Why multiculturalism doesn't work

1. Multiculturalism is a catalyst to war and conflict. Lets take this scenario for example; In a chemistry lab, all the different chemicals are stored separately in their own special bottles specifically designed for the chemical that is being stored within. What happens when you decide to pour all those chemicals in one large vat? There's likely going to be an explosion that'd tear the roof off. Different places have different societal values and it's impossible to ask people to just 'respect' that. Some people can and some people can not. For example some cultures accept child marriages and think sex with minors is justifiable but becasue of my own upbringing and personal morals I just can't accept it and I never will. I personally can not even share a room with someone that thinks that that's okay. It's not difficult how to see how that could possibly lead to conflict and tensions between two groups. Which brings me to my next point.

By no means a solution but some advice:
When deciding to relocate to a new country you must make this decision. Are you going to be able to accept the laws, societal values and culture of the host nation? Are you going to be kind and respectful to locals even if you don't agree with their culture? Will you make an effort to learn the language of the host nation you are moving to? Are you going to try and integrate into the society and not form cliques and seperate communities that refuse to mix with others?
If the answer to all these is no then I think it's best to stay in your own country.

Tldr: Multiculturalism doesn't work effectively anywhere

Tldr: Multiculturalism doesn't work effectively anywhere


Conflicting opinions are welcome

Pretty much all current cultural differences are minor and reconcilable, due to globalism caused by new forms of communication and industry the planet has basically formed a consensus decision on what is and is not permissible.

The problem with your example is that multiculturalism doesn't accept every culture, at least it doesn't in the UK. Not all chemicals will be allowed to mix. For example, we would not allow child marriages or FGM in the UK but we would allow foreign cuisine, religions and languages.

As another poster said, multiculturalism in the UK is the practice of your cultural values within the confines of the law.




Why not?

If I wanted to move to, say, France I'd probably have to learn the language out of necessity but why wouldn't integrate any further. I wouldn't adopt Catholicism or start eating traditional French dishes.



Do you think that the UK wouldn't be a multicultural place without foreign cultures/people?

I agree with this to an extent. I agree multicultralism does fuel racism but there are other factors that fuels racism such as lack of education, upbringing and media. On the contrary, doesn't mean that multicultralism doesn't work, it just means that it will only work if we get rid of the other factors that cause people to be prejudice to a certain culture or group of cultures, only then I think multicultralism will work.

Furthermore, think members of certain cultures are quite ethnocentric, especially the elderly ones because of what they may have experienced when they migrated to a different country. As soon as you go down the ladder of generations, there it seems that the number of ethnocentric people decrease. Why?

1. Education, especially here, has been made for this multicultral society to prevent any prejudice and discrimination. The education system teaches us to respect our differences and appreciate our similarities. As we go further in generations, peoples views may be different from previous generations about things such as this topic. If we give it a few years racism will decrease greatly.

2. The generations upon generations will bring their children up differently from there predecessors because they live in a host country unlike their parents and also links in with education. The education system might be different there and there might not be a lot of educated people in home country.

Therefore yes, multicultralism doesn't work but that doesn't mean it will never work if we don't do something about the other factors that contribute to lack of intergration.

X

My first problem with what you've written is that you're not arguing against multiculturalism, you're arguing against certain examples of multiculturalism that you disagree with. Different cultures can coexist, there are plenty of examples of multiple cultures coexisting perfectly peacefully. If two cultures are unwilling to coexist peacefully or the difference between them is too great then it wouldn't exactly be surprising if tensions arise but that's not something intrinsic to 'multiculturalism'. Of course if you smash two wildly different cultures together with little thought about how to deal with these tensions, you're going to get problems.

Secondly, whilst I understand why some people find the idea of locking yourself up in your own little country and not getting involved in the world attractive, that's not a particularly sustainable point of view. As human society becomes more advanced and more powerful, there is a very strong incentive for encouraging international homogeneity and cooperation. If there are barriers to multiculturalism (and I'm not going to argue that those barriers don't exist) then it is in our best interest to overcome those barriers.

You say that there are societies in which people of different cultures co exist completely peacefully. Can I get some examples?

Unless it's people from different ethnic groups that decide to compromise aspects of their culture in order to assimilate into one national identity (which doesn't even always work as certain ethnic groups absolutely refuse to do this) then that can't really be seen as full multiculturalism at least not according to it's most popular definition which is many different people living with every aspect of their cultural heritage even outside the confines of the law of the host state ( The laws of that state having to be changed to appease cultural minorities) And all those cultures must remain distinct and uncompromised.

When you have the scenario above you get a host of problems like ethnic nepotism.
This may be interesting:

You say that there are societies in which people of different cultures co exist completely peacefully. Can I get some examples?

Unless it's people from different ethnic groups that decide to compromise aspects of their culture in order to assimilate into one national identity (which doesn't even always work as certain ethnic groups absolutely refuse to do this) then that can't really be seen as full multiculturalism at least not according to it's most popular definition which is many different people living with every aspect of their cultural heritage even outside the confines of the law of the host state ( The laws of that state having to be changed to appease cultural minorities) And all those cultures must remain distinct and uncompromised.

When you have the scenario above you get a host of problems like ethnic nepotism.
This may be interesting:

By and large, different cultures in the UK do get along with each other. There are communities from practically every country on earth in the UK; as far as I'm aware, the UK has not fallen into a state of anarchy as a result of this. If you take a look at this list here, I don't think you have a problem with 95% of them. Of course, lots of those communities are from westernised countries (that is still multiculturalism though) but there are plenty of communities from non-western countries that have managed to integrate very successfully whilst maintaining their own traditions.

So let's make a gross generalisation and talk about the 100,000-strong Chinese community in the UK. Do they maintain their culture and traditions in the UK? Of course. But I don't think I'm going to hear you start complaining about how we need to throw Chinese immigrants out of the country, despite the fact that they maintain their foreign cultural identity. So your problem isn't multiculturalism, your problem is specific cultures.

this is not really true

there are quite a few issues on which there are strong divisions :

-sexual area (child marriages, forced marriages, treatment of adultery, homosexuality, premarital relations, abortion, genital mutilation,
- classical freedoms : freedom of press, of religion (including apostasy), of speech, of reunion
-representative democracy and right to political opposition and organisation
-economic/ rules : freedom of economic initiative, welfare State
-justice area : physical punishments, death penalty. Legal status of women in marriage, divorce, inheritance etc

etc etc

I'm sure that quite a few other points could be added

All of this depends upon what your definition of multiculturalism is.

I am just happy I will not be around for another 100 years or so ...

By and large, different cultures in the UK do get along with each other. There are communities from practically every country on earth in the UK; as far as I'm aware, the UK has not fallen into a state of anarchy as a result of this. If you take a look at this list here, I don't think you have a problem with 95% of them. Of course, lots of those communities are from westernised countries (that is still multiculturalism though) but there are plenty of communities from non-western countries that have managed to integrate very successfully whilst maintaining their own traditions.

So let's make a gross generalisation and talk about the 100,000-strong Chinese community in the UK. Do they maintain their culture and traditions in the UK? Of course. But I don't think I'm going to hear you start complaining about how we need to throw Chinese immigrants out of the country, despite the fact that they maintain their foreign cultural identity. So your problem isn't multiculturalism, your problem is specific cultures.

I still think you're operating on a different definition of multiculturalism than I am. And I'm sure there's a different name for what you're talking about but I will have to search that later.
The people you are referring to that live 'peacefully' have in one way or another compromised their full culture in order to fit in to with the culture of the host nation.
Plus if you read my post you'd see that I specified that keeping some of your culture that could benefit your host nation and trying as much as possible to integrate is a means to stop most of the problems multiculturalism causes in society.
In the cases you're referring to, these people are all adhering to the general culture of the nation they moved to.


It's not that specific cultures assimilate better than others. It's that specific people assimilate better. You can have people from any culture at all not willing to integrate. For example on this thread some one said aside from learning some French to get by they refuse to integrate further into French society despite the similarities between the two cultures.

This isn't some anti immigration tirade, as I'm a soon to be immigrant myself. I'm not advocating for people of different cultures to be kicked out of the west. I'm talking about generally all over the world, expecting people of different cultures to live together without any aspect of their culture being compromised is just asking for trouble.

Maybe that's the way you see it but most multicultural ideologies state that all cultures(every aspect of that culture) within a state should remain distinct and must have equal respect and according to another poster in this thread that's the policy in the UK.

Why wouldn't you? What is the point of moving to another country permanently if you dont plan on integrating into the society? Why don't you just stay in your own country? It's not respectful to the host country.
Besides I don't remember France being a predominantly Catholic country.

Multiculturalism - the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.

That is multicultralism by definition. I don't think it should have to depend on how people define multicultralism. If people define it differently, it leads to misunderstanding and errors.