[Hong Wu]

India and to a lesser degree, China are multicultural. But there's some key differences here.

First, despite having different cultures and religions, most of the people are either from the same race or closely related races. This is similar to how western multiculturalism wasn't much of an issue back when it was only different kinds of white people, and mostly western white people, mixing together.

Second, a place like India has many tangibly different religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhs, Jains and even Muslims. But these people are all, with only a few differences, surprisingly culturally similar. They eat mostly the same foods, speak a shared language, live in somewhat similar environments and share values with each other (in the common, secular sense of what values are).

The issues with western multiculturalism are: very different races that have no intention of getting along with each other, that have little to no shared expectations, whose religions or ways of life fundamentally conflict with each other in terms of values.

To put it simply, western multiculturalism is western liberals (who are usually on a wide variety of psychiatric drugs) pretending that everyone in the world has or soon will have the same values that western liberals have, because progress. But with each passing day that looks a little bit more crazy. The pressure is mounting. As I touched upon in another thread, sooner or later that dam will break and the western leftist will just want to secede from the world.

[One Degree]

Multiculturalism can exist peacefully in a confederacy. It is an oxymoron in a federation. Even if it appears peaceful, cultures are vying for domination of the others. One culture is the only peaceful outcome for a federation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Multiculturalism can exist peacefully in a confederacy. It is an oxymoron in a federation. Even if it appears peaceful, cultures are vying for domination of the others. One culture is the only peaceful outcome for a federation.

This is correct, many have attributed this same phenomena to the historic success of the Swiss.

However, this is also why in an increasingly centralized circumstance its important for people to secede inasmuch as possible into their own enclaves if they wish to preserve their culture and way of life.

[Pants-of-dog]

If multiculturalism only works in confederacies, why does it work in Canada?

[One Degree]

If multiculturalism only works in confederacies, why does it work in Canada?

Canada is considered to be the world’s most decentralized federation. They are closer to a confederation than any other federation. Therein lies your answer, if we accept your premise.

[Pants-of-dog]

Canada is considered to be the world’s most decentralized federation. They are closer to a confederation than any other federation. Therein lies your answer, if we accept your premise.

Do yo have any evidence to support this claim?

[One Degree]

Do yo have any evidence to support this claim?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that "confederation" means a particular event in Canada. Canada is not a confederacy, as the cited article points out. It is, instead, a dominion.

Also, please note that there is no mention of multiculturalism in the cited article.

[One Degree]

Please note that "confederation" means a particular event in Canada. Canada is not a confederacy, as the cited article points out. It is, instead, a dominion.

Also, please note that there is no mention of multiculturalism in the cited article.

I do enjoy your subtle admissions I have scored a point. No direct reply and deflection from the main issue.
I feel honored by your concessions to my efforts.

[noemon]

Canada is considered to be the world’s most decentralized federation. They are closer to a confederation than any other federation. Therein lies your answer, if we accept your premise.

Do yo have any evidence to support this claim?

Canada is a federation[5] and not a confederate association of sovereign states, which "confederation" means in contemporary political theory. It is nevertheless often considered to be among the world's more decentralized federations.[6]

That is what we used to call: Pwned.

[Pants-of-dog]

Lol.

Not only foes the footnote lead to page where decentralization is not even mentioned, but the next paragraph contradicts @One Degree:

Canada is a federation[5] and not a confederate association of sovereign states, which "confederation" means in contemporary political theory. It is nevertheless often considered to be among the world's more decentralized federations.[6] The use of the term Confederation arose in the Province of Canada to refer to proposals beginning in the 1850s to federate all of the British North American colonies, as opposed to only Canada West (Ontario) and Canada East (Quebec). To contemporaries of Confederation the con- prefix indicated a strengthening of the centrist principle compared to the American federation.[7]

In this Canadian context, confederation generally describes the political process that united the colonies in the 1860s, related events and the subsequent incorporation of other colonies and territories.[8] The term is now often used to describe Canada in an abstract way, such as in "the Fathers of Confederation". Provinces and territories that became part of Canada after 1867 are also said to have joined, or entered into, confederation (but not the Confederation).[9] The term is also used to divide Canadian history into pre-Confederation (i.e. pre-1867) and post-Confederation (i.e. post-1867) periods.[10]

And it still says nothing about multiculturalism.

[Rugoz]

This is correct, many have attributed this same phenomena to the historic success of the Swiss.

Switzerland has been a federal state since 1848 (the official name is misleading). The reason it works is because it has never defined itself as an ethnic state, but as a "nation of will" (Willensnation). The old confederacy was a mess, held together by the desire to be independent of the Holy Roman Empire. The founding myths of a nation are always quite instructional.

[MistyTiger]

India and to a lesser degree, China are multicultural. But there's some key differences here.

First, despite having different cultures and religions, most of the people are either from the same race or closely related races. This is similar to how western multiculturalism wasn't much of an issue back when it was only different kinds of white people, and mostly western white people, mixing together.

Second, a place like India has many tangibly different religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhs, Jains and even Muslims. But these people are all, with only a few differences, surprisingly culturally similar. They eat mostly the same foods, speak a shared language, live in somewhat similar environments and share values with each other (in the common, secular sense of what values are).

The issues with western multiculturalism are: very different races that have no intention of getting along with each other, that have little to no shared expectations, whose religions or ways of life fundamentally conflict with each other in terms of values.

To put it simply, western multiculturalism is western liberals (who are usually on a wide variety of psychiatric drugs) pretending that everyone in the world has or soon will have the same values that western liberals have, because progress. But with each passing day that looks a little bit more crazy. The pressure is mounting. As I touched upon in another thread, sooner or later that dam will break and the western leftist will just want to secede from the world.

You seem to like to blame things on western liberals. What about western conservatives? From what I understand, western liberals appreciate unity which is not the same as cultual conformity. They acknowledge that different cultures have common beliefs like working hard and cherishing family.

If anything, it is the western conservative who wants one language and to hell with bilingual signs and books. They want everyone to just speak English. Well then, why not make ESL programs free and readily available at every public school? They want everyone to be like Americans because whites are superior.

[One Degree]

You seem to like to blame things on western liberals. What about western conservatives? From what I understand, western liberals appreciate unity which is not the same as cultual conformity. They acknowledge that different cultures have common beliefs like working hard and cherishing family.

If anything, it is the western conservative who wants one language and to hell with bilingual signs and books. They want everyone to just speak English. Well then, why not make ESL programs free and readily available at every public school? They want everyone to be like Americans because whites are superior.

Insistence everyone in a culture have a common language improves communication and provides a cultural connection. It is doubly ridiculous the US does not require it since English is the universal language. Learning English can only assist you, not harm you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Learning several languages improves relationships across cultures. So if a Canadian learnt English, French, and Cree, they would have a much better commection to other “Canadians” all across the country.

And since ethnic diversity will comtinue to rise in developed countries for the foreseeable future, it would also be a good idea to not only provide free classes for immigrants, but also learn the language of the largest immigrant group in your area.

[One Degree]

Learning several languages improves relationships across cultures. So if a Canadian learnt English, French, and Cree, they would have a much better commection to other “Canadians” all across the country.

And since ethnic diversity will comtinue to rise in developed countries for the foreseeable future, it would also be a good idea to not only provide free classes for immigrants, but also learn the language of the largest immigrant group in your area.

Why, when English is already accepted as the universal language? This means it is the only language it is necessary to learn other than your own. If I am French, I don’t need to learn Spanish, because we both know English.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why, when English is already accepted as the universal language? This means it is the only language it is necessary to learn other than your own. If I am French, I don’t need to learn Spanish, because we both know English.

What are you talking about?

English is definitely not already accepted as the universal langauge in many parts of Canada.

And if you want to understand Quebec culture, or Cree cultures, it would help to understand their language.

We are discussing multiculturalism, after all. Not monoculturalism.

[One Degree]

What are you talking about?

English is definitely not already accepted as the universal langauge in many parts of Canada.

And if you want to understand Quebec culture, or Cree cultures, it would help to understand their language.

We are discussing multiculturalism, after all. Not monoculturalism.

You are on an international forum where English is the common language as in most international forums. You deciding this is not reality, does not change the reality. It is simply a matter of common sense. It is easier for everyone to learn one language than for everyone to learn all languages.
I fully understand wanting to learn a language to get a more accurate understanding of a people, but that is an individual choice totally separate from the benefits of one common language.
If put to a vote, I doubt English would have been the choice, but here we are. Therefore, there is really no excuse for not learning English in an English speaking country and is advantageous to learn in any country.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are on an international forum where English is the common language as in most international forums. You deciding this is not reality, does not change the reality. It is simply a matter of common sense. It is easier for everyone to learn one language than for everyone to learn all languages.

Since we are not discussing how to deal with multiculturalism on PoFo, this is irrelevant.

I fully understand wanting to learn a language to get a more accurate understanding of a people, but that is an individual choice totally separate from the benefits of one common language.
If put to a vote, I doubt English would have been the choice, but here we are. Therefore, there is really no excuse for not learning English in an English speaking country and is advantageous to learn in any country.

Since this does not contradict anything I have said, I am just going to ignore it and move on.

Now, people who live in the Americas really should learn an indigenous language, especially if they are the type to argue that immigrants need to learn the local language.

[One Degree]

Since we are not discussing how to deal with multiculturalism on PoFo, this is irrelevant.



Since this does not contradict anything I have said, I am just going to ignore it and move on.

Now, people who live in the Americas really should learn an indigenous language, especially if they are the type to argue that immigrants need to learn the local language.

Your position is illogical. The indigenous learning English allows them to communicate with more than just English speakers since it is universal. There is no benefit to requiring English speakers to learn another language. It is definitely a worthwhile pursuit for the English speaker if they want, but zero reasons to require it.