and 40% had at least one parent born outside of Australia.
Aren't most of those immigrants from the UK and New Zealand...that's hardly multicultural.
UK and NZ immigration makes up roughly 1/5th of all immigratnts into Australia at 2010 level. Their growth is slow to non-existent, meaning those levels meant more 10 years ago then they do today.

At 2010 6 million Australians were born overseas, of that 1.192 million are from the UK up from 1.153 Million in 2006. .544 Million from NZ up from .476.

By comparison we have .379 Million Chinese immigrants up from .203 million and .340 Million Indian immigrants up from .153 Million.

Here is a full list.

To summarise, of the 6 million immigrants that make up 26.8% of the total population, 4 Million are from non-Anglo Saxon origins (17.9%), and roughly 3 and a half million come from places of non-European origin(15.7%). So one third of our population comes from overseas and of that population only roughly 1/3rd shares a similar culture.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games