The Student Room Group

Multiculturalism vs. Biculturalism vs. Uniculturalism vs. Monoculturalism

Poll

Please make the appropriate selection from the following options

Which of the following strikes you as the most realistically sustainable system under which we may harmoniously coexist within a society?

Multiculturalism: The mandatory tolerance, acceptance, and respect of a multitude of diverse cultures within society

Biculturalism: Hybridised culture, subject to the evolution of personal values and identities that combine elements from home and host cultures

Unicultiralism: A core cultural identity that is inclusive but centred on a national ethos shaped by the history, customs, values of the majority

Monoculturalism: The mandatory cultural assimilation of those originating from distinct cultures
(edited 5 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I'm somewhere between uni and mono. I'm not so culturally conservative that i oppose change however i do believe that those alien to us should assimilate and that some cultures are less compatible. This is why i'd increase immigration from Australia and North America while decreasing Muslim immigration for example.
Who cares, we're all the same anyway.
Multiculturalism or Biculturalism :h:
i vote for a homogenous British society. **** multiculturalism
all meaningless, vague buzzwords used by pseudo-political commentators.
What multiculturalism means in practice is not tolerance of other cultures etc. but sustained attacks on British culture, Christianity and normal patriotic people.
I am a monoculturalist I want to force people who move here to give up their foreign legacy and become British.
Original post by TornadoGR4
Who cares, we're all the same anyway.


That view neglects legacy. The combined endeavors of dead people.
Does it really matter?
Original post by jedanselemyia
Does it really matter?


does any subject on any topic really matter? What a strange question!
Original post by BrightBlueLight
does any subject on any topic really matter? What a strange question!


What I mean is, being for a certain society isn't going to change much? Britain is already multicultural, mixed race people are the fastest growing ethnic minority, so being for uniculturalism is useless since you can't really change society?
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
What multiculturalism means in practice is not tolerance of other cultures etc. but sustained attacks on British culture, Christianity and normal patriotic people.
But the key question is how much of a baring does that have on the level of **** sloshy around in your brain? Hmm these are all key questions
Original post by jedanselemyia
What I mean is, being for a certain society isn't going to change much? Britain is already multicultural, mixed race people are the fastest growing ethnic minority, so being for uniculturalism is useless since you can't really change society?


Why are you just bringing to together three different think and make out like they are the same thing. Race is different from ethnicity and culture is different again. Why do people always do this?
Original post by william walker
Why are you just bringing to together three different think and make out like they are the same thing. Race is different from ethnicity and culture is different again. Why do people always do this?


Because they go together?
Original post by jedanselemyia
Because they go together?


No they don't. Culture and race are totally different things. Ethnicity is basically anything immigrant minority group. However they don't have to be culturally or racially different.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Did you vote in the poll? :holmes:

Ditto, except it has to be at a gradual/sustainable rate and broadly consistent with our core values/ethos, and simply stating that 'toleration' is primary to these things, as many commentators do (at the expense of all other qualities), is an absolute farce/disgrace - not to mention a ticking time bomb when set against a background of mass inter-cultural immigration and related social and security issues/threats

See I'd like to think that, for example, the vast majority of British Muslims could integrate without necessarily having to assimilate e.g. they can near enough all become 'moderate Muslims' and maintain a stable bicultural identity. The problem is, I've suspected for a long time that this was too big an ask and ever since I saw the troubling source I reference on here from time to time I've been evermore firmly unconvinced that this is feasible :sad:

I would combine your propositions e.g. those from alien cultures that are demonstrably relatively incompatible ought to assimilate or be rejected/ejected, as there are plenty of folks from fairly alien backgrounds who appear to integrate relatively well/peaceably e.g. certain non-Muslim South Asians and South East Asian groups

Yup. It's an inconvenient truth that shared background tends to spell less friction a la immigration so, for maximal economic + social 'sense' one would pair a meritocratic/economic points based system with a 'background' (e.g. language/ancestral origin/religion) points based system. This may seem parochial/bigoted/xenophobic, and extremely unpalatable, to those of a sensitive disposition but plainly 'open door' immigration has failed/is continuing to fail many groups in society, both here in the UK and indeed in the lands from which people flock here. I'm all for diversity, but not at any cost


Voted uni, agree with the rest.
Original post by democracyforum
all meaningless, vague buzzwords used by pseudo-political commentators.


beautifully put, particularly the pseudo-political bit especially considering the OP, but I'm not sure I agree with them being meaningless. They all contain implicit value of personal or indoctrinated beliefs that can either help or hinder society.
Monoculturist.

Homogeneity is what works best. Diversity is coupled with conflict.

If I were to emigrate, absolutely I would take up the cultural behaviours of wherever I went. That's how it works there, and I need to respect that to be welcome at all. Now the natives may very well like my food, my music, or my literature, which all descends from culture - but what may be gained this way is lost when you have behaviours (which are indeed cultural) which give rise to cultural tensions between factions of people. I'd rather have narrow peace than diverse conflict.

And diversity always breeds some amount of conflict. It's in the very nature of humankind to like those similar to us and to distance ourselves from those who are different to us. You might think it sucks, that it's cynical (hardly a valid criticism though), and that we should "get past it", but that's sadly just wishful idealism.
multiculturalism. But real multiculturism. So there wouldn't be a dominant culture. Just a melting pot.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending