Has Multiculturalism Failed in America?

[calibro1]

Originally Posted by burgler09

Of course it failed in Europe, what actually succeeds in Europe besides high prices and riots?

Really it failed in Europe...huh? Funny since they have lower crime and a higher standard of living...

[SloRoller]

Originally Posted by A Regular Guy

One after another European Leader has come out and stated that multiculturalism has failed in their countries. These include both moderate and conservative leaders in Germany, France and Germany.

Multiculturalism has failed, says French president - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety - broken link)

Do you think a major American Political Leader would be so bold as to make this statement about what is happening in America. (A balkanized society, especially outside the workplace)

Should we admit as a nation that multiculturalism has failed as America has become more ethnically and culturally diverse? Or do you believe that multiculturalism is a great success both here and in Europe?

Ummm...exactly what is multiculturalism and what is it supposed to accomplish?

[Indian Girl]

Originally Posted by calibro1

The immigration into South Africa was solely because of Whites not allowing neighboring nations the opportunity to compete...a little something called colonialism. Then after apartheid, and the wreckage of Zimbabwe (a country beset by a White racist regime, followed by a Black racist regime), South Africa notably picked up economically along with other nations in the region (Botswana for example).

Just because people immigrate to a country does not mean there are no problems in that country. My father was an expat in Saudi Arabia, does that mean that socially things are kosher in Saudi Arabia? I currently live in South Korea, there are some things socially that need to be addressed here.

Every nation has their problems. America's main problem is the widening gap between rich and poor. A gap that is highly influenced by racism and has a historical background rooted in racist policies.

Talk about spin and deception to justify invasion! Anti-white talk abounds! There is no gradual assimilation in the words and practice of mass invasion. American indians know this very well. You have been reading the wrong books!

I do agree that the world is being ripped off by the very rich.

Here is a look at African reality for your information!

Susan Hawley says it all:
'Multinational corporations' corrupt practices affect the South (i.e. Africa, Asia and Latin America) in many ways. They undermine development and exacerbate inequality and poverty. They disadvantage smaller domestic firms and transfer money that could be put towards poverty eradication into the hands of the rich. They distort decision-making in favour of projects that benefit the few rather than the many. They also increase [the] debt that benefit[s] the company, not the country; bypass local democratic processes; damage the environment; circumvent legislation; and promote weapons sales. Bribes put up the prices of projects. When these projects are paid for with money borrowed internationally, bribery adds to a country's external debt. Ordinary people end up paying this back through cuts in spending on health, education and public services. Often they also have to pay by shouldering the long-term burdens of projects that do not benefit them and which they never requested.'[8]

And in all these, the Western media has kept silent and has not raised a voice against what its governments, intelligence services, corporations and businessmen are doing to Africans. They prefer instead to criticise China for courting the same African leaders Euro-Americans have been protecting for decades. A clear hypocrisy isn't it? These are the same criticisms King Leopold II levelled against the Arabs who were competing with him for resources and slaves in Congo, and we know what Leopold II, the 19th-century Hitler, did in the DRC in the name of Christianity and 'civilisation'.

[url=http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/content/view/2338/76/]Africa: Aided by IMF-World Bank collusion, multinationals paying close to nothing for their looting - global-sisterhood-network.org[/url]

Since 2002, the Congo has been subjected to a World/Bank IMF structural adjustment program (SAP), which means that its economic policy is being set by these two U.S.-dominated institutions. A major effect of this policy is to legalize the corporate looting of the Congo. Kazadi explained that, under World Bank rules, foreign companies pay nothing to the government for lucrative mining concessions. He added: "The IMF is saying to the Congolese, give up your resources to Western multinationals. This is the price you have to pay for peace. This is not investment. It is plunder. With what are we going to build the Congo when the multinationals have taken everything? The objective of the U.S. is to gain control of the economic riches of the Congo. First they use war. Then they use the World Bank and the IMF."

[url=http://www.asadismi.ws/nairobiWSF.html]Asad Ismi: African Activists Lead Resistance to Western Plundering and Imperialism[/url]

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by johnnypp

People who practice patterns of "discrimination and exclusion" don't allow millions of outsiders to flood into their country.

Sure they do. They need cheap, controllable labor. Problem is, these folks are not always as controllable as the establishment wants.....

Furthermore, if this 'exclusion' was so terrible why were not the 'excluded' fleeing and why were people wanting to come in?

The excluded were born here of parents whose families have been here for generations. And people wnted to come in because here's where the money is.

[Indian Girl]

Too bad most of the cheap labor is on welfare, SSI, in prison or selling drugs!

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Indian Girl

Too bad most of the cheap labor is on welfare, SSI, in prison or selling drugs!

[gsupstate]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

It worked in the US in the past because new immigrants had the desire to integrate into society. The majority of immigrants shared common European heritage and were more similar than dissimilar. Even Asian immigrants integrated well since they shared a common work ethic and desire to succeed.

We are now seeing large influxes of immigrants who have no desire to do so, and prefer to remain separate from society. There are major cultural clashes, and I don't see that changing.

Well said.

I addition, many immigrants in the past, came to America to work hard and create a better life. Many current immigrants now come to America to take advantage of the system and take the easy way to a better life.

[West of Encino]

A lot of people born before 1950 would believe so. I wouldn't say that multiculturalism has failed in this society. There's a lot of things going on and are failing.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

I think you're missing the subtle difference.
While they segregate themselves, they still consider themselves Americans.

So who are these people that don't, other than those who like many groups that came before them came with every intention of going back home?

In the good old days" they sent their kids to the US schools and it was important for their kids to learn English, learn the American way and be better off then them. That is where the assimilation came in.

Once again, who are these people who don't send their kids to school (I have no idea what a US school is) and aren't interested in their kids speaking english. When ever I was doing a story in some immigrant community the kids always got me through where my own foreign language skills failed to get me through.

Today we have a large number of immigrants from Mexico.
Some consider themselves Mexican and fly the Mexican flag over the US Flag.

Now besides those who have every intention of returning to Mexico (just like 40% of the Italians who came to the U.S.) what empirical research do you base your findings on? And do you hold Irish and Italian Americans to the same standards, because I can go right out my house and find Irish and Italian flags, bumper stickers and the likes.

Additionally, and this is for some mind boggling reason seems to be totally ignored by Anglos, is that "Mexicans" in the Southwest are not all immigrants. Mexicans lived in the Southwest well before there was an American and well before Americans gained sovereignty over those territories. So to equate the Mexican American experience with those of European immigrants is simply ahistorical. So in short, you and the likes of yourself are arguing is not that even recent Mexican immigrants learn to assimilate but rather to abandon an indigenous American culture that predates the very founding the country.

So even for me as an African American I find it more than a little disingenuous that Mexican Americans living in Los Angeles, San Fernando, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Laredo, San Antonio, Los Gatos, Jan Jose, Santa Barbara are being told that speaking Spanish isn't being American.

They do not want to assimilate. They want separate. They want to keep their birth nationality and their native language and live with us in America.

I do see 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican children entering school not knowing any English. And yes, here in Texas it is very possible to do everything you need to do and not worry about speaking English.

I'm sorry, but I just flat out don't believe you regarding 2nd and 3rd generation kids who do not speak English. In fact I would describe in another manner.

So let's see what the literature says:

Language Assimilation Today:
Bilingualism Persists More Than in the Past,
But English Still Dominates
Richard Alba
Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research
University at Albany
December, 2004

"Bilingualism is common among second-generation children, i.e., those growing up in immigrant households: most speak an immigrant language at home, but almost all are proficient in English. Among Hispanics, 92 percent speak English well or very well, even though 85 percent speak at least some Spanish at home. The equivalent percentages among Asian groups are: 96 percent are proficient in English and 61 percent speak an Asian mother tongue."

"The very high immigration level of the 1990s does not appear to have weakened the forces of linguistic assimilation. Mexicans, by far the largest immigrant group, provide a compelling example. In 1990, 64 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children spoke only English at home; in 2000, the equivalent figure had risen to 71 percent."


Much third-generation bilingualism is found in border communities, such as Brownsville, Texas, where the maintenance of Spanish has deep historical roots and is affected by proximity to Mexico. Away from the border, Mexican-American children of the third generation are unlikely to be bilingual.[as in not speaking Spanish at all]


Keefe and Padilla (1987)


On cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty revealed five well-defined and homogeneous clusters in terms of acculturation.

The first cluster, Type I (25%), was comprised of primarily Mexican Americans, first generation, mostly immigrants, and clearly unacculturated who identified with Mexicans and Mexican culture. The second cluster,

Type II (14%), was comprised of individuals who were as unacculturated as those in Type I, but who identified only moderately with Mexicans. The third cluster,

Type III (35%), constituted the largest group with moderate ethnic awareness of and loyalty to both the Mexican and Anglo culture, which was characterized as a culture blend. The fourth cluster,

Type IV (21%), was comprised of individuals who were more acculturated but identified less with others of Mexican descent. The final cluster,

Type V (5%), was described as very Anglicized, and knowing little about the Mexican culture. Level of acculturation is significant in influencing both formal and informal interactions and must be considered to be important cultural factor distinguishing Mexican Americans.



Language Assimilation Today:
Bilingualism Persists More Than in the Past,
But English Still Dominates
Richard Alba
Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research
University at Albany
December, 2004


So much for subtly.