It seems to me that some of the cognitive disconnects here are due to people discussing the instances of 'multiculturalism' in different countries as if they are the same thing, eg Canada and the UK. With some I think this is a genuine mistake, with others I think it might be more disingenuous.
When we used to talk of 'integration', obviously that would take different forms depending on the locale, but with the invented word multiculturalism
, it is possible to also reinvent integration as some sort of universal concept. Earlier
I posted this as a description of how 'multiculturalism' may be invented:
jakell wrote:This thread title is a good question to ask, apart from the focus on liberals which narrows it down too much.
I live in the UK and hadn't really heard of the word multiculturalism until the late 90's and a few years later it was all the rage.
Until then the only concept we had was of integration it was that or nothing. It's clear looking back, and at the present, that groups are/were staying apart and were not likely to integrate (fully), in fact it's in their interest not to.. they are not stupid. I think that the advent of the word 'multiculturalism' was an acceptance of failure on the part of TPTB and that a new concept had to be found, one that enabled groups to retain language, culture and traditions whilst living alongside each other.
IMO this was a finger-crossing exercise, wishful thinking. For this to work one needs an overriding culture that has the respect the other ones, and this culture was not allowed to express and maintain itself, in fact it was expected to die off (which it more or less has done). What we have now is the result of this wishful thinking, which is increasing tribalism.
I now want to add another observation: In the pages following this we had a number of instances where the word 'diversity' was brought out as the predictable (and elusive) Holy Grail of multiculturalism.
I think diversity is a good thing, but I think some sleight of hand is regularly used concerning that word, and again I'm going to refer to the UK as an example: IMO, just after WWII (for instance) it could be seen that the UK had a large amount of diversity (plus contradictory and oppositional elements), however it was diversity around a theme, and it is this that produced a relatively stable society.
After this comes the sleight of hand where some claim that the diversity we had wasn't sufficient (according to some hidden arbitrary standard), and therefore we needed additions which turned out to be mainly from the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent. Moving forward to the 90's-00's, with rising immigration we hear a familiar claim that we still
don't have sufficient diversity.. an established manouevre that now seems able to be played out indefinitely.
I would conclude with the opinion that only a certain amount of diversity aids a society, and after that it starts to fragment it, so to continually
keep playing the diversity card is an act of either ignorance or actual malevolence (I think I've mentioned 'Cultural Marxism' at some point)