The effects of Multi-culturalism (ASK multi-cultural countries)
- Thread starter sherdogger
- Start date
Cultures are like religions ... if a state adopts a "state culture" it won't be able to manage the cohabitation of different cultures within its borders. Obviously a state should be "lay" [neutral] regarding cultures. This is technically impossible.
So? The best result we can obtain is to create a "super-culture" [in the sense that it stays above], like in the United States, which are not multicultural [multicultural countries cannot last for long ...], but they have developed a super-culture [with the "American Nation", which has been developed as well and which is actually a "super-nation"].
So? The best result we can obtain is to create a "super-culture" [in the sense that it stays above], like in the United States, which are not multicultural [multicultural countries cannot last for long ...], but they have developed a super-culture [with the "American Nation", which has been developed as well and which is actually a "super-nation"].
You are clearly here to pursue an agenda, and one that is about as close to racist as you can get. Either that, or you're trolling, neither of which are welcome on Historum. You bring nothing to the table, so you are hereby removed from the forum.
For everyone else - it's fine to criticise and reject multiculturalism. That isn't the issue here - there are plenty of members who can do it in a thoughtful manner. It's how it's done and what is said that points to unwelcome agendas.
For everyone else - it's fine to criticise and reject multiculturalism. That isn't the issue here - there are plenty of members who can do it in a thoughtful manner. It's how it's done and what is said that points to unwelcome agendas.
Substantially that's the mechanism. As a counter example we can think to the experience of the European Community. There was the intention, political intention, to put all the Europeans in a "common house". After the evolution of the Community into the Union, recent events tell us that such a good intention is not so easy to realize. In an ancient continent like Europe, with different ancient and strong national identities [so cultures], it's an arduous mission to create a super culture and a real European national identity. The process is in progress, also at historical level [for example it's not so rare to hear someone defining WW II the "European Civil War", but personally I find this a bit anti-historical, when not on the border of revisionism ...].
What we can create in continental Europe is a confederation, nothing more than that, so not an European Nation, but an European Confederation of nations.
Then, generally speaking, the arrival of a population with a different cultute, if numbers are important, is a problem for the resident inhabitants. A problem which requires a political management to become a resource. Personally I think that difference is a richness, not a problem, if well managed [biology teaches us this: biodiversity means better ecosystems, I don't see how this shouldn't work for human communities]. And the point is just this: the political management of the arrival of different cultures, often, is not optimal. Instead of generating the context for a cohabitation, with a super-culture above [theoretically a lay acultural state], we usually observe the resident culture trying and assimilating the "imported" ones. That doesn't work, usually.
What we can create in continental Europe is a confederation, nothing more than that, so not an European Nation, but an European Confederation of nations.
Then, generally speaking, the arrival of a population with a different cultute, if numbers are important, is a problem for the resident inhabitants. A problem which requires a political management to become a resource. Personally I think that difference is a richness, not a problem, if well managed [biology teaches us this: biodiversity means better ecosystems, I don't see how this shouldn't work for human communities]. And the point is just this: the political management of the arrival of different cultures, often, is not optimal. Instead of generating the context for a cohabitation, with a super-culture above [theoretically a lay acultural state], we usually observe the resident culture trying and assimilating the "imported" ones. That doesn't work, usually.
Op,
Have you heard of the Roman empire or the Spanish empire or the ottoman empire?
How About the United States of America?
These are all diverse entities. This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative it is just an undeniable fact that some of the strongest empires and countries of world history were incredibly diverse.
This does not mean that diversity will always bring great things but one simply cannot deny the diverse history of the empires and countries of our world.
OTOH entities like the third Reich as well as the Islamic state of Iraq , And communist North Korea for example, Saudi Arabia , Israeli possibly Japan and China and the idea Kurdistan and other countries of today are seemingly in the minority of being countries without as much diversity.
There is a lot of hope in moving forward though wrt China and Japan I feel .. I like what I see from the Chinese and Japanese people they have a good work spirit
As an American I am very comfortable living in United States America.... I do not want what the tribalistic type countries want.
The USA sees a melting pot of mostly Christians, Christians from Puerto Rico, Africa , Central and South America and then Middle East living side-by-side with 3rd plus generation American Christians.
The Ottoman Emprie saw a great diversity among their Muslim population as well seeing European Muslims working side-by-side with Turkish Muslims and Arab Muslims .
Religion has been one of the greatest uniters of different looking people.
Communism Has also united very diverse groups of people. The USSR was said to have over 200 ethnicities.
Have you heard of the Roman empire or the Spanish empire or the ottoman empire?
How About the United States of America?
These are all diverse entities. This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative it is just an undeniable fact that some of the strongest empires and countries of world history were incredibly diverse.
This does not mean that diversity will always bring great things but one simply cannot deny the diverse history of the empires and countries of our world.
OTOH entities like the third Reich as well as the Islamic state of Iraq , And communist North Korea for example, Saudi Arabia , Israeli possibly Japan and China and the idea Kurdistan and other countries of today are seemingly in the minority of being countries without as much diversity.
There is a lot of hope in moving forward though wrt China and Japan I feel .. I like what I see from the Chinese and Japanese people they have a good work spirit
As an American I am very comfortable living in United States America.... I do not want what the tribalistic type countries want.
The USA sees a melting pot of mostly Christians, Christians from Puerto Rico, Africa , Central and South America and then Middle East living side-by-side with 3rd plus generation American Christians.
The Ottoman Emprie saw a great diversity among their Muslim population as well seeing European Muslims working side-by-side with Turkish Muslims and Arab Muslims .
Religion has been one of the greatest uniters of different looking people.
Communism Has also united very diverse groups of people. The USSR was said to have over 200 ethnicities.
Last edited:
What about America,Australia,New Zealand,Singapore. All multicultural countries and function perfectly in terms of equality, economy and human rights. Do your homework before stating something like this, unless you are here to promote hatred.
Likes:
JoanOfArc007
Empires are by definition diverse. You have an empire when one country/population conquers another and rules over it. So it doesn't really make sense as an objection.
Countries like USA, Argentina or Australia formed because people from different countries come together to found a new one, which didn't exist before. It happened on relatively empty land, at the expense of the natives. This allowed to form a mixed super-culture new nation, because there was nothing in place yet, as Alpin-Luke said.
In places where there is a long tradition already in place, multiculturalism doesn't work. See the example of Sweden, Italy or the UK. There have always been reciprocal influences among different cultures that slowly change their identity overtime, but when this happens with actual, large, movement of people, it just creates frictions like it is happening in Europe.
Even forcefully bringing together different people who have a long tradition of reciprocal interaction is impossible, like the failure of the European Union experience is there to demonstrate. It is just plain logic, if there are contrasting interests, it makes no sense to be together, while it makes sense to cooperate on the common interests.
In the contemporary world there is an increasingly aspiration to self government, fragmentation and political independence, rather than unification under larger entities. Just count the number of independent countries from WWII to present day and the separatist movements existing today in the world.
Countries like USA, Argentina or Australia formed because people from different countries come together to found a new one, which didn't exist before. It happened on relatively empty land, at the expense of the natives. This allowed to form a mixed super-culture new nation, because there was nothing in place yet, as Alpin-Luke said.
In places where there is a long tradition already in place, multiculturalism doesn't work. See the example of Sweden, Italy or the UK. There have always been reciprocal influences among different cultures that slowly change their identity overtime, but when this happens with actual, large, movement of people, it just creates frictions like it is happening in Europe.
Even forcefully bringing together different people who have a long tradition of reciprocal interaction is impossible, like the failure of the European Union experience is there to demonstrate. It is just plain logic, if there are contrasting interests, it makes no sense to be together, while it makes sense to cooperate on the common interests.
In the contemporary world there is an increasingly aspiration to self government, fragmentation and political independence, rather than unification under larger entities. Just count the number of independent countries from WWII to present day and the separatist movements existing today in the world.
Australia is officially a multi cultural country, with around 160 different nationalities represented..
I can only speak for myself; I have no issues with our multi cultural country, in theory or in practice. I am quite content. However, I can't
claim my attitude is even in the majority. I'm not sure if anyone really knows. I suspect the government lacks the political will to find out officially.
I am also indifferent to the idea that the Anglo-Celt majority will inevitably be replaced by other cultures, of one or several different skin hues.
Not able to comment about how this concept works/doesn't work in England or the rest of Europe, nor do I care. Imo, this an issue which must be decided by each country, by itself. IMO It is most definitely a policy which should not be imposed on the majority by the lunar left, or by the politically correct brigade.
The system seems to be working in Australia, in my city, and in my multi cultural suburb, as far a I can tell. I can't see beneath the surface.
PLUS, I most certainly do not want to return to the almost culturally homogeneous country Australia was before the abolition of The White Australia policy in 1973.
Multiculturalism in Australia is today reflected by the multicultural composition of its people, its immigration policies, its prohibition on discrimination, equality before the law of all persons, as well as various cultural policies which promote diversity, such as the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service.[1]
According to the 2011 census, 26% of the population were born overseas and a further 20% had at least one parent born overseas.[2] Aboriginal Australians make up approximately 2.5% of the population.[3] Australia's diverse migrant communities have brought with them food, lifestyle and cultural practices, which have been absorbed into mainstream Australian culture.[4][5]
Historically, Australia did not accept all persons, and adhered to the White Australia Policy. The policy was dismantled after World War II by various changes to immigration policy.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Intellectual critique
The earliest academic critics of multiculturalism in Australia were the philosophers Lachlan Chipman[17] and Frank Knopfelmacher,[18] sociologist Tanya Birrell[19] and the political scientist Raymond Sestito.[20][when?] Chipman and Knopfelmacher were concerned with threats to social cohesion, while Birrell's concern was that multiculturalism obscures the social costs associated with large scale immigration that fall most heavily on the most recently arrived and unskilled immigrants. Sestito's arguments were based on the role of political parties. He argued that political parties were instrumental in pursuing multicultural policies, and that these policies would put strain on the political system and would not promote better understanding in the Australian community.[21][22]
Multiculturalism in Australia - Wikipedia
I can only speak for myself; I have no issues with our multi cultural country, in theory or in practice. I am quite content. However, I can't
claim my attitude is even in the majority. I'm not sure if anyone really knows. I suspect the government lacks the political will to find out officially.
I am also indifferent to the idea that the Anglo-Celt majority will inevitably be replaced by other cultures, of one or several different skin hues.
Not able to comment about how this concept works/doesn't work in England or the rest of Europe, nor do I care. Imo, this an issue which must be decided by each country, by itself. IMO It is most definitely a policy which should not be imposed on the majority by the lunar left, or by the politically correct brigade.
The system seems to be working in Australia, in my city, and in my multi cultural suburb, as far a I can tell. I can't see beneath the surface.
PLUS, I most certainly do not want to return to the almost culturally homogeneous country Australia was before the abolition of The White Australia policy in 1973.
Multiculturalism in Australia is today reflected by the multicultural composition of its people, its immigration policies, its prohibition on discrimination, equality before the law of all persons, as well as various cultural policies which promote diversity, such as the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service.[1]
According to the 2011 census, 26% of the population were born overseas and a further 20% had at least one parent born overseas.[2] Aboriginal Australians make up approximately 2.5% of the population.[3] Australia's diverse migrant communities have brought with them food, lifestyle and cultural practices, which have been absorbed into mainstream Australian culture.[4][5]
Historically, Australia did not accept all persons, and adhered to the White Australia Policy. The policy was dismantled after World War II by various changes to immigration policy.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Intellectual critique
The earliest academic critics of multiculturalism in Australia were the philosophers Lachlan Chipman[17] and Frank Knopfelmacher,[18] sociologist Tanya Birrell[19] and the political scientist Raymond Sestito.[20][when?] Chipman and Knopfelmacher were concerned with threats to social cohesion, while Birrell's concern was that multiculturalism obscures the social costs associated with large scale immigration that fall most heavily on the most recently arrived and unskilled immigrants. Sestito's arguments were based on the role of political parties. He argued that political parties were instrumental in pursuing multicultural policies, and that these policies would put strain on the political system and would not promote better understanding in the Australian community.[21][22]
Multiculturalism in Australia - Wikipedia
Similar History Discussions
-
-
Did Hitler have more lasting effects on the world than Stalin?- Started by notgivenaway
- Replies: 10
-
-
From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war- Started by 1stvermont
- Replies: 75
