• 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!

Multiculturalism: Good idea or Bad?

Multiculturalism: Good idea or Bad?

  • Multiculturalism is a good idea.

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Multiculturalism is a bad idea.

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • Neither is a good idea.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Both are a good idea.

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Assimilation is a good idea.

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • Assimilation is a bad idea.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something else (please explain).

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
34,825
Reaction score
12,194
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have personally never been a fan of "multiculturalism" as a social decision-making guideline, as I feel it is one of social ideas out there which is completely bad, with no good aspects to it at all.

I prefer the social idea sometimes referred to as "the melting pot” or as I like to call it: Assimilation.

At least if the goal of your social decisions is to bring a community into a closer and more intertwined relationship with each other.

Multiculturalism, in my mind, can accomplish this on a small scale, by supporting or promoting an "us against them" mentality.

Assimilation, on the other hand, (at least in my opinion) is a far better option.

While it may blur the lines and even cause the loss of some aspects of the former culture and society which a person entering it used to have...That is the goal, at least if you are attempting to produce a society along the lines of that I described above.

In my mind, only if the entire world is assimilated into one single culture (or at least the majority of it) will actual world peace/harmony/whatever result.
 
I have personally never been a fan of "multiculturalism" as a social decision-making guideline, as I feel it is one of social ideas out there which is completely bad, with no good aspects to it at all.

I prefer the social idea sometimes referred to as "the melting pot” or as I like to call it: Assimilation.

At least if the goal of your social decisions is to bring a community into a closer and more intertwined relationship with each other.

Multiculturalism, in my mind, can accomplish this on a small scale, by supporting or promoting an "us against them" mentality.

Assimilation, on the other hand, (at least in my opinion) is a far better option.

While it may blur the lines and even cause the loss of some aspects of the former culture and society which a person entering it used to have...That is the goal, at least if you are attempting to produce a society along the lines of that I described above.

In my mind, only if the entire world is assimilated into one single culture (or at least the majority of it) will actual world peace/harmony/whatever result.

I disagree completely. It's quite possible to encourage better communication between various communities while each still has pride in their own cultural heritage and traditions. The world will never be "assimliated" and if it was, I don't think it'd result in world peace at all; rather, fighting would continue over other issues, just as it does within nations where most citizens sare the same basic cultural background. We'd also lose the righness and variety that makes our world not only a rich and interesting place, but a moe informed one: by looking at various different societies, one can learn from their habits and practices and try and assess the effect of implementing similiar policies at home, or realise that such policies are flawed in application and therefore avoid gong down the same path.

The approach to treating illness favoured by many Arab physicians in the Dark and Middle Ages (prescribing a healthy diet, cleaning wounds, applying poultices) influenced many English physicians of the time to move away from methods such as amputation of injured limbs and the puncture of diseased lungs. Seeing the social impact of China's "One Child Policy" shows us that such a policy cannot be successfully implemented without a great deal of error and suffering. Wuld we know such things if the world was one huge culturally homogenised mass?
 
I think a mixture of multiculturalism and assimilation is probably the best ideal.
 
I have personally never been a fan of "multiculturalism" as a social decision-making guideline, as I feel it is one of social ideas out there which is completely bad, with no good aspects to it at all.

I prefer the social idea sometimes referred to as "the melting pot” or as I like to call it: Assimilation.

At least if the goal of your social decisions is to bring a community into a closer and more intertwined relationship with each other.

Multiculturalism, in my mind, can accomplish this on a small scale, by supporting or promoting an "us against them" mentality.

Assimilation, on the other hand, (at least in my opinion) is a far better option.

While it may blur the lines and even cause the loss of some aspects of the former culture and society which a person entering it used to have...That is the goal, at least if you are attempting to produce a society along the lines of that I described above.

In my mind, only if the entire world is assimilated into one single culture (or at least the majority of it) will actual world peace/harmony/whatever result.



My problem with multiculturalism is the way it undermines liberal values. Liberalism involves a universally applied set of standards for individuals seeking to maximixe social justice, whereas multiculturalism represents a political philosophy that makes a huge assumption that there is no such thing social justice applicable to all, but instead, simply looks the other way at injustice as long as such injustice is limited to the functionings of a particular group. Since most of the subgroups living within western cultures are profoundly ILLIBERAL, such an attitude works strongly against liberal values.
 
I disagree completely. It's quite possible to encourage better communication between various communities while each still has pride in their own cultural heritage and traditions. The world will never be "assimilated" and if it was, I don't think it'd result in world peace at all; rather, fighting would continue over other issues, just as it does within nations where most citizens are the same basic cultural background. We'd also lose the rightness and variety that makes our world not only a rich and interesting place, but a more informed one: by looking at various different societies, one can learn from their habits and practices and try and assess the effect of implementing similar policies at home, or realize that such policies are flawed in application and therefore avoid gong down the same path.

The approach to treating illness favored by many Arab physicians in the Dark and Middle Ages (prescribing a healthy diet, cleaning wounds, applying poultices) influenced many English physicians of the time to move away from methods such as amputation of injured limbs and the puncture of diseased lungs. Seeing the social impact of China's "One Child Policy" shows us that such a policy cannot be successfully implemented without a great deal of error and suffering. Would we know such things if the world was one huge culturally homogenized mass?

Perhaps my understanding of "multiculturalism" is flawed.

I would have said that, if using an "assimilation" method, it would be quite possible for unique and diverse cultures could be assimilated into the whole, preferably eliminating the bad part of said cultures and keeping the good.
Thus, diverse cultures could coexist without major disagreement, and even less with the second generation.

The issues I have with "multiculturalism" follow:

I was under the impression that "multiculturalism" would strive to preserve the whole culture of an immigrant, rather than allowing only that which did not violate the rules which were already in place in the culture the immigrant was entering.

Further, it was my understanding that "multiculturalism" would support separate and specific rules for each culture which immigrated into the area. This, in my mind, would result in disunity and bigotry between cultures which conflict in certain areas. For example, the "place" of a woman in society. There are vast differences in that area which would have to be resolved, with extreme difficulty, if a (for the most part) smoothly functioning society were the goal.
Many other such sticking points exist.
 
To be quite honest its the made up importance of culture.Culture cannot be allowed to trump science.It doesent matter if someone doesent believe something scientifically proven like evolution their opinion isnt as valid.

Also when islamic courts decide a womans testnomy is worth half of a mans we can ignore this idea because its scientifically proven to be wrong.

Whatever happened to sticks and stones? Sometimes your just gonna have to be against peoples cultural beliefs because they are wrong and/or dangerous.
 
To be quite honest its the made up importance of culture.Culture cannot be allowed to trump science.It doesent matter if someone doesent believe something scientifically proven like evolution their opinion isnt as valid.

Also when islamic courts decide a womans testnomy is worth half of a mans we can ignore this idea because its scientifically proven to be wrong.

Whatever happened to sticks and stones? Sometimes your just gonna have to be against peoples cultural beliefs because they are wrong and/or dangerous.

Yes, exactly. Any person from any culture in this country should live by our rules. This does not mean they should give up their whole cultural identity. Our laws trump Muslim law, but people can still be Muslim and maintain that identity. Assimilation and multiculturalism, hand ind hand. As time goes on, I think more and more assimilation will happen naturally.
 
Perhaps my understanding of "multiculturalism" is flawed.

I would have said that, if using an "assimilation" method, it would be quite possible for unique and diverse cultures could be assimilated into the whole, preferably eliminating the bad part of said cultures and keeping the good.
Thus, diverse cultures could coexist without major disagreement, and even less with the second generation.

The issues I have with "multiculturalism" follow:

I was under the impression that "multiculturalism" would strive to preserve the whole culture of an immigrant, rather than allowing only that which did not violate the rules which were already in place in the culture the immigrant was entering.

Further, it was my understanding that "multiculturalism" would support separate and specific rules for each culture which immigrated into the area. This, in my mind, would result in disunity and bigotry between cultures which conflict in certain areas. For example, the "place" of a woman in society. There are vast differences in that area which would have to be resolved, with extreme difficulty, if a (for the most part) smoothly functioning society were the goal.
Many other such sticking points exist.

I think we may be working from different basic definitions then, and this may be the problem. I've always understood the term multiculturalism as meaning havingpride in one's heritage and culture and trying to preserve it, even if this is not the dominant culture in their society, but I of course I that one must obey the laws of any nation one wishes to live in.

One thing, I would say about the points you made above however, is that designating certain aspects of an immigrant community's culture as "good" and "bad" make for a fairly subjctive judgement. Who decides this, and what's the criteria? Obviously when it comes to issues like domestic violence, we can make such judgements, but what happens when the only indication that a custom is "bad" is that it's a bit different to how things are done in the host country?
 
Who decides this, and what's the criteria? Obviously when it comes to issues like domestic violence, we can make such judgements, but what happens when the only indication that a custom is "bad" is that it's a bit different to how things are done in the host country?

If you've decided to move to a host country - leave your family, your home, your country behind. Then we have a fairly good indication of what is bad, and what is good. The turn of the phrase is, I believe, 'voting with your feet.'

Until proven otherwise, the host country is first and 'right' and 'good.'
 
I have personally never been a fan of "multiculturalism" as a social decision-making guideline, as I feel it is one of social ideas out there which is completely bad, with no good aspects to it at all.

We live in a global economy. If an American company plans to market its products in, say, India, which do you think would be more successful: A group of white Americans working on it, or a group of people who were born, raised, and lived most of their life in India?

This is just one of the innumerable benefits I can think of offhand.
 
We live in a global economy. If an American company plans to market its products in, say, India, which do you think would be more successful: A group of white Americans working on it, or a group of people who were born, raised, and lived most of their life in India?

This is just one of the innumerable benefits I can think of offhand.

Benefits of what?

Multiculturalism?

What you discribe in your "example" is good marketing strategy, not Multiculturalism.
--------------------------------
What is your opinion of the caste system which still has influnce in India?

If some subset of Indian immigrants tried to import such a system to a part of the USA (where said subset decided to live together) when they immigrated, would you go along with it?

Or would you oppose it as being bigoted and unfair?

In my mind, there are certain ideals which all people should embrace. This may be in part because I grew up in the USA, and have absorbed "American" values. Who knows?
But just because they are "American", does that make them wrong?
Or less viable than others?
Or even equal to others?
Can certain values which one culture holds not be better than another cultures values in the same area?
 
I think we may be working from different basic definitions then, and this may be the problem. I've always understood the term multiculturalism as meaning having pride in one's heritage and culture and trying to preserve it, even if this is not the dominant culture in their society, but I of course I that one must obey the laws of any nation one wishes to live in.
I would agree that one aspect of multiculturalism might support preservation of an immigrant's former culture. But my view is that it does so at the expense of said immigrants’ absorption of their new culture. That it, rather than promoting a melding of cultures, embracing the new while preserving the old, promotes a rejection or dismissal of the new while clinging to the old.

One thing, I would say about the points you made above however, is that designating certain aspects of an immigrant community's culture as "good" and "bad" make for a fairly subjective judgment. Who decides this, and what's the criteria? Obviously when it comes to issues like domestic violence, we can make such judgments, but what happens when the only indication that a custom is "bad" is that it's a bit different to how things are done in the host country?
In my mind, a "bad" cultural aspect would be one that conflicted with the laws/key cultural views of the new (to the immigrant) culture. Anything else would be acceptable, at least in general.
 
Benefits of what?

Multiculturalism?

What you discribe in your "example" is good marketing strategy, not Multiculturalism.

My point is that if everyone is from the same culture and cannot easily understand other cultures, it will make our country less competitive in the global arena. It is helpful to have people with unique perspectives and backgrounds. Most large nations (China being the exception) are "melting pots." Our large population and diversity of viewpoints are what makes our economy strong and resilient. This would not be possible without multiculturalism.

The Mark said:
What is your opinion of the caste system which still has influnce in India?

If some subset of Indian immigrants tried to import such a system to a part of the USA (where said subset decided to live together) when they immigrated, would you go along with it?

Or would you oppose it as being bigoted and unfair?

You seem to be narrowly defining multiculturalism as the acceptance of values completely abhorrent to one's own culture. The two are not the same thing. Of course I'd oppose a caste system.

The Mark said:
In my mind, there are certain ideals which all people should embrace. This may be in part because I grew up in the USA, and have absorbed "American" values. Who knows?
But just because they are "American", does that make them wrong?
Or less viable than others?
Or even equal to others?
Can certain values which one culture holds not be better than another cultures values in the same area?

Of course. Human rights are better than totalitarian repression. Free speech is better than censorship. A free market is better than a command economy.

Multiculturalism doesn't mean abandoning one's own values.
 
Last edited:
My point is that if everyone is from the same culture and cannot easily understand other cultures, it will make our country less competitive in the global arena. It is helpful to have people with unique perspectives and backgrounds. Most large nations (China being the exception) are "melting pots." Our large population and diversity of viewpoints are what makes our economy strong and resilient. This would not be possible without multiculturalism.

It appears I have/had a different understanding of what, exactly, "multiculturalism" is.
All of what you say makes sense.

You seem to be narrowly defining multiculturalism as the acceptance of values completely abhorrent to one's own culture. The two are not the same thing. Of course I'd oppose a caste system.

Not precisely.

I was rather defining "multiculturalism" as a social decision-making framework which, when applied by members of the host culture(at least in some cases), influences persons who adhere to it towards decisions which may "accept values completely abhorrent to their own culture".
The other side is that the same framework influences persons entering the host culture into decisions which, IMO, while preserving their former culture, also limit their absorption of the host culture.

This may be an incorrect definition of the word "multiculturalism", but is not, I think, entirely incorrect in describing our current usage of something some call "multiculturalism" in some areas and situations.

Of course. Human rights are better than totalitarian repression. Free speech is better than censorship. A free market is better than a command economy.

Multiculturalism doesn't mean abandoning one's own values.

It does if those values are in conflict. Someone's values have to give.
 
It does if those values are in conflict. Someone's values have to give.

I don't think there's anything contradictory about saying "We welcome immigrants from all corners of the world and welcome their unique perspectives. But that doesn't mean you can disobey American laws."

Celebrating Ramadan and praying five times a day, cool. Honor killings, not cool.
Not eating beef and meditating after bathing, cool. Child marriages, not cool.
 
Last edited:
This thread idea showed some promise, but I see it has turned into the great debate: why doesn't everyone just adopt the white culture?

I don't think this question of assimilation need necessarily interfere with the idea of progressivism at all. Unless, of course, the prevailing opinion is that some cultures are incapable of progressing. And if that is the case, why bother? Assimilate what? How?

Like Redress said (I think) the only solution is a combination of assimilation and multiculturalism. And the root (western) culture WILL change. Anyone who lives in America has to know this is true. Our culture has changed drastically just in my lifetime. And if you don't like it, then, well, tough ****. It's changing with or without you.
 
This thread idea showed some promise, but I see it has turned into the great debate: why doesn't everyone just adopt the white culture?

I don't think this question of assimilation need necessarily interfere with the idea of progressivism at all. Unless, of course, the prevailing opinion is that some cultures are incapable of progressing. And if that is the case, why bother? Assimilate what? How?

Like Redress said (I think) the only solution is a combination of assimilation and multiculturalism. And the root (western) culture WILL change. Anyone who lives in America has to know this is true. Our culture has changed drastically just in my lifetime. And if you don't like it, then, well, tough ****. It's changing with or without you.

Excellent points. I agree with you.
 
I don't think there's anything contradictory about saying "We welcome immigrants from all corners of the world and welcome their unique perspectives. But that doesn't mean you can disobey American laws."

Celebrating Ramadan and praying five times a day, cool. Honor killings, not cool.
Not eating beef and meditating after bathing, cool. Child marriages, not cool.

There's not.

And if that is "multiculturalism", then I have little issue with it.

I simply think that it can be taken too far.
 
Diversity is a great thing.
 
It doesn't matter if it is a good idea or a bad idea. It's going to happen no matter what is done to try and prevent it. If you're inclined to try to prevent it.
 
Look at Europe and ask yourself if multiculturalism works.
 
I have personally never been a fan of "multiculturalism" as a social decision-making guideline, as I feel it is one of social ideas out there which is completely bad, with no good aspects to it at all.

I prefer the social idea sometimes referred to as "the melting pot” or as I like to call it: Assimilation.

At least if the goal of your social decisions is to bring a community into a closer and more intertwined relationship with each other.

Multiculturalism, in my mind, can accomplish this on a small scale, by supporting or promoting an "us against them" mentality.

Assimilation, on the other hand, (at least in my opinion) is a far better option.

While it may blur the lines and even cause the loss of some aspects of the former culture and society which a person entering it used to have...That is the goal, at least if you are attempting to produce a society along the lines of that I described above.

In my mind, only if the entire world is assimilated into one single culture (or at least the majority of it) will actual world peace/harmony/whatever result.


The USA is not a "Melting Pot" though... it is a "Mixed Salad"
 
Back
Top Bottom