[Plaro]

We all know the story, that it bring diversity(the best thing next to Liberty and Democracy) to society, every immigrant brings something to contribute. They are excepted with open arms by the native populace who see no creed or culture. We are all from Africa in the end, so why not live in harmony?

Well the question I have is how did this begin? I know it began in the 1990, but why and how?

Because for myself living in the multicultural society have made me realize that it is the dumbest idea one could of thought up. For ages, people lived in communities that were homogeneous , and now all of the sudden I do not know who decided, that we have become inhuman and better so we must all force ourselves to live with each other. This is all fine and dandy, but when it comes down to having a community and cultural identity this kind of life style does not provide that.

The way it was done I think was brutal as well, I never saw or heard that people have voted for this, that there was a campaign by a politician to change the society in a tremendous fashion such as this. Yet it happened and now it is being pushed down peoples throats ever more forcibly.

Do you guys really think this was due to population decline? Or simply economic greed, more people more things to construct and more money and jobs?

[Oxymoron]

I think it is normal for our nation to be multiethinic, but culture should be American.

[joelmac]

Where are the problems you see with multiculuralism?

[Oxymoron]

Equating inferior cultures with superior cultures is an idiotic concept. Not all cultures are equal, the Western Secular Culture is superior to Sharia Islam, or Hasid Judaism.

[joelmac]

Sorry, I meant that question in reply to the original poster who seems to primarily have a problem with different communities living together.

As for cultural superiority of "The West", I have no comment.

[The Sabbaticus]

Normative multiculturalism started in Canada. It has been mainly used to justify and/or rationalize mass-immigration of non-Western immigrants to Western countries. There are regional variations on 'normative multiculturalism' as translated into various bespoke national policies on immigration and naturalization.

Despite the 'well-meaning' propaganda, it has led to less social cohesion; a drastic increase in self-segregation; the socioeconomic decline of immigrant dominated regions; overburdened social insurance programs (and widespread abuse); legal pluralism; and the systematic radicalization of ethic minorities, e.g. cross-cultural racism between ethic minorities, proliferation of antisemitism and widespread Occidentophobia.

[joelmac]

a drastic increase in self-segregation; the socioeconomic decline of immigrant dominated regions; .... .... ... and the systematic radicalization of ethic minorities,

Hi Sabbaticus, I edited the quote, I hope no one minds. Can you give me some sources on those specific issues as I found nothing on google.

[The Sabbaticus]

Well you could try refining your search criteria:

- ethnic enclaves
- residential concentration of newly arrived immigrants
- socioeconomic position of newly arrived immigrants
- low-educated immigrants
- selection criteria for immigrants
- immigration based on family reunification
- socioeconomic future of second generation immigrants
- European immigration trends
- relationship between immigration and social security
- immigration based on family reunification
- cultural attitudes
- linguistic problems
- radicalization Muslim youths
- political separatism
- multicultural victim culture

I've drawn my information from a wide-variety of hard-copy and soft-copy sources, many of which will not be available to you either by physical constraints or language differences. Wikipedia is always a good starting point.

[NoRapture]

Equating inferior cultures with superior cultures is an idiotic concept.

So why are you doing exactly that? Saying everyone here must live in an "American culture"? You don't even know what an American culture is. Other than your list of what you think is important for everyone else. If I believed as you do, you and the rest of the hillbilly, closed-minded populace of this country should be considered unAmerican, anti-liberty, and sent packing immediately.

[HoniSoit]

Because culture is always changing and often as a result of cultural mixing?

[Inexorable]

I look at it this way. If a society doesn't have a common culture than there is no consesus on how things should be done. Everyone ends up disagreeing because their is no normative behavior or standard of values.

This is turn means that the only thing uniting multicultural societies is commerce and profit motive. IE Joe doesn't get along with the Ethiopians and Swiss immigrants down the street, but they can all hang out at the mall together and buy stupid products.

Ethnic and 'racial' (using the term losely here foks, calm down) self-prerservation are deemed evil and satanic because they hinder the march of free-market based societies and liberalism. "But having pride in Hungarian identity is wrong because its so like discriminating and stuff lolz! We should create speech codes and hate crime laws so everyone can be super-sensitive and get along in paranoic diversity. Now everyone shut up and buy more products."

[Kman]

Multiculturalism is a fundamentally flawed ideology and I think it has reached its pinnacle with the election of President Obama, its downhill for these people from now on and thank god for that, because its an ideology that promotes respect over truth and ignorance over wisdom.

[sans-culotte]

Multiculturalism is a very superficial and an inaccurate concept, based on an ahistorical definition of culture. It's an entirely postmodernist concept, one that does not have a historical perspective, that does not look into the past or the future and only survives in an environment of "analytical" deconstruction, where each phenomenon can exist independently of others and has no dimensions apart from the present, "here and now".
Therefore, for Multiculturalism "culture" is something abstracted from the material world and from material relations amongst people and between people and the environment. "Culture" is thus taken as patterns of commodity consumption or behaviour patterns, both of which are created by material relations within one society and form one single fabric of social relations.
Multiculturalism however ignores this and constructs an ideological framework where commodity consumption patters and behaviour patterns have no traceable origin and are just unrelated curiosities that we have to deal with, i.e. to shuffle and reshuffle like bricks. This sophistic philosophy is reflected in megalomaniacal social engineering projects by the state that have no bearing on reality and have only negative outcomes.

What Multiculturalism also ignores is that real differences not only in behaviour patterns, but in whole world-views and psychological typologies of different groups of people are caused by profound differences in base material relations of societies, e.g. peasants have a wholly different psychology to urban wage labourers, nomads have wholly different psychology from both of the former, and "primitive" tribes radically differ from all of the above. This is the non-postmodernist conception of culture, of real difference between people, between groups of people that are in no way a part of the same fabric unlike the "Multicultural" crowds of modern cities.
In fact, the "Multicultural" crowds in modern cities belong to a profoundly homogenous culture, no matter where they come from and what their consumption habits and some superficial behavioural patterns are. It is a culture of total commodification, where the only real culture is a culture of commodity exchange on the market governed by homogenous bureaucratic machines of states and corporations.
The only real relation and interaction between individuals is commodity exchange, with all social rituals revolving around it. Differences between groups of people are produced by market variations and positions in the same hierarchy of exchange. This society does not leave room for cultural differences, and only postmodernist deconstructive "analysis" can make something out of nothing by artificially segregating people from the same culture on the basis of their (likely temporary) position within it.
In fact, this mythology more than anything else helped produce mass paranoia and fears of the modern world - the phantom muslim threat, fear of the inner city and the exodus of the middle class into the suburbs and "villages", gated communities, "senile towns" or age segregation, racism and political correctness (both being two sides of the same coin, orwellian doublethink), etc.
Although I would admit that those are more likely effects of real material processes in society than of postmodernist ideology and the Multicultural myth, it most certainly made feedback into the process that resulted in an intensification of unnecessary or overly negative aspects of the process, as evidenced by the difference between the US, where post-modernist philosophy triumphed and the above effects are intensive, and Europe, where its success was far more limited, and where the above effects had much less impact with all the "cultures" creating a largely undifferentiated European "culture".
But then I guess the success of postmodernism is determined by objective factors such as geography, history and economic patterns, so I possess no anger towards it

[Nattering Nabob]

I know it began in the 1990, but why and how?

Much of it began with the internetz which came into it's own in the 1990's...but basically it was mass communication of one kind or another...

You yourself are furthering this process by communicating your ideas in this very thread...

How does it feel to engender multiculturalism?

Why do you feel the need to do this?

[hip hop bunny hop]

I look at it this way. If a society doesn't have a common culture than there is no consesus on how things should be done. Everyone ends up disagreeing because their is no normative behavior or standard of values.

This is turn means that the only thing uniting multicultural societies is commerce and profit motive. IE Joe doesn't get along with the Ethiopians and Swiss immigrants down the street, but they can all hang out at the mall together and buy stupid products.

Ethnic and 'racial' (using the term losely here foks, calm down) self-prerservation are deemed evil and satanic because they hinder the march of free-market based societies and liberalism. "But having pride in Hungarian identity is wrong because its so like discriminating and stuff lolz! We should create speech codes and hate crime laws so everyone can be super-sensitive and get along in paranoic diversity. Now everyone shut up and buy more products."

You're assuming there is a universal, common Hungarian identity. There isn't. Nor is there one for France, Germany, etc.

[Inexorable]

You're assuming there is a universal, common Hungarian identity. There isn't. Nor is there one for France, Germany, etc.

Of course not, but I think its uncontroversial to say that someone living in Munich and someone living in Berlin will have more in common with each other then with someone living in Tokyo (unless of course, they are immigrants, exchange students, Japanese-German, etc). I don't get along with people in north west USA and we don't see eye to eye on much but I guarantee that we would be almost family if we woke up in Bangladesh one morning.

[NoRapture]

...In fact, this mythology more than anything else helped produce mass paranoia and fears of the modern world - the phantom muslim threat, fear of the inner city and the exodus of the middle class into the suburbs and "villages", gated communities, "senile towns" or age segregation, racism and political correctness (both being two sides of the same coin, orwellian doublethink), etc...

Historically speaking, every time an empire fell it forced hordes of peasants into the parlors and gardens of affluence and royalty, and affluence and royalty into the prisons and slave quarters of peasants. Experiments in multiculturalism performed upon the grandest, bloodiest, and devastating scales designed by Darwin or God.

Unless you fancy yourself privy to the outcome of God or nature's ongoing human experiment it's a little pretentious and early of you to presume the outcome of this one. Safe to say it won't be pretty. But to belittle our human attempts to lessen or put off the blows of coming social eruptions with some understanding, sharing of beliefs and similarities, or what you call the silliness of socially engineered, synthesized multiculturalism sounds pointlessly mean-spirited and intolerant to me. Certainly nothing close to the science and history academy you are trying so hard to associate yourself with.