Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the difference between a foreign culture's right to express their culture (kebab, language, foreign dress) versus impose their culture (Sharia law in London, justifying rape as a cultural norm from the 'old country').
You mean that if you and I are in London, we are bound by Sharia law? We would be forced by law to do what the Imam tells us to do? Where do you get this stuff?
Multicultural does not work. It only breeds and reinforces divisiveness and segregation. In order for a country to grow strong and prosper their has to be a common language, common goals, that people can understand, communicate and work towards with each other.
Thing is the dominant culture has to be willing to incorporate outsiders, immerse their children in the culture so they can become insiders. Tribalism was and still is a part of human nature BUT many societies especially when they reach empire phase like the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans allowed for outsiders to blend in and over time achieve high status in their societies.
I agree. Oil and water don't mix. When you try to force multi-culturalism on society, you end up with culture clashes, political strife, religious wars, and language barriers.
We live in the UNITED States, not the "divided" states. "Diversity" means divisive. Succesful countries need unity and people who share common cultures.
I think this statement is interesting as it kind of skims over the fact that a Federal Union of 50 different states spanning an entire continent cannot possibly be culturally similar in ever or even a majority of respects.
Why do you think people in New Hampshire want to make their own laws and not share the same laws as people in South Carolina? Doing something in the Northwest that you might find common in the South could come off as rude and imposing. Likewise, certain states have social and political philosophies that are more restricted and reserved, and other states or regions have philosophies that are more Liberal. Certain areas have people who think for the benefit of the whole, some thing for the benefit of the individual.
The ties that bind the people of the 50 states are intangible. Us both being American doesn't mean we have anything more culturally in common than both being Christian, or both liking the color red. As you observe, you notice that very few people take such vague similarities to heart.
We in America have very many completely irreconcilable differences. I personally think that as people wake up to this, they'll start demanding more autonomy from the rest of the people. We are, were, and always will be, a tapestry. You could shut out immigration entirely and evict every non WASP in the nation and you couldn't change that.
I highly doubt the early settlers thought about it that hard. Most people back then saw the world in terms of "tribes". European people's had been at war between each other for centuries and extended that mentality when they explored the outside world. Was it a tradgey? Sure, but they didn't do it out of any real organized vision of genocide like what so-called "Scholars" believe.
Dead is dead, weither it was from a fellow indian's arrow or a european's musket. I doubt the smaller, weaker indian tribes would have taken much consolidation having been wiped out by the "noble" cheeorkee or mayans rather those eeeeeeeevil europeans. Extinct is Extinct.
This next comment is gonna elict some screams, but frankly, alot of this "Blame whitey" is rooted in the envy that stemms from the fact that they [europeans] managed to build a still-functioning civilzation while African/American empirial gains went for naught.
Did you really find it all that necessary to go there? You were doing okay until the last part.
The thing about multiculturalism is a matter of degree, not type. I imagine it would be difficult having a large population that didn't adhere to basic social mores, but food, music, art, dress, all of that is also a part of your culture, and I imagine the nation would be terribly mundane if everyone gave up their uniqueness in that.
I totally agree with this!!! then what would be the point of having a multicultural fest if everyone were doing and being the same!
someone also mentioned the eventual total assimilation and the disapearance of chinatowns happily as if that's a good thing!! unbelievable! chinatowns are great and interesting! it would be an utter travesty if they were gone!
maybe some people are lying, possibly even to themselves saying they agree with multiculturalism but really they are into assimilation, which in many ways is a code term for intolerance (i can accept and tolerate you if you do as i do and are like me). out of sight, out of mind.
Although a lot of liberals support Multiculturalism, I would definitely not consider it a central tenet of liberalism since Multiculturalism would change the host culture sufficiently to negate a liberal society.
I support Diversity, the tolerance of non or slowly assimilating foreign cultures in a host culture, but not Multiculturalism, the intentional, socially engineered cultural mish-mashing of society (usually out of some sort of guilt over colonialism).
It's the difference between a foreign culture's right to express their culture (kebab, language, foreign dress) versus impose their culture (Sharia law in London, justifying rape as a cultural norm from the 'old country').
ABQConvict
I agree. I wouldn't say that all liberals support Multiculturalism as a policy.
To me, multiculturalist policy is about Reparations, white guilt, and a belief that white people, straight people and men are mean and deserve to be punished for their past misdeeds, and "minorities" are innocent victims.
I do think that respecting the rights of all human beings is a basic tenet of liberalism though.
I agree. I wouldn't say that all liberals support Multiculturalism as a policy.
To me, multiculturalist policy is about Reparations, white guilt, and a belief that white people, straight people and men are mean and deserve to be punished for their past misdeeds, and "minorities" are innocent victims.
I do think that respecting the rights of all human beings is a basic tenet of liberalism though.
So you agree with assimilating foreign people into a host country? and how is that realistically done without assimilating also their culture and ways they bring with them? do you think humans are robots and you can separate their lineage, habits, tastes, and past from them?
I say those who express the unrealistic views as abcconvict are lying to themselves and spouting bull regarding the truth of "multiculturalism" and what it means. Either way, forced or unforced, you will end up with a society different both racially and culturally than before whether you 'assimilate' or have a 'multicultural' society (lol, it's laughable because it's more about semantics than reality).
I totally agree with this!!! then what would be the point of having a multicultural fest if everyone were doing and being the same!
.
The "point" of having a multicultural fest is for the promoters of the fest to make money any way they can, and multicultural events are as good as any for that purpose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.