Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Multiculturalism v Uniculturalism? THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
  • View Poll Results: MULTICULTURALISM V UNICULTURALISM
    MULTICULTURALISM
    44
    54.32%
    UNICULTURALISM
    37
    45.68%

    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    Religion is only as radical as those people who practice that religion.

    E.g. Christians in certain parts of Africa and the Caribbean, for example, would not be nearly as tolerant as those say in Western Europe.

    E.g. Jews attacking other Jews for not wearing "conservative" clothing

    Its a bit incorrect to say that religion is what controls people's extremism. What is a bit more important is the culture, and how each particular culture INTERPRETS that religion
    Correct.

    That is why I am against multiculturalism because the cultures of the middle east are too extreme for western society.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    It demonstrates it is possible to have two conflicting opinions held by various residents of the same country; i.e., multiculturalism.
    Catholicism is hardly that different from other parts of Christianity.

    I don't know how many times I've repeated this, but here I go again, I'm in favour of multiculturalism when the cultures being mixed are fairly similar i.e. Catholicism and Christianity.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think Britishness is fine for England but not for Scotland. Same civic nationalism in the SNP, btw.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Catholicism is hardly that different from other parts of Christianity.

    I don't know how many times I've repeated this, but here I go again, I'm in favour of multiculturalism when the cultures being mixed are fairly similar i.e. Catholicism and Christianity.
    How did you get an A in religion when you write sentences like this?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Correct.

    That is why I am against multiculturalism because the cultures of the middle east are too extreme for western society.
    But this is wholly dependent on the person isn't it? For example I'm born into a rather conservative religious culture, but I certainly am NOT religious or conservative.

    Likewise, its a bit unfair to say that one culture is "too extreme" while another isn't - all cultures are different, and have their good and bad points
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Catholicism is hardly that different from other parts of Christianity.

    I don't know how many times I've repeated this, but here I go again, I'm in favour of multiculturalism when the cultures being mixed are fairly similar i.e. Catholicism and Christianity.
    Why are you invoking Catholicism in respect to other Christian denominations? Catholicism (and I just chose this denomination because it came to mind first) is effectively diametrically opposed to Satanism, which is tantamount to your relationship with somebody who dislikes freedom and democracy. The fact is that both can and are residing in the country, which demonstrates 'multiculturalism' is extant in all large societies.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Multiculturalism is now one of the disguises for a uniculturalism, based on moral relativism and moral blackmail (in addition to some more obvious blackmail of the less moral sort) whereby the Enlightenment has been redefined as 'white' and 'oppressive,' mass illegal immigration threatens to spoil everything for everybody, and the figure of the free-floating transnational migrant has been deposed by the contorted face of the psychopathically religious international nihilist, praying for the day when his messianic demands will coincide with possession of an apocalyptic weapon.


    That is all.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Multiculturalism doesn't work if it's over-condensed.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Why are you invoking Catholicism in respect to other Christian denominations? Catholicism (and I just chose this denomination because it came to mind first) is effectively diametrically opposed to Satanism, which is tantamount to your relationship with somebody who dislikes freedom and democracy. The fact is that both can and are residing in the country, which demonstrates 'multiculturalism' is extant in all large societies.
    In a democracy, people are free to oppose people that can be widely considered to be a threat to democracy and other freedoms.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    In a democracy, people are free to oppose people that can be widely considered to be a threat to democracy and other freedoms.
    If they are doing so in a manner that breaks the law. Other than that, they are just as opposed to your opinions/values as a devout Catholic is to a Satanist's opinions/values.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    1. Sikhism is fairly tolerant today, I find it odd how you've changed your stance from blindly supporting it to now being a self-hater. If you think Sikhism is intolerant, by following it you are promoting intolerance by association.

    2. Jesus died for the Jews. Although I'm guessing you haven't heard of Christianity. Or any other religion for that matter.

    3. Please provide a source for your heinous claim that Sikhs were forced to convert to Hinduism and were raped by the police.
    Are you even reading what he's saying in his responses??
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Sikhism is fairly tolerant today, I find it odd how you've changed your stance from blindly supporting it to now being a self-hater.
    This highlights your ignorance on Sikhism.

    The Sikhs today are at their most intolerant. Just shows you how tolerant the Sikhs back in the day were.

    I'm refering the friction between Sikhs and Hindus that we see now due to politics (eg 1984). Some people are misunderstanding the situation.

    This has nothing to do with what Sikhism actually teaches.

    So please, try teaching me about my own religion, because you're obviously a great scholar and have been to the most prestigious schools of Sikhism, haven't you? /sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.

    In what way am I blindly supporting it? I presented you with all the evidence, and you have yet to respond to a single one of my points. And all of your points so far have been lies, because you never backed up a single one up with evidence. Where are those statistics I requested from you? They don't exist, because you made that one up. I don't have time for people who lie in debates.

    Jesus died for the Jews.
    Jesus was Jewish, so he died for his own people. That's selfish compared to what Guru Tegh Bahadur did.

    Although I'm guessing you haven't heard of Christianity. Or any other religion for that matter.
    Why do you make such assumptions about me and my life? Have you ever met me? Do you know my habits, or what I do with my spare time? No.

    I actually enjoy reading about what other religions have to say. Guru Gobind Singh himself told the Sikhs to read the books of other religions, so that your faith in Sikhism will increase. Most prophets discourage their followers from looking into other religions. Guru Gobind Singh did the opposite, because he knew what he was saying was true.

    Your so ignorant it's just unbelieveable. I don't know how you can't see past your own ego.

    Please provide a source for your heinous claim that Sikhs were forced to convert to Hinduism and were raped by the police.
    I said told, not forced. Forcing a Sikh to convert is very hard indeed, but telling a Sikh to do so by means of endless propaganda may start to wear his/her mind down.

    Let's look at what Gandhi, the father of India, had to say about Sikhs.

    From the onset of his arrival in India, Gandhi insisted on referring to Sikhs as "Hindus" even though the vast majority of Sikhs at that time expressed their belief that they were a distinct religion and that referring to them as a part of Hinduism was offensive. His insistent comments that the "Sikh Gurus were Hindus" and that Guru Gobind Singh was "one of the greatest defenders of Hinduism" (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 28 pg. 263) deeply hurt Sikh sentiments, but that never deterred him making such statements throughout his life.

    Gandhi was so adamant in his view of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism that he went to the extent of condemning the conversion of Untouchables to Sikhism if Sikhs continued to assert their not being a sect of Hinduism. At that time, led by Dr. Ambedkar, over 60 million Untouchables desired to convert to another religion in order to free themselves from their enslavement in the Hindu caste system. Dr. Ambedkar had a very strong interest in the conversion of the Untouchables to Sikhism, to the extent that he even had his own nephew baptized into Sikhism.

    Gandhi found this possible conversion to be intolerable in the light of Sikhs viewing themselves as not being Hindus. Gandhi wrote: "I don't mind Untouchables if they do desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity" (CW, Vol 48, pg 98), he insisted that conversion to Sikhism by these Untouchables was "dangerous."

    "Today I will only say that to me Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. But the situation is different from a legal point of view. Dr. Ambedkar wants a change of religion. If becoming a Sikh amounts to conversion, then this kind of conversion on the parts of Harijans is dangerous. If you can persuade the Sikhs to accept that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and if you can make them give up the separate electorate, then I will have no objections to Harijans calling themselves Sikhs" (CW, Vol 63, pg 267).


    A particularly offensive comment of Gandhi made it clear that he harbored the belief that Sikhs should disown the institution of the Khalsa Panth established by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. He said, "I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on" (CW Vol. 90, Pg. 80).

    Gandhi failed to acknowledge that a Guru had established such symbols for the Sikhs. In particular, Gandhi attacked the kirpan on many occasions. He showed a critical misunderstanding in the beliefs and responsibilities surrounding Guru Gobind Singh's commandment that his Sikhs should wear kirpans. This misunderstanding gradually turned into a general intolerance, with Gandhi often mocking those Sikhs who wore them.

    Gandhi attacked Gurmukhi. In a letter to a friend, Amrit Kaur, he wrote: "I wish you would persuade enlightened Sikhs to take the Devnagri script in the place of the Gurmukhi" (CW Vol. 64. pg 41).

    It is important to realize that Gurmukhi is not the language of the Punjab, but rather the language of the Sikhs. The Sikh Gurus created Gurmukhi and it is the script used in the Guru Granth Sahib. It wasn't as if Gandhi asked Punjabis (who are Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims) to give up the Punjabi language, but rather Sikhs in particular to give up the language of their Gurus. While I respect Gandhi's desire to have some sort of united language, he failed to realize that by making such statements he was in essence asking Sikhs to disown their culture, their heritage and the Guru Granth Sahib by abandoning their mother tongue in favor of a composite language.

    “If any action occurs in this village, every single male is going to be taken out and shot. Then we’re going to take all the women to our camp and there we’re going to create a new breed for Punjab.”
    Brig. RP Sinha addressing assembled Sikh villagers on March 8, 1991, International Women's Day



    There are hundreds of cases of this; I can post more evidence if you wish. But I think this suffices for now. It certainly debases all of your nonsense.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    How can people of different cultures do anything other than segregate themselves? If one culture believes in democracy and equal rights for women (like modern Christianity/Judaism) and another culture believes in theocracy and unequal rights for women (like but not limited to Islam etc.) then of course they are not going to get a long which is where multiculturalism falls short.
    You're indulging in a false dichotomy.

    Most of us don't, and certainly don't have to, 'belong' to some monolithic cultural grouping as you're trying to suggest.

    I happen to be white and British born but among other things I'm an atheist, a republican, a socialist, I listen to hip-hop and I eat asian food. I'm sure I have neighbours who are Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Agnostics. I'm sure I have neighbours who are Monarchists too, neighbours who listen only to classical music or pop or maybe jazz. Neighbours who support fox-hunting and neighbours who oppose it. I'm sure I have neighbours who eat all kinds of different foods and wear all kinds of different fashions and, moreover, who have all kinds of social and cultural values and whose interests and values change over time too. This is what multiculuralism is about - accepting that we can adopt, integrate, reinvent, fuse or reject any of the many aspects of cultural life within the law.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    You're indulging in a false dichotomy.

    Most of us don't, and certainly don't have to, 'belong' to some monolithic cultural grouping as you're trying to suggest.

    I happen to be white and British born but among other things I'm an atheist, a republican, a socialist, I listen to hip-hop and I eat asian food. I'm sure I have neighbours who are Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Agnostics. I'm sure I have neighbours who are Monarchists too, neighbours who listen only to classical music or pop or maybe jazz. Neighbours who support fox-hunting and neighbours who oppose it. I'm sure I have neighbours who eat all kinds of different foods and wear all kinds of different fashions and, moreover, who have all kinds of social and cultural values and whose interests and values change over time too. This is what multiculuralism is about - accepting that we can adopt, integrate, reinvent, fuse or reject any of the many aspects of cultural life within the law.
    Too much information
    :hand:

    Surely mixing all the best aspects of each culture together is just creating a new culture? That's not what I'd call multiculturalism, but if that's what you call it, then I support your version of it.

    Edit: not sure what's happened to the formatting of my text :lolwut:
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Too much information
    :hand:

    Surely mixing all the best aspects of each culture together is just creating a new culture? That's not what I'd call multiculturalism, but if that's what you call it, then I support your version of it.

    Edit: not sure what's happened to the formatting of my text :lolwut:
    You're still not getting it. The term 'culture' can describe a near infinite number of potential human activities, any one of which, within the law, we should be free to adopt, adapt, modify, blend or reject. You seem to be stuck with a notion that we must all be members of one monolithic cultural grouping or another but that just isn't so and it isn't how most of us choose to live. I don't have to be a Christian to like Church music and I don't have to be an African-American to like Hip-Hop - that there is multiculturalism.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    You're still not getting it. The term 'culture' can describe a near infinite number of potential human activities, any one of which, within the law, we should be free to adopt, adapt, modify, blend or reject. You seem to be stuck with a notion that we must all be members of one monolithic cultural grouping or another but that just isn't so and it isn't how most of us choose to live. I don't have to be a Christian to like Church music and I don't have to be an African-American to like Hip-Hop - that there is multiculturalism.
    Hip-hop is a sub-culture i.e. a small-part of a larger culture e.g. gangster/ghetto

    I have always said, and this is at least the third time I've repeated it, that I am in favour of similar cultures mixing together.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Hip-hop is a sub-culture i.e. a small-part of a larger culture e.g. gangster/ghetto

    I have always said, and this is at least the third time I've repeated it, that I am in favour of similar cultures mixing together.
    Except most people who actually listen to Hip-Hop are not 'ghetto gangsters', in fact most are probably not even Afro-American, even in America let alone in the UK.

    You can be in favour of whatever you like but I'm in favour of cultural freedom within the law and in this I'm on the winning side - just ask anyone in the UK who enjoys an Indian or Chinese takeaway.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Except most people who actually listen to Hip-Hop are not 'ghetto gangsters', in fact most are probably not even Afro-American, even in America let alone in the UK.

    You can be in favour of whatever you like but I'm in favour of cultural freedom within the law and in this I'm on the winning side - just ask anyone in the UK who enjoys an Indian or Chinese takeaway.
    Back to square one are we, do you think that just because a Nazi likes curry means they like Indians?

    By cultural freedom you do realise you are condoning stonings, hangings, child mutilation because they are part of a culture.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    multiculturalism is a good thing within a homogenous nation -- just look at japan for example. very multicultural but still very japanese.

    the real issue is the multiracialism -- which inevitably leads to balkanisation...or worse.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Back to square one are we, do you think that just because a Nazi likes curry means they like Indians?

    By cultural freedom you do realise you are condoning stonings, hangings, child mutilation because they are part of a culture.
    Obviously there is always an issue over whether or not laws are legitimate but in the absence of you specifying otherwise I was talking about multiculturalism in the UK in the context of UK law. And, yes, absurd as your example is, a Nazi who likes an Indian takeaway is indulging in multiculturalism.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 20, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.