Ammish
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
It is something that I have been thinking about. Isn’t multiculturalism a failed ideology in some aspects?

Before we continue, this is the official definition of multiculturalism:

The doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country

Yet contrary to the claim that multiculturalism is actually successful as touted by the politicians of western civilisation, we find that different cultures do not really co-exist. They can, in a sense, get together to celebrate diversity through venues and can communicate to an extent such as the workplace and education.

But if we are talking about co-existence, then from my perspective, the doctrine has actually failed. Cultures do not co-exist, rather they exist within a bubble. We have various ethnic ghettos, new migrants from other countries that most likely will live in ethnic areas and will most likely not adopt the host country’s culture or language. Their culture and upbringing, in some parts, actually counteracts the host country’s culture.

I will use an example:

As I am half-pakistani, I am mostly drawing up experience and anecdotes. But the Pakistani culture, or rather, the middle-eastern Islamic culture, is no way compatible with the British culture. They both uphold vastly different culture that counteracts each other, especially when Islam is concerned.

Britain, or western society as a whole, focus on individualism, the duty to yourself and the choices you make that you will live with. You have the freedom of speech to adopt various ideologies and hold different opinions. You can consume pork and alcohol without restriction. You can choose to attend a religious service. We have gay rights. Transgender rights. Female rights.

These are all possible thanks to the progress of western society and what it allow for us.

Pakistani –Or the middle-eastern Islamic culture- runs contrary to that. It focus on the collective, focus on family, it focuses on an outdated and very flawed religion. It uses its religion and culture to discriminate against others. It doesn’t tolerate free speech. In fact, it punishes apostasy. There are more restrictions on food, mainly for cultural reasons and yet have little to no penalty on quality of living.

For a culture like that, how can it possibly uphold the shining example of multiculturalism when the culture is not compatible with the majority of Western Europe? Put it simply, cultures from Africa and the Middle-East are in comparison, barbaric compared to Western Europe. And yet we’re supposed to praise these as enriching and beneficial to us?

So how is it we accept what is mostly a flawed ideology? Do the benefits we gain outweigh the odds? Or a return to monoculturalism and actually enforce integration is a viable alternative?
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Your arguement is that multiculturalism cannot work in the UK as external cultures (or, at least, the most dominant ones present in the UK) are incompatible with the 'British' culture, yes? That's fine, but that's is irrelavent to multiculturalism. Coexistance does not concern compatability...

Coexist: ''exist at the same time or in the same place'' - Oxford Dictionary.

...and nor does multiculturalism. Multiculturalism simply states (by your definition) that two or more cultures can exist in the same location without aggression between the two (that is, they are at peace with eachother). These cultures do not need to 'agree'.

Surely your arguement would be more relavent when it comes to, say, the merging of multiple cultures into a unified culture (composed of social behaviours, idea and customs from each 'sub'-culture)?
0
reply
thesabbath
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Multiculturalism is a Communist doctrine which has been co-opted by those who wish to undermine this nation and indeed every White Western nation.

Here are some of the symptoms:

All non-White peoples understand the concept of Nationhood, of Peoplehood and the Extended Family and that population transformation is a national calamity.

Non-Whites are allowed and encouraged by Whites to form organisations and movements and political groups to agitate for their own group interests and engage in full blown identity politics.

Non-White peoples are never expected by Whites to have to argue, beg, plead, deal, negotiate and explain why they have the moral right according to natural law to remain demographically as they are, and the United Nations would invoke the UN Charter of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to defend the culture and rights of all non-White indigenous peoples if they were threatened.

Only White people can be tricked into believing that they are nothing more than a sociological fraud and optical illusion.

Only White people are expected to benefit from diversity and to celebrate with glee the notion of becoming a despised and discriminated against minority in their own cities and homeland.

Only White people appear to lose sleep about the wars they fought, the countries they conquered and the slaves they kept.

Only White people can be convinced that if they turn their backs on their own interests that non-Whites will do the same, even though all the evidence indicates the very opposite and that they have no intention of doing so.

The White race is the only race that can be openly and collectively vilified, demonised, stigmatised, and attacked with impunity by both anti-White Whites and non-Whites.
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
If British culture is tolerance of people's opinions and creeds and ways of life, then surely by it's nature it can co-exist with minority and sub cultures?

I'm not going to excuse the worst excesses of say Pakistani ethnic culture because frankly I don't believe all cultures are born equal and secular law and people's rights to not be harmed supersede someone's right to not be offended. As for your god he is your god alone, and as soon as you make him/her/it affect others it's going over the line.

Still, if people who relate to Pakistani culture want to live in the same areas who is going to stop them?

Sorry to play devil's advocate, I actually support assimilating people into the British culture of tolerance, of open mindedness and intelligence above emotional ignorance. Still, I wouldn't force someone to change their ways at the tip of a sword. unless they were threatening me and my own directly.
2
reply
CryptoidAlien
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Multiculturalism is very much the new Nazism.
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by CryptoidAlien)
Multiculturalism is very much the new Nazism.
I think the Fuhrer and El Duce would have something to say about a new Nazism involving brown people.
3
reply
ockhamsshotgun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Multiculturalism, as I see it, has only one major ideological difficulty, and that is the paradoxes of toleration.

These, incidentally, are not insoluble or insurmountable to my mind, or at least able to reach an acceptable equilibrium within the paradox.

I will list those that spring to mind:

- if we agree something is immoral, why should we tolerate it at all? Is it not, by definiton, undesirable?

- at what point do we, as it were, draw the line? When does what we collectively conceive of as 'immoral but tolerable' become intolerable, and why?

- to what extent (legal, social, familial etc.) do we tolerate these moral differences and to whom to we extend this toleration?

The questions raised by multiculturalism, to my mind may be fundamentally reduced to the paradoxes of toleration. To give an example, at what extent do we allow the more illiberal (and perhaps immoral, to the secularist jurisprudence we tend to embody in the UK,) aspects of the Hebraic religions be practiced, and to what extent to we restrict them? Should we allow some women/sexual minorities be subject to what might be considered immoral behaviours on the basis of the moral actor's faith?

For the record, I believe in rational discourse and the clash of ideas, so think multiculturalism is preferable to monoculturalism, and that only by experimenting with ways of living can we improve our lives. This view of the clash of ideas is, I must emphasise, an opinion that I feel is justifiable, not a factual assertion.

Hope this stimulates some interesting discussions; I do like topics where there are more questions than sure answers!



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ockhamsshotgun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by CryptoidAlien)
Multiculturalism is very much the new Nazism.
Godwin's law

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Your arguement is that multiculturalism cannot work in the UK as external cultures (or, at least, the most dominant ones present in the UK) are incompatible with the 'British' culture, yes? That's fine, but that's is irrelavent to multiculturalism. Coexistance does not concern compatability...

Coexist: ''exist at the same time or in the same place'' - Oxford Dictionary.

...and nor does multiculturalism. Multiculturalism simply states (by your definition) that two or more cultures can exist in the same location without aggression between the two (that is, they are at peace with eachother). These cultures do not need to 'agree'.

Surely your arguement would be more relavent when it comes to, say, the merging of multiple cultures into a unified culture (composed of social behaviours, idea and customs from each 'sub'-culture)?
This, basically. I don't think I can say it any better myself!
1
reply
TheTranshumanist
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by thesabbath)
Multiculturalism is a Communist doctrine which has been co-opted by those who wish to undermine this nation and indeed every White Western nation.

Here are some of the symptoms:

All non-White peoples understand the concept of Nationhood, of Peoplehood and the Extended Family and that population transformation is a national calamity.

Non-Whites are allowed and encouraged by Whites to form organisations and movements and political groups to agitate for their own group interests and engage in full blown identity politics.

Non-White peoples are never expected by Whites to have to argue, beg, plead, deal, negotiate and explain why they have the moral right according to natural law to remain demographically as they are, and the United Nations would invoke the UN Charter of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to defend the culture and rights of all non-White indigenous peoples if they were threatened.

Only White people can be tricked into believing that they are nothing more than a sociological fraud and optical illusion.

Only White people are expected to benefit from diversity and to celebrate with glee the notion of becoming a despised and discriminated against minority in their own cities and homeland.

Only White people appear to lose sleep about the wars they fought, the countries they conquered and the slaves they kept.

Only White people can be convinced that if they turn their backs on their own interests that non-Whites will do the same, even though all the evidence indicates the very opposite and that they have no intention of doing so.

The White race is the only race that can be openly and collectively vilified, demonised, stigmatised, and attacked with impunity by both anti-White Whites and non-Whites.
I see that you're deploying your usual brand of straw-men, dubious assertions and paranoid ethnic nationalist rhetoric yet again.
1
reply
ockhamsshotgun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by TheTranshumanist)
I see that you're deploying your usual brand of straw-men, dubious assertions and paranoid ethnic nationalist rhetoric yet again.
Glad it isn't just me thinking that.

Still, freedom of speech happily does not equate to the freedom to be listened to, taken seriously, or being immune from criticism or mockery.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
thesabbath
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheTranshumanist)
I see that you're deploying your usual brand of straw-men, dubious assertions and paranoid ethnic nationalist rhetoric yet again.
I see that you are once again resorting to denial and obfuscation.
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
Multiculturalism does work to a certain degree but a society tends to be better as a multiracial one with a monoculture. Need an example of success? Singapore obviously. no racial riots, no chav problems despite over 90% of the population living in a form of social housing and funny that it's one of the smallest countries in the world and most densely populated yet it has a near open-door migration system.
0
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
How are you defining culture and coexistence? People are generally repetitive and talk to a limited number of people and engage in a limited number of activities, which may reflect their political and moral values. Do we not all live in a bubble due to a mutual decision not to associate with certain people/things?
0
reply
chocolatesauce
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
I think we respect other cultures even though we may disagree with their actions or morals
0
reply
Oldcon1953
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
It seems to me that without a strong shared national identity won't the different groups continue to grow apart,(no need to work together because in time each group will be able to meet it's own needs), develop their own separate economies, industries,( I'm talking long term here), perhaps even economic interests with foreign countries until you no longer have one country but instead separate "nation states" in what used to be the host country? It just seems that would be the natural progression.
1
reply
TheTranshumanist
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by thesabbath)
I see that you are once again resorting to denial and obfuscation.
lol I've never resorted to either of those. Don't try to deflect.
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
I'm simply regard it as a philosophy of segregation; not only does the state, by law, divide us into groups and give us rights according to which group we fit into (which is fundamentally discriminatory and unfair; e.g. minorities will often be favoured for no meritable cause, e.g. in selection of university students) but also in practice/culture; to give other cultures almost a licence to live separately through empowering that group and de-facto propagating and encouraging them to live in these bubbles through no need in reality to integrate (because they're protected by law against that inevitable pressure). this creates more cultural separation than an absence of the policy as an unintended consequence in a lot of situations. this is why you get a lot of solidly one culture areas like luton which alienate the other cultures into leaving out of marginalisation and thus the practical segregation grows even more

overall, state multiculturalism is discriminatory, and usually, spineless/self-loathing, with the intention of, through state law, shrinking our culture at the gain of others, serving to create less social cohesion; you can't give minorities larger amounts of legal rights and expect them to integrate - it encourages them precisely not to, and thus you don't get a cultural melting pot but rather a cultural layering, like that between oil and water
0
reply
Ammish
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by SHallowvale)
...and nor does multiculturalism. Multiculturalism simply states (by your definition) that two or more cultures can exist in the same location without aggression between the two (that is, they are at peace with eachother). These cultures do not need to 'agree'.
If we agree to that explanation, even multiculturalism as you have explained it still doesn't work. There have been numerous cultures around Britain that have aggression between the two (racist attacks on minorities and majorities, EDL and UAF protest, Islamic Protests, attempts by the extremists to establish no-go areas).

It is, by your definition, flawed and still proves my point.

(Original post by whyumadtho)
How are you defining culture and coexistence? People are generally repetitive and talk to a limited number of people and engage in a limited number of activities, which may reflect their political and moral values. Do we not all live in a bubble due to a mutual decision not to associate with certain people/things?
I define culture and coexistence by how compatible cultures are and whether their needs and interests matches with the host culture.

(Original post by chocolatesauce)
I think we respect other cultures even though we may disagree with their actions or morals
But that is contradictory. If we disagree with their actions and morals, then we cannot respect their culture. Especially if that culture resides within the host country's culture. I argue that we do not, or should not, have the need to respect their culture. If it's incompatible and may cause rife and conflict in the future because our morals is incompatible with their morals, then we cannot respect their culture.

I would argue further and claim that we shouldn't make that culture feel welcome as it does not fit with Britain's secular society.

(Original post by Oldcon1953)
It seems to me that without a strong shared national identity won't the different groups continue to grow apart,(no need to work together because in time each group will be able to meet it's own needs), develop their own separate economies, industries,( I'm talking long term here), perhaps even economic interests with foreign countries until you no longer have one country but instead separate "nation states" in what used to be the host country? It just seems that would be the natural progression.
It would be the national progression, but would it be for the best?
0
reply
Ggmu!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by thesabbath)
Multiculturalism is a Communist doctrine which has been co-opted by those who wish to undermine this nation and indeed every White Western nation.

Here are some of the symptoms:

All non-White peoples understand the concept of Nationhood, of Peoplehood and the Extended Family and that population transformation is a national calamity.

Non-Whites are allowed and encouraged by Whites to form organisations and movements and political groups to agitate for their own group interests and engage in full blown identity politics.

Non-White peoples are never expected by Whites to have to argue, beg, plead, deal, negotiate and explain why they have the moral right according to natural law to remain demographically as they are, and the United Nations would invoke the UN Charter of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to defend the culture and rights of all non-White indigenous peoples if they were threatened.

Only White people can be tricked into believing that they are nothing more than a sociological fraud and optical illusion.

Only White people are expected to benefit from diversity and to celebrate with glee the notion of becoming a despised and discriminated against minority in their own cities and homeland.

Only White people appear to lose sleep about the wars they fought, the countries they conquered and the slaves they kept.

Only White people can be convinced that if they turn their backs on their own interests that non-Whites will do the same, even though all the evidence indicates the very opposite and that they have no intention of doing so.

The White race is the only race that can be openly and collectively vilified, demonised, stigmatised, and attacked with impunity by both anti-White Whites and non-Whites.
You poor white person, I feel so sorry for you.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (279)
33.94%
No (543)
66.06%

Watched Threads

View All