• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are some people obsessed with multiculturalism?

youngturk said:
I really appreciate all comments but this thread is mainly about multiculturalism in Europe.US is a different case.
Click to expand...

Okay, I didn't realize that. Europe I am not an expert on having only spent 3 1/2 years in Germany compliments of the U.S. Army. Perhaps I should have read more in-depth. But the title fascinated me.
 
twixie1 said:
I cannot understand your concern..
Click to expand...
Ofc not.
''Muslim rapists get 20 years'' our justice gets the wrongdoers eventually.
Click to expand...
After thousands of kids were abused and a decade of being protected by law enforcement and the authorities for fear of being labeled racists.
And actually I lived in Paris 30 years ago..and there were no-go zones even then..I am sure that in the States..you have no-go areas as well?
Click to expand...
I'm not american.

It is unacceptable to have no-go zones anywhere in a country due to the crime and the fear of attack and murder. And muslims are the ones creating those no-go zones.
So even if you recognize the existence of the problem, your indoctrination forbids you to accept the cause of the problem.
 
Rainman05 said:
Ofc not.

After thousands of kids were abused and a decade of being protected by law enforcement and the authorities for fear of being labeled racists.

I'm not american.

It is unacceptable to have no-go zones anywhere in a country due to the crime and the fear of attack and murder. And muslims are the ones creating those no-go zones.
So even if you recognize the existence of the problem, your indoctrination forbids you to accept the cause of the problem.
Click to expand...

I didn't know you were not American..why hide yourself?

My doctrine is..I am a Christian..living in a Christian country..these people get what's coming to them..They won't win on our turf....EVER!!!
 
twixie1 said:
I didn't know you were not American..why hide yourself?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're talking about.
My doctrine is..I am a Christian..living in a Christian country..these people get what's coming to them..They won't win on our turf....EVER!!!
Click to expand...


You make no sense what-so-ever. Unless you start being productive to the conversation I will not be indulging you and your pathetic, good for nothing commentary any further.
 
Rainman05 said:
I don't understand what you're talking about.



You make no sense what-so-ever. Unless you start being productive to the conversation I will not be indulging you and your pathetic, good for nothing commentary any further.
Click to expand...


Well..goodbye then..and try not to self implode..I am sure that your aggressive posts may be appreciated somewhere else..:lol:
 
youngturk said:
This.The first link.That rate is not even 30% in Turkey which is an Islamic country.Supporting the death penalty for leaving Islam is quite natural.According to one of Muhammad's hadiths,you can kill someone for 3 reasons,

Adultery
Apostasy
Revenge
Click to expand...

Whenever I talk about muslims I generally don't include turks and persians in that term or that conversation because they aren't what is called a "muslims".
Turks, like iranians/persians, primarily identify, in large part, by their nationality.

It's only muslims from africa, arabia and north africa that primarily identify as muslims.
This is because they've been islamized on the terms of the caliphate when the first islamic caliphate spread.

But Turkey and Persia maintained their cultural independence. Unlike Egypt for instance who was islamized and arabized. Same for Libya, Tunisia, Iraq (well, yeah sure, but not like Libya), and other places. That was never the case with Turkey or Persia.

So that's why Turks and Persians have national identity as the primary identity. Just like a Frenchman would primarily identify as a Frenchman not as a Catholic. So would (generally speaking) a Turk primarily identify as a turk, not as a muslim. At least in my experience and according to everything I read. I said this many times.

Again, this isn't to say that turkish or persian people aren't influence by arabic islamic culture, it is to say that the national identifier is stronger than the religious one at least in the majority of people.
This is much more true for persians since they're also of the shia muslim faith. So they'll never be part of a islamist-arabic society.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Let me be clear I am not for or against so called multiculturalism. I think it is a fancy word that is made up and is being used by both sides of a stupid argument.

Case in point. So called multiculturalism has been going on in the US for 200 years. There, they are "proud" of it and call it a melting pot, but in reality it is no different than what is happening in Europe. You can still find signs in parts of US that say "No Dogs, no Jews and no Irish" or something similar towards Irish, Italian, Japanese and other minorities. In the US, St. Patricks day is a big day... get green and puke green day as some think of it.. that is multiculturalism at work, where Irish tradition has become a "national holiday" of sorts.

Now in the UK you have the curry.. which is today basically the national dish. Curry is not native to the UK, so how did it get there? Hell tea aint native to the UK.. why is it synonymous with being British? Oh the empire and the importation of traditions and foods to the UK by Brits or immigrants. And technically, most Brits are actually Scandinavians or Northern German and the original "British" are long gone.

So, so called multiculturalism is and always has been happening in all countries and hence the whole idea of liking or hating or fearing is beyond idiotic. No society is "clean" or original.

Take my own country of Denmark. For us to be pure, we would still have to be marauding around in long boats trading, discovering new lands, raping and pillaging our way across the globe. But we evolved as some foreigner came along and introduced this new thing called Christianity. That meant we suddenly stopped with all that sex stuff but continued with the killing. Many of our traditional foods.. imported.. Our traditions... yep you guessed it, imported.

Societies change over time and it takes time. The different between so called "multiculturalism" in the US vs Europe... about 100 years.
Click to expand...

I do think you miss a very important point. It is recognized (within academia) that multiculturalism is quite different and distinct from a 'melting pot approach'. The UK, for instance, made policy geared and (under Blair's Labour) designed to let minority communities keep as much as possible, of what it is, that keeps them distinct and different. The overarching narrative was less for assimilation and integration, more separation and celebration of uniqueness. Ultimately, without a common shared narrative, the default position has been not for country of birth (in many younger members), but religious and ethnic allegiance. We are only now realizing we've created a fragmented society, which I'm sure was not the intention.

Paul
 
Rainman05 said:
I'll be frank with you, who cares?
What do I care about you and who you are friends with? It means nothing to me, it adds nothing to the conversation and furthermore, it's impossible to validate.
So again, what does it matter what your friends think/say/will or won't do to you personally? What's the relevance to this discussion?

I can bring you stats, polls, news reports, govt reports, and many more things that paint a picture of reality as best as that picture can be asserted. But all that you will toss out because you have "plenty of muslim friends". Surely, you having plenty of muslim friends invalidates every piece of data.

Let me put it this way. Your statement is equal to statements like:
I know there are no dogs that bite people because I know plenty of dogs and they never bit me!!!
I know that horses never kick people because I've been around plenty of horses and they never kicked me!!
I know that cars never hit people because I've been around, near and in the presence of cars a lot of times and I was never by one!
etc

All similarly useless, pointless and stupid statements.
Jesus F. Christ. What a stupid thing to say in such a discussion.


And the other thing that is equally as stupid, what does it matter what you are?
Does you being british and white have any value in this discussion? We are not only talking about England here, first and foremost. 70% of french inmates are muslims. Here's a stat. But I'm sure that if you were french and white you would say "but I know plenty of muslims and they're not in prison". Irrelevant. Can you see how irrelevant and stupid your comments are?
I mean, talk about 0 self-awareness and 0 logic.

What a stupid rebuttal. My God.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you said in this thread, however I'd like to point out two problems:

A) There is not just justified discontentment with the behavior of certain immigrants and integration problems, but dangerous irrational xenophobia does exist among natives and is just as much of a problem.

B) How can we address the problems that do exist with certain immigrant groups, without causing the collateral damage of making life and work for those among them more difficult, who actually work in favor of making their own culture compatible with that of their home countries -- those who do integrate well, who do contribute?


As for A), you certainly remember that there was a huge outcry among many in Germany, especially among those who are very vocal against Islam too, when EU law allowed Romanians to move to Germany without limits. Among these circles of Germans, the case is obvious: Romanians are lazy, steal and rob, abuse our welfare state and will flood our country in masses.

You and I know that this picture these xenophobes have in mind of Romanians is not true, and neither do the statistics support that, according to which all Romanians who have come to Germany so far, since the Schengen borders were opened, are above-average when it comes to education, more often have a job than the German average and get less state support than the German average.

Yet, this distrust and xenophobia is strong among many Germans. Why do you think that is? And what does the answer tell us about our attitudes towards Muslim immigrants? (Certainly not that Islam is no problem, or that Muslim immigrants are just as harmless or even beneficial as Romanian immigrants, that's not what I'm saying. But I do think there is a lesson somewhere in this phenomenon.)

And B), there are without doubt many immigrants of Muslim background, perhaps it's even a majority, who does integrate very well, who do take efforts to fit in and embrace our culture. So what, do you think, should we do when we have this debate, in order not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, when we address the severe and serious existing problems with a large share of Muslims here, in order not to close the doors for those Muslim immigrants who do integrate?

(For example, my angry explosion in the other thread was certainly not a good example about how to have this debate.)
 
gunner said:
I do think you miss a very important point. It is recognized (within academia) that multiculturalism is quite different and distinct from a 'melting pot approach'.
Click to expand...

How so? What academia.. right wing fanatics?

The UK, for instance, made policy geared and (under Blair's Labour) designed to let minority communities keep as much as possible, of what it is, that keeps them distinct and different. The overarching narrative was less for assimilation and integration, more separation and celebration of uniqueness.
Click to expand...

And how is that any different than when the Irish or Italians came to the US? None.. they kept to themselves, in their own ghettos. They were hated and discriminated against. There was no policy to assimilate, so yes that is different in only the fact that the UK had a policy and the US had none, but in the end both "policies" were lassie-faire and give the same result. It took the US 100 years to assimilate the vast amount of immigrants that came in the late 1800s and early 1900s.. and people expect Europe to do that in a few decades and without any problems?

Ultimately, without a common shared narrative, the default position has been not for country of birth (in many younger members), but religious and ethnic allegiance. We are only now realizing we've created a fragmented society, which I'm sure was not the intention.
Click to expand...

Ahh a common shared narrative.... lets see. The Irish, Italians and others left for the US, not to become "Americans" but to flee from economic, political and religious strife and live supposedly free. Oddly that is what most "immigrants" to Europe want as well in the 21st century. So how is that different?
 
German guy said:
I agree with much of what you said in this thread, however I'd like to point out two problems:

A) There is not just justified discontentment with the behavior of certain immigrants and integration problems, but dangerous irrational xenophobia does exist among natives and is just as much of a problem.

B) How can we address the problems that do exist with certain immigrant groups, without causing the collateral damage of making life and work for those among them more difficult, who actually work in favor of making their own culture compatible with that of their home countries -- those who do integrate well, who do contribute?
Click to expand...
I read everything you said but I had to cut down ur comment to save space.

Ok. So you made a very valid point about Romanians,( Bulgarians and poles, I'll add them here too) and I discussed these in many threads explaining why there are differences.

But lets start with the beginning.

In 2004 Poland joined the EU. A lot of poles left for Germany, Britain and France. The majority of these polish people, I trust you will agree, were decent enough people. Spoke in part or fluently the language of the country they emigrated to, had some professional experience or education, if not quite a lot, and filled in many positions in many companies.
However.
Some, sufficiently many, of these polish people were also: Assholes, drunkards, criminals, violent, uncivilized, etc. And they started causing problems. From common street brawls and pub fights to criminal groups and gangs. And people in France and Germany and Britain would hear on the 5 o'clock news that "A polish man was arrested for assault" or "A polish crime ring was captured" and they started forming an opinion. And because such news happened with sufficient frequency, that opinion became the norm. Why? Because the media had sufficiently many incidents of polish people being various criminals.
It doesn't matter that maybe 10 houses down from you, a polish family moved in that spoke your language fluently, that were very good professionals in their field... doesn't matter because they fit in. They integrated into society seemlessly. They lived and behaved like ordinary citizens of whatever country they were in. So was this picture, this view of the criminal polish man, correct? Ofc not. Was it unjustified to create this image? Probably. Were the people who believed this story bigots? No. Why? Because it wasn't unwarranted for them to believe this. And who is to blame for the creation of this picture? The media? Partly. but also the polish people who were criminals and loudmouths and uncivilized.

In 2007, 2 other countries joined. Romania and Bulgaria. Not discussing ethnicity here, Romanian and bulgarian nationals left for Italy and Spain mostly ,but also France. While a lot of such people, the majority, were people who were skilled or educated or both, fluent to some degree in the language of the country they emigrated to or willing to learn, it is indisputable that sufficiently many RO and BG people were loudmouths, ignorant, beggars, criminals of all kinds and generally uncivilized people. And the news started popping up. Romanian beggar ring captured in Paris. Bulgarian man arrested for breaking and entering. Romanians arrested for violence last night for assault. The stories kept popping up. Again, it didn't matter that a lot of RO and BG people were working and not doing crime, that they spoke the language and that they were just like ordinary citizens. That doesn't matter. They're not the problem. The others are. And again, is it therefore warranted to blame people for believing this image of us? No. They are justified in believing this because it was part of reality. Sure, it would have been nice to have a genuine, level-playing field discussion and report, but that's not how the news works.

It is indisputable that should Poland, Romania and Bulgaria not join the EU, the criminals, the ignorant, the aggressive people, the scum, the beggars, wouldn't have left for the west and cause trouble there. They would have stayed here.
Part 2 below.
 
"Oh well, then whats the difference between this and muslims?" I hear people ask.
The differences are quite many but I will focus on 2.
1) is that nobody hated those Romanians, those BG and those poles who did those crimes more than us. here I can speak only about Romania from experience. We had a chance in 2007 to make a good impression in the civilized world after the horrid view that the world had after communism fell and those stories about the abuse in orphanages and hospitals appeared. Talk show after talk show, newspaper after newspaper reporting on what we were doing in the west and how negative this is. The general line of speech was something like "They (the west) let inside the EU a bunch of primitive, uncivilized, backwards people and of course now, this is the result. What can we expect from a dumb, balkanized, idiotic people like us.". It didn't matter that the majority were decent enough people doing what decent people do. There was no poll that would say that Europe is misrepresenting us. Or that Europe is bigoted or racist or whatever. Sure, if only you could do a report on the thousands of doctors that left, that would be nice, but you can't make such demands. It doesn't work like that.

In other words. If the number of criminals and thugs and bad people in general was below that threshhold of "sufficiently many" to cause that image problem, there would be no image problem. Doesn't mean that everyone has to be perfect, just not be enough to cause a problem. The bad image didn't result from overexposure of bad Romanians. It came from the fact that there were enough to expose not just through the media, but people interacting on the streets, to cause that image to be consolidated. And that's because of a structural cultural problem. It is true, we're not civilized enough.
It's the difference between being "just a few bad apples" to being "the whole harvest is rotten".

2) Eastern European countries aren't anti-western. Generally, the zeitgeist, the will, the voice of the eastern europeans and Eastern European countries is "Why can't we be more like the west?" or "how can we be more civilized?" or so on and so forth. We want to be like you guys basically. Live like you guys. Have a society that mirrors yours. We don't want us, Eastern Europe, to be the standard. We don't want you to be more like us. You're the correct standard for civilization in our minds. This is why you have good hospitals and good schools and a working social order and a working society in general. You don't have these because you're decrepit or corrupt or decadent. It's because you're exactly the opposite of that. We want to westernize in the full sense of the word. And we're doing, I think, a lot of progress in that sense. Poland is doing great. Romania has been doing great, especially in the past few years. Bulgaria... not so great.

You don't see that with muslims. They want special rights, special privileges, and they use dirty tactics to fight and silence the opposition. If you have to demand special rights to "fit in", otherwise you will do harm or will be "offended", that means you aren't interested in integrating. People who want to integrate don't ask for privileges, they want to be treated as everyone else. They don't ask for special laws to be made for them, they don't want to shut down discussion, criticism or whatever.
 
twixie1 said:
It was Sweden's choice..Sweden has long seemed aloof and immune, an oasis of civility and openness, with the most generous welfare, asylum, and immigration policies in Europe. But with about 100,000 immigrants entering a country of almost 9 million every year, The polls suggests there has been a shift in the public mood....
Click to expand...

The Swedes have had their tolerance rewarded with utter hatred
 
PeteEU said:
How so? What academia.. right wing fanatics?
Click to expand...

Pathetic. Pweople like John Sentamu archbishop of York, Trevor Phillips the Head of the commission for racial equality,Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir- Ali. Yes all right wing fanatics.
And how is that any different than when the Irish or Italians came to the US? None.. they kept to themselves, in their own ghettos. They were hated and discriminated against. There was no policy to assimilate, so yes that is different in only the fact that the UK had a policy and the US had none, but in the end both "policies" were lassie-faire and give the same result. It took the US 100 years to assimilate the vast amount of immigrants that came in the late 1800s and early 1900s.. and people expect Europe to do that in a few decades and without any problems?
Click to expand...

Multiculturalism tells people NOT to assimilate
 
ataturk said:
The Swedes have had their tolerance rewarded with utter hatred
Click to expand...

Actually..I understand that Turkey is cosying up to the Russians..big gas pipe to run through the whole of Turkey..taking gas to Southern Europe??
 
German guy said:
My two cents:

When people praise multiculturalism, they have tolerance in mind: We (the native majority) shouldn't be racists. We shouldn't judge people by their skin color, by the way they dress and what they eat, not by the languages they speak at home or at which place they're going to worship. Beyond that, we should even embrace this diversity as an enrichment.

That's how "multiculturalism" became a discursive weapon word against native racists and chauvinists. Because, especially in Europe, these racists do exist. They don't feel like Americans, who say "embrace the values of this great country, praise the constitution and sing the anthem, and you're American!". No, ethnic nationalism used to be (still is?) strong in Europe -- "you can only be German when your parents were German". Foreign looks alone was a sufficient reason for many people to treat others as second class citizens at best, and to never accept them as citizens rather than just guests who will leave again.

So far the idea behind "multiculturalism", and so far I fully agree with this term. I too hate ethnic nationalism in Germany. As far as I am concerned, everybody can become fully German, regardless of origin, skil color or food habits.

And I disagree that cultures do not mesh. In fact, I believe this is a very stupid thing to say, because history shows that in the past 2000 years or so at least, no great cultural achievement has been made when a culture was isolated. All great cultural achievements were the result of a stimulation by different influences. You need the right mix of old and new to create something really great and meaningful in the realm of culture. Cultures that isolate themselves will fall into a kind of incestous degeneration and produce nothing but epigones of examples that once were great.


But here comes the problem. The proponents of multiculturalism fail(ed) to see that culture is much more than just food and dress, but may include certain values too. In many cases, foreign values are no problem, of course, like for example a certain sense of self-discipline and industriousness as you often find among East Asian immigrants. And with their fascination with the idea of "diversity", the multiculturalists failed to see that diversity, as good and beneficial it is within limits, will result in chaos and violence when there is no frame around it that nobody questions. This frame is our Constitution and law, and the values that are expressed in them.

We're seeing now that many Muslim immigrants apparently share values that are in contradiction with this necessary frame. Mainstream Islam, for example, is not at all compatible with the Western idea of human rights and legal equality. Let alone even more radical forms of islamism or Muslim law schools.

Many Muslims do not just enrich our society by giving welcome new impulses to our culture, by making the city more colorful, by bringing new kinds of food and music, pretty scarfs or a nice new-agy Sufi philosophy to look at the world. Many of them question the very frame of our society, without which we'll fall into chaos -- they oppose and attack the equality of human beings, the idea of human rights, the democratic system of government, and tolerance for those who are different.

So, on the bottom line: IMO, multiculturalism is a good thing. A wonderful great thing. And I hate ignorant ethnic nationalists among native Europeans. But multiculturalism is only good within the frame of a Western society, and this frame must be respected and protected 100%. When this does not happen, the good side of multiculturalism ends and the idea becomes something really ugly.
Click to expand...
This interesting post seems to echo this. Germans Rise Up Against Islamization
 
PeteEU said:
You can still find signs in parts of US that say "No Dogs, no Jews and no Irish" or something similar towards Irish, Italian, Japanese and other minorities.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a person can barely make their way along the sidewalks without banging into one of these signs.
 
ataturk said:
Pathetic. Pweople like John Sentamu archbishop of York, Trevor Phillips the Head of the commission for racial equality,Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir- Ali. Yes all right wing fanatics.


Multiculturalism tells people NOT to assimilate
Click to expand...

Agreed. Need to have a more common culture for all the population, as this will unit the population rather than divide it.

Multiculturalism is when people are allowed to pass down their cultural heritage to their children, at their own expense, and not the public expense.

Multiculturalism is not forcing society to observe all cultures, nor forcing society to observe no cultures at all, neither is it funding all cultures, nor is it minority cultures marginalizing the predominant or majority culture.

Not being a multicultural society is the banning of a culture and prosecuting those that practice that culture in their own homes, in their own venues. I'm thinking of examples of repressive regimes. Didn't / doesn't China ban the Tibetan Munks? Or the Weegers, for example. That's not multicultural.

There is no banning of multiculturalism in the USA. Nor should there be. But that doesn't mean there needs to be excessive accommodations, nor displacement of the majority culture.
 
eohrnberger said:
Agreed. Need to have a more common culture for all the population, as this will unit the population rather than divide it.

Multiculturalism is when people are allowed to pass down their cultural heritage to their children, at their own expense, and not the public expense.

Multiculturalism is not forcing society to observe all cultures, nor forcing society to observe no cultures at all, neither is it funding all cultures, nor is it minority cultures marginalizing the predominant or majority culture.

Not being a multicultural society is the banning of a culture and prosecuting those that practice that culture in their own homes, in their own venues. I'm thinking of examples of repressive regimes. Didn't / doesn't China ban the Tibetan Munks? Or the Weegers, for example. That's not multicultural.

There is no banning of multiculturalism in the USA. Nor should there be. But that doesn't mean there needs to be excessive accommodations, nor displacement of the majority culture.
Click to expand...

"E Pluribus Unum" summed it up well and was very forward thinking. The idea is to create a common culture where everyone understands what is socially acceptable and what is not, where everyone understands the rules as well as the laws, written and unwritten.
 
Grant said:
"E Pluribus Unum" summed it up well and was very forward thinking. The idea is to create a common culture where everyone understands what is socially acceptable and what is not, where everyone understands the rules as well as the laws, written and unwritten.
Click to expand...

And isn't this really being undermined with the present drive to what is called 'multiculturalism'?
 
Grant said:
"E Pluribus Unum" summed it up well and was very forward thinking. The idea is to create a common culture where everyone understands what is socially acceptable and what is not, where everyone understands the rules as well as the laws, written and unwritten.
Click to expand...

which the left hates
 
eohrnberger said:
And isn't this really being undermined with the present drive to what is called 'multiculturalism'?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And politicians of the last generation have exploited the differences between people rather than addressing our common concerns. We are now are called 'voting blocs', and they will turn us against each other in order to extract votes and gain support.

Politicians will always create a crisis in order to explain to voters that they are the only one qualified to solve it. That's fair enough as a political tactic, but now it has really gotten out of hand, and all of societies in the western democracies are suffering as a consequence.
 
Grant said:
Yes, it is. And politicians of the last generation have exploited the differences between people rather than addressing our common concerns. We are now are called 'voting blocs', and they will turn us against each other in order to extract votes and gain support.

Politicians will always create a crisis in order to explain to voters that they are the only one qualified to solve it. That's fair enough as a political tactic, but now it has really gotten out of hand, and all of societies in the western democracies are suffering as a consequence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that. Part and parcel, or perhaps a perfect example of this is the ridiculous excessive political correctness and where it drives the discussion and decision making. Some PC in small measures is good, such as not discriminating against someone for something they believe, but, as usual, some have latched on to this and have used this reasonable and measured PC and have exploited it to further their own extremist agendas by justifying it via PC.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, I can see that. Part and parcel, or perhaps a perfect example of this is the ridiculous excessive political correctness and where it drives the discussion and decision making. Some PC in small measures is good, such as not discriminating against someone for something they believe, but, as usual, some have latched on to this and have used this reasonable and measured PC and have exploited it to further their own extremist agendas by justifying it via PC.
Click to expand...
Right. The labels they use to depersonalize those who hold different opinions is a great way to silence any opposition. Oddly enough, 'free speech zones' on University campuses was once thought of as a great liberal idea, and few seemed to recognize the actual contempt this idea had for free speech itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom