Home Politics & Debate

Multiculturalism isn't Working

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Linkity link

Article

I think that it's a bit hypocritical, to at first say that bigotry isn't challenged if the person isn't white... Then go on to imply that 'extremism' in religion seems to be the preserve of Islam, when there are organisations such as Christian Voice, who openly support marital rape and killing gay people.

Also, non-religious extremism, linked to the BNP and others on the far right, such as David Copeland, the Soho Nail Bomber.

At the same time, I do think that it seems religion can have a get out of jail free card on things like homophobia, child abuse and sexism... But that it seems to be pointed out in Islam far more than in Christianity.

What do people think?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's a little ironic to do a speech showing religious intolerance, and singling out a single religion, in Munich.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't make me call Godwin on you there MoK...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No need, I wasn't saying it was similar just that he could have picked a better venue.

    He could also have talked about the extremist views of people like EDL in a much more forthright manner instead of pandering to the Express and Mail readerships.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For once, it would appear that David Cameron is correct. Multiculturalism has indeed been a miserable failure and is an experiment that should be ditched. On the other hand, what IS the British identity? Was there ever really a British identity?

    So far as I can tell, it's basically a hotch-potch of random things from other identities. Either way, it's nothing particularly distinctive. What to do...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I think that it's a bit hypocritical, to at first say that bigotry isn't challenged if the person isn't white... Then go on to imply that 'extremism' in religion seems to be the preserve of Islam, when there are organisations such as Christian Voice, who openly support marital rape and killing gay people.

    Extremism isn't the problem: ideology is the problem. An extreme follower of Jainism is only likely to be crippled in their ability to go about their day-to-day life for fear of killing another living creature.

    No one we should take seriously is likely to claim that not all religions have problems, but to pretend that all religions are created equal is either to be woefully ill-informed on the subject, or to be being intellectually dishonest. Islam, at the moment, is currently the forerunner in the crazy stakes - in both potential and practice. And I hardly think it's controversial, yet it's paramount for an useful conversation to take place, to recognise this.
    Also, non-religious extremism, linked to the BNP and others on the far right, such as David Copeland, the Soho Nail Bomber.

    Again, extremism isn't the problem: dangerous and unsavoury belief is. But in this context (communities and peoples not integrating fully) citing a nutjob who blows up shit because they don't like The Gays, isn't really relevant.
    At the same time, I do think that it seems religion can have a get out of jail free card on things like homophobia, child abuse and sexism... But that it seems to be pointed out in Islam far more than in Christianity.

    Religions trying to claim special dispensation is a trick as old as the hills.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For once, it would appear that David Cameron is correct. Multiculturalism has indeed been a miserable failure and is an experiment that should be ditched. On the other hand, what IS the British identity? Was there ever really a British identity?
    Depends on what your definition of multiculturalism is. It seems to mean different things to different people.

    Yes, of course people should learn the language and a good knowledge of teh customs of the country they live in.

    No, of course they should not ditch their own customs and identity (provided they are within the law).

    Both things are not mutually exclusive of course. As far as I am concerned multiculturalism means we have Chinese, Indian, Asian etc communities here who are free to celebrate their roots, cuisine, festivities. They can perfectly do this whilst still speaking English and interacting with the rest of members of society.

    It appears to me that a large proportion of those people in the Right who claim multiculturalism is a failure would simply like those Johnny Foreigners to ditch their customs and religions altogether and become Christians and lift their little finger while drinking tea with the vicar.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Everyone always witters on about "multiculturalism" without really ever explaining what they mean by it.

    As Aladdin says, immigrants to any country will inevitably keep many of their own customs, language and tradition. For Islamic people in Britain that might mean supporting Pakistan in the cricket, or eating Halal meat, or wanting to build a Mosque near their house. For British people in Spain, it means eating in greasy spoons, drinking in British bars and never associating with those funny Spanish people.

    It's exactly the same premise. People are tribal by nature, and they want to remain in a tribe in which they feel comfortable.

    I'd agree that there are problems where immigrants come to a country, don't learn the language and ride roughshod over local people. But it isn't an Islamic thing and to try and imply that it is is very disingenuous. The problem is mostly that the community who can't speak the local language cannot engage fully with local people and so become an enclave- something shown more than anything by the British enclaves on the Costa del Sol.

    But integration is a two-way street. When you have Cameron pandering to the worst kind of EDL nonsense, and you have the fragrant Baroness Warsi indulging him, it's precious little wonder that immigrant communities will pull up the drawbridge. If you tell people they're worthless and they should just go home, it's hardly a surprise when they decide they're not going to "integrate". Why would you want to have closer links with people who say they hate you?

    Of course Cameron is just playing the old "divide and rule" game. Blame Teh Forrins for everything that goes wrong economically and, guess what, the Tory government ("putting the N in Cuts") get away with asset-stripping Great Britain for the benefit of the uber-wealthy offshorers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's about intregrating foreigners into society rather than have them on the fringes where after years of living here they still haven't learnt to speak English! Or come here and decide actually they hate the Western world and Britain who a little bit earlier took them into this country with welcoming open arms, gave sanctuary to them and protected them from the atrocities in their own countries - then they turn around and stick two fingers up to western values. Integration, which is what Cameron's speech was all about, is what's needed in this country for sure. I'm not saying either all immigrants are like that, a lot do come to Britain and integrate well, fit in, but there are a large number who don't. Cameron's speech was right on the money imo. We're actually the only country where we put so much into diversity and consentual segregation (becasue so many don't want to fit in and prefer to live on the fringes of society) that we forgot all about integration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apologies for the length of this C&P, but here is the full text of Cameron's speech
    Today I want to focus my remarks on terrorism, but first let me address one point. Some have suggested that by holding a strategic defence and security review, Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world. That is the opposite of the truth. Yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong. Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% target for defence spending. We will still have the fourth largest military defence budget in the world. At the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army. That is not retreat; it is hard headed.

    Every decision we take has three aims in mind. First, to continue to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan . Second, to reinforce our actual military capability. As Chancellor Merkel’s government is showing right here in Germany, what matters is not bureaucracy, which frankly Europe needs a lot less of, but the political will to build military capability that we need as nations and allies, that we can deliver in the field. Third, we want to make sure that Britain is protected from the new and various threats that we face. That is why we are investing in a national cyber security programme that I know William Hague talked about yesterday, and we are sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.

    But the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried out by our own citizens. It is important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group. My country, the United Kingdom , still faces threats from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland . Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and in Italy , and of course, yourselves in Germany were long scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. Last week at Davos I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism, and today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark. We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. Of course, that means strengthening, as Angela has said, the security aspects of our response, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

    But this is just part of the answer. We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

    This highlights, I think, a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face. There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

    The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. So, they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say, ‘Get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.’ But this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK and elsewhere have been graduates and often middle class. They point to grievances about Western foreign policy and say, ‘Stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.’ But there are many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who are angry about Western foreign policy, but who don’t resort to acts of terrorism. They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say, ‘Stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.’ But this raises the question: if it’s the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so many extremists in free and open societies?

    Now, I’m not saying that these issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important. Yes, of course we must tackle them. Of course we must tackle poverty. Yes, we must resolve the sources of tension, not least in Palestine , and yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the Middle East . On Egypt , our position should be clear. We want to see the transition to a more broadly-based government, with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society. I simply don’t accept that there is somehow a dead end choice between a security state on the one hand, and an Islamist one on the other. But let us not fool ourselves. These are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all of the problems that I have mentioned, there would still be this terrorism. I believe the root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology. I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.

    What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK , some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

    So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation.

    Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated. In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere. In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. All these interactions can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply. Now, you might say, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

    Well, I’ll tell you why. As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.

    Let me briefly take each in turn. First, confronting and undermining this ideology. Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. Now, for governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with. Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement. So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home.

    At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses? Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons? And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.

    Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not. But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are, and that is completely unjustifiable. We need to argue that terrorism is wrong in all circumstances. We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are nonsense.

    Now, governments cannot do this alone. The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam, so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam. So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast, often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview. Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.

    Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

    There are practical things that we can do as well. That includes making sure that immigrants speak the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum. Back home, we’re introducing National Citizen Service: a two-month programme for sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people. That way, common purpose can be formed as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.

    So, let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. It cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence – confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries. Now, none of this will be easy. We will need stamina, patience and endurance, and it won’t happen at all if we act alone. This ideology crosses not just our continent but all continents, and we are all in this together. At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome. Thank you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting. Still far too much talk about Islam and too little talk about understanding where the extremism comes from.

    Whilst I don't advocate pandering to terrorists, our experiences with the IRA and ETA shows that if you give people something to lose they will behave themselves. The problem is that the people doing this don't have anything to lose, because the real problem nation- Saudi Arabia- is still indulged so much.

    Blacksheep, you're talking shit that Richard Tinydick would be proud of. Please stop it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Somebody tell me what "multiculturalism" means, then I will tell you if I think it's working or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sanitize wrote: »
    Somebody tell me what "multiculturalism" means, then I will tell you if I think it's working or not.

    Here ya go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiculturalism
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that's part of the problem, no one is necessarily sure what it is.

    The efforts to pander to every different whim that residents of this country come up with though does seem to be lead to segregation and entrenchment of very different life styles.

    I have no problems with supermarkets selling kosher meat for example, but it needs to work in the same was as other supermarket meat products, and be properly labelled in english (or welsh) as the primary language on the packet, because they are the official languages of the country we live in.

    Similarly local signs, council publications, by all means teach english as a foreign language to those that need it, but english is the language that should be being taught and worked in and that day to day life is carried out in.

    We still have a Church of England and that church is currently closely linked to our state, so Christmas should be Christmas, not winter, Easter is Easter, not spring. Yes, any organisation can have it's own premises to do what they like with, within reason, be it play bowls, tennis, have a mosque or a temple in, but Christianity can keep it's festivals in day to day parlance.

    Try that and might actually find that we have better functioning society, rather than one that's split up into lots of little different sections.

    Multiculturalism isn't working, because you very rarely get multicultural anything, you get one culture, next to another, down the road from another and very rarely does anything mix.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure why people think there's so much ambiguity over the term 'multiculturalism'. Surely completely successful multiculturalism is all the differing cultures of an area rubbing along together and fully integrating with each other. And completely unsuccessful multiculturalism is no culture or community being able to stand the other, let alone integrate - a bit like what's going on in old Palestine.

    Clearly the UK is somewhere in between.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are there any countries that have truly successful multiculturalism, as a matter of interest, or is it an ideal that is doomed to fail at some level?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not a country, but Geneva might get close.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Parts of India achieve it remarkably well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not a country, but Geneva might get close.
    Parts of India achieve it remarkably well.

    Hmmm. Well, so do parts of the UK get 'close' or do 'remarkably well'. So I am not sure that those are examples of multicultural success on a national level?

    Switzerland had it's recent 'mosque building' outcry and India has plenty of cross-religious violence.

    So is multiculturalism therefore an idealistic pipe dream?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends what you mean by unrealistic pipe dream.

    I don't think it is fair to judge a localised thing on a national level. Parts of the UK cope with multicultural life very well. London's a good example but probably skewed being a capital city, but there are very few racial tensions in the north east. South Shields has had a significant Yemeni population for nearly 100 years and other communities in the area generally get on fairly well.

    I think the places that do it best are the areas which have traditionally had a lot of migration. Sea ports usually seem to cope well with migrant populations- Newcastle, Liverpool, London, Hamburg all seem to enjoy the vibrancy. Portsmouth is an example that proves the rule, really, but Portsmouth people are weird.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Hmmm. Well, so do parts of the UK get 'close' or do 'remarkably well'. So I am not sure that those are examples of multicultural success on a national level?

    Switzerland had it's recent 'mosque building' outcry and India has plenty of cross-religious violence.

    So is multiculturalism therefore an idealistic pipe dream?

    I guess it depends on what you would count as failure for multiculturalism. Does simply the existence of Islamic literalists in our country denote a failure? Do faith schools nullify any claims of successful integration? Do explicitly racist political organisations mean multiculturalism is a failed experiment? I don't know.

    These are certainly problems. And drawing us/them lines is hardly likely to be helpful. But dangerous ideas need recognising and challenging - and I'm not sure issuing the challenge is admitting defeat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends what you mean by unrealistic pipe dream.

    Rephrased : Can multiculturalism ever really work on a national level?

    I just wonder if there will always be a part of every community that will always raise tensions.
    South Shields has had a significant Yemeni population for nearly 100 years

    Wow! And they haven't been integrated into the community by migration and marriage etc? They are still distinctly Yemeni after nearly 100 years? that's amazing. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess it depends on what you would count as failure for multiculturalism. Does simply the existence of Islamic literalists in our country denote a failure? Do faith schools nullify any claims of successful integration? Do explicitly racist political organisations mean multiculturalism is a failed experiment? I don't know.

    These are certainly problems. And drawing us/them lines is hardly likely to be helpful. But dangerous ideas need recognising and challenging - and I'm not sure issuing the challenge is admitting defeat.

    Hmmm. Food for thought. However, presuming that you are an atheist evolutionist (as I am), one would recognise that people are, unfortunately, not 'equal' and although education can inform and mould us to a certain extent, you're always going to have those chimp(*) throwbacks that will pass on the genes of intolerance to their own spawn, in spite of education etc.

    I think true multiculturalism is always going to be a problem to introduce. :(

    (*) Apologies to chimps
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The areas where multiculturalism has "failed" have significant problems anyway. Places like Bradford, Oldham, Burnley are dead on their arse and all that's happening is that the different communites all blame each other for having no money, no jobs and no hope.

    I don't think any community cohesion can work in such an atmosphere. But that's not a failure of multiculturalism, that's a failure of successive asset-stripping Governments.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teegan wrote:
    Are there any countries that have truly successful multiculturalism, as a matter of interest, or is it an ideal that is doomed to fail at some level?
    Funnily enough, when parts of Spain (Andalucia, to be precise) were under Moorish rule, you could say the region enjoyed a perfect multicultural society. Muslims, Christians and Jews all lived together in harmony and kept their own identity and culture while interacting with each other.

    Then the Catholics retook Andalucia, and everything went to shit. But that's another story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Hmmm. Food for thought. However, presuming that you are an atheist evolutionist (as I am), one would recognise that people are, unfortunately, not 'equal' and although education can inform and mould us to a certain extent, you're always going to have those chimp(*) throwbacks that will pass on the genes of intolerance to their own spawn, in spite of education etc.

    I think true multiculturalism is always going to be a problem to introduce. :(

    (*) Apologies to chimps

    I suspect that achieving one hundred percent harmony and integration is an unachievable and unrealistic goal, but I don't think acknowledging that means multiculturalism isn't worth striving for.

    I'm hesitant to apply labels to myself, as they're often more trouble than they're worth, but I agree bad ideas on their own, or as part of shitty ideologies, are likely to foster intolerance. I also think that some cultures and theologies are inherently prone resisting the goal of integration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect that achieving one hundred percent harmony and integration is an unachievable and unrealistic goal, but I don't think acknowledging that means multiculturalism isn't worth striving for.

    I'm hesitant to apply labels to myself, as they're often more trouble than they're worth, but I agree bad ideas on their own, or as part of shitty ideologies, are likely to foster intolerance. I also think that some cultures and theologies are inherently prone resisting the goal of integration.

    I'd go along with that. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I also think that some cultures and theologies are inherently prone resisting the goal of integration.
    Including the culture of many of the people who complain about multiculturalism. Let's face it, most of the people who claim that multiculturalism has failed have absolutely no interest in a society where people from different backgrounds live together without incident anyway.

    Where has multiculturalism succeeded? Brazil? Most people are mixed race, so I guess that's a pretty big sign of a successful multicultural society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Brazil may be multiracial, but is it really multicultural?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where has multiculturalism succeeded? Brazil? Most people are mixed race, so I guess that's a pretty big sign of a successful multicultural society.

    I think you mean multiracial rather than multicultural, as apart from some small Indian tribes at the periphery, Brazil is very monoculture

    I'd also suggest the way that this develeped (invade, kill the chaps and rape the women and then pop over to Africa to repopulate your slave population) may now be regarded as tad too un-PC to be replicated.
Sign In or Register to comment.