[guplord]

Seen a lot of hate against multiculturalism about. What's the big deal?

[mikema63]

We have a fairly large contingent of hard right people compared to many sites who aren't willing to allow such views to be voiced.

[SpaciousBox]

Multiculturalism is defined differently depending on who you talk to. It's actually become a pretty meaningless word. How the right define it makes it look like a divide and conquer strategy against their nations cultures, which tends to be where the backlash comes from.

[layman]

Birds of a feather my friend.

[Heisenberg]

SpaciousBox has more or less hit the nail on the head.

[DrSteveBrule]

We have a fairly large contingent of hard right people compared to many sites who aren't willing to allow such views to be voiced.

That's the nice thing about Pofo: posts are given a wide amount of latitude in terms of moderation. You would have to be really out of line to get a yellow card, and a red cards are only given out to repeated offenses or the most egregious violations.

[redcarpet]

It was the Right's idea in the 1950s, particularly because after WW2 there was a huge skilled labour shortage & reconstruction help was needed for the recovery.

[Bramlow]

Seen a lot of hate against multiculturalism about. What's the big deal?

Multiculturalism posits that pulling diverse ethnic and cultural groups into a single geography creates a rich, varied, yet harmonious society. Diversity therefore is a net positive.

For the most part this view is ahistorical, and is generally refuted in the social science literature. A little diversity can introduce new things; a lot tends to reduce social capital and increase intra-national conflict.

It's natural to hate on an ideology which is false yet remains - at least in much of Europe - an institutional norm.

Perhaps the spike in recent hate is down to recent troubles. A lot of people see a chain of causation of:
multiculturalism ==> significant ethnic minorities in Western states ==> tensions between the native culture and the immigrant culture ==> spillover into tension and, in certain cases, violent conflict.

[Pants-of-dog]

Multiculturalism posits that pulling diverse ethnic and cultural groups into a single geography creates a rich, varied, yet harmonious society. Diversity therefore is a net positive.

For the most part this view is ahistorical, and is generally refuted in the social science literature. A little diversity can introduce new things; a lot tends to reduce social capital and increase intra-national conflict.

I am not so sure that it is ahistorical, or that it always leads to a loss in social capital, or that it is a significant factor in intra-national conflict.

Perhaps the spike in recent hate is down to recent troubles. A lot of people see a chain of causation of:
multiculturalism ==> significant ethnic minorities in Western states ==> tensions between the native culture and the immigrant culture ==> spillover into tension and, in certain cases, violent conflict.

Yes, but just because people imagine they see a chain of causation does not mean that the chain of causation actually exists.

[Bramlow]

I am not so sure that it is ahistorical, or that it always leads to a loss in social capital, or that it is a significant factor in intra-national conflict.

Your perspective is natural given your politics, but the social science doesn't side with you on it.

Consider one of the largest studies on this topic, drawing on an assessment of 30,000 individuals.

The study found that higher diversity is associated with:
* Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve collective problems
* Lower likelihood of working on community projects
* Fewer close friends and confidantes
* Lower levels of trust in one's neighbours and community members

The findings in the literature are generally pronounced, and statistically significant.

[Gletkin]

But that source also states:

In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.

Anyway, what people mean by "multiculturalism" probably differ.

Realistically, different cultures can be accommodated only so far. Visitors and immigrants do have to yield to the native culture at some point (unless they're imperialist settlers). At one extreme, certain customs like "honor killings" aren't acceptable. But at the other extreme if opposing "multiculturalism" means stamping out innocuous customs such as Mexican Quinceañeras or Korean Jesas, that's just needless totalitarianism.

[Bramlow]

But that source also states:

Quote:
In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.

Indeed.

The variables that matter most are:
* The rate of the immigration flow
* The level of cultural distance between the native culture and the immigrant culture

It's probable that even displacing 0.5%+ of your native population annually with a strikingly different immigrant culture will, in the long run, reach a relatively stable equilibrium.

But there will be conflict, destruction, and significant misery on the way to that point - all of which could be avoided with a less cavalier policy.

[SpaciousBox]

Anyway, what people mean by "multiculturalism" probably differ.

Realistically, different cultures can be accommodated only so far. Visitors and immigrants do have to yield to the native culture at some point (unless they're imperialist settlers). At one extreme, certain customs like "honor killings" aren't acceptable. But at the other extreme if opposing "multiculturalism" means stamping out innocuous customs such as Mexican Quinceañeras or Korean Jesas, that's just needless totalitarianism.

This is basically my view, also. When I talk about multiculturalism, I am talking about (surprise, surprise) multi-culture, or the idea that someone can hold more than one cultural background at a time. Using myself as an example, I identify as British, English, but also as a member of the west country. Life is very different in the South-West to the point that I would say we have our own culture. It certainly isn't as different from British life as say Indian might be, but then again anyone living in my idea of multicultural Britain is united by our common national-culture. Yes, that is correct, I am saying that multi-culturalism isn't possible without integration, which always makes me a little confused when I hear right wingers talk about integration as some kind of alternative option to multiculturalism. I have no doubt that the side-by-side multiculturalists exist, but I have yet to meet or come across any, so I can't confirm how much of an actual movement they are, or if (as I often suspect) they are mostly a made-up excuse by the right to be racist. If you don't mind me putting the question to you, Pants, what sort of multiculturalism are you proposing? A lot of stuff you have mentioned suggests that maybe you don't feel the need for there to be a unifying national culture?

[Cosmabel]

Your thought of multiculturalism isn't it like a standardisation of the culture ?

[Pants-of-dog]

Your perspective is natural given your politics, but the social science doesn't side with you on it.

Consider one of the largest studies on this topic, drawing on an assessment of 30,000 individuals.

The study found that higher diversity is associated with:
* Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve collective problems
* Lower likelihood of working on community projects
* Fewer close friends and confidantes
* Lower levels of trust in one's neighbours and community members

The findings in the literature are generally pronounced, and statistically significant.

This is true for the US right now. How does this work out in other countries? How about at other times in history?

You made a claim that historically, multiculturalism is not successful. Mr. Putnam's paper does not support that claim.
You made another claim that ethnic diversity tends to reduce social capital, which seems to be true for the US right now, but may not be true elsewhere.
You also claimed that ethnic diversity tends to increase intra-national conflict. Mr. Putnam's paper does not support that claim either.

Please note that the same paper by Mr. Putnam also points out that levels of ethnic diversity will increase throughout the developed world for the foreseeable future. Do you agree?

-----------------

This is basically my view, also. When I talk about multiculturalism, I am talking about (surprise, surprise) multi-culture, or the idea that someone can hold more than one cultural background at a time. Using myself as an example, I identify as British, English, but also as a member of the west country. Life is very different in the South-West to the point that I would say we have our own culture. It certainly isn't as different from British life as say Indian might be, but then again anyone living in my idea of multicultural Britain is united by our common national-culture. Yes, that is correct, I am saying that multi-culturalism isn't possible without integration, which always makes me a little confused when I hear right wingers talk about integration as some kind of alternative option to multiculturalism.

The UK is a good example of a long-standing multicultural nation. It has not been perfect, not even in the near past.

I have no doubt that the side-by-side multiculturalists exist, but I have yet to meet or come across any, so I can't confirm how much of an actual movement they are, or if (as I often suspect) they are mostly a made-up excuse by the right to be racist. If you don't mind me putting the question to you, Pants, what sort of multiculturalism are you proposing? A lot of stuff you have mentioned suggests that maybe you don't feel the need for there to be a unifying national culture?

I think that each country has to find its own model of what works best. The goal should be to have countries with high levels of ethnic diversity that do not suffer from ethnic discord and where people can be whom they want to be.

I think an over-arching and unifying civic identity can address the issues with social capital brought up in Mr. Putnam's paper.

[Godstud]

Multiculturalism can work. Canada is a good example. Canada, however, has not just had rampant immigration, without controls. While it's not a perfect system, it seems to have worked reasonably well, whereas in Europe multiculturalism is a failure.

[Unthinking Majority]

Multiculturalism can work. Canada is a good example. Canada, however, has not just had rampant immigration, without controls. While it's not a perfect system, it seems to have worked reasonably well, whereas in Europe multiculturalism is a failure.

Canada? Are you kidding me? Do you know the history of that country? It was founded and remains dominated by 2 distinct cultures: French-speakers (francophones, living mostly in Quebec) and english-speaking people (anglophones, dominating the rest of the provinces). The cultural and linguistic divide between these 2 cultures have led to referendums of separation by Quebec, almost destroying the country, as well as legal/constituational crises given Quebec's non-signing of the Canada's revamped Constitution Act, 1982 (including its fundamental 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', its version of the "Bill of Rights"). Multiculturalism has been a huge dividing wedge throughout the country's history.

[Godstud]

I am Canadian. I certainly know the history.

A referendum does not make multiculturalism a moot point, either. In fact, a referendum has nothing to with Canada's multiculturalism and more with bilinguilism and the French divide. That's one minority making a big fuss. That's it.

[Strata]

What is wrong with multiculturalism? Wtf did op just seriously ask that question?

Multi-culti is a big ass failure and a pipe dream. Canada multiculturalism project is the biggest failure of them all.

[redcarpet]

Canada multiculturalism project is the biggest failure of them all.

Whoa, that's a big claim. Where does it say that?