Turn on thread page Beta

Multiculturalism - are you glad that we value it? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As a third generation immigrant to the UK, I always think that people see the grass as greener abroad. However, they don't see the level of intolerance that occurs abroad. My family has lived through the years in the UK when we were not so multicultural as a country and racist attacks were commonplace. People attack multiculturalism, but I personally think it has made the UK a much better place on a purely personal level.

    Interested to read your views on this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's one of the aspects of UK culture I am most proud of.

    I agree with you
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Multiculturalism is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes all cultures are equal, they are not. If you come from a culture where woman are treated like dirt, homosexuality is a capital offence and freedom of speech is subservient to religious sensibilities then you shouldn't be importing your culture here.

    The UK's tolerance in allowing this should not be celebrated, it should be reviled. Hundreds of girls were sexually abused in Rotherham, and the authorities allowed it to happen because they were afraid of offending the Pakistani community and being seen as racist. That is disgusting.

    Multiculturalism should only be tolerated in so far as the culture is compliant with the views and norms of British society. It should not be used to justify or rationalise domestic violence, fgm, paedohilia etc.

    The UK is indeed one of the least racist countries you will find, but that should not be conflated with multiculturalism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's a coherent concept, because multiculturalism is itself a cultural value. There are many cultures that aren't compatible with multiculturalism.

    If by multiculturalism people mean individual liberty then I think it is good that we value it, but most cultures are hostile to individual liberty.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Multiculturalism is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes all cultures are equal, they are not. If you come from a culture where woman are treated like dirt, homosexuality is a capital offence and freedom of speech is subservient to religious sensibilities then you shouldn't be importing your culture here.

    The UK's tolerance in allowing this should not be celebrated, it should be reviled. Hundreds of girls were sexually abused in Rotherham, and the authorities allowed it to happen because they were afraid of offending the Pakistani community and being seen as racist. That is disgusting.

    Multiculturalism should only be tolerated in so far as the culture is compliant with the views and norms of British society. It should not be used to justify or rationalise domestic violence, fgm, paedohilia etc.

    The UK is indeed one of the least racist countries you will find, but that should not be conflated with multiculturalism.
    Some people who believe in Islam have pretty barbaric cultural practices and decide to ruin it for the rest of us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Multiculturalism is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes all cultures are equal, they are not. If you come from a culture where woman are treated like dirt, homosexuality is a capital offence and freedom of speech is subservient to religious sensibilities then you shouldn't be importing your culture here.

    The UK's tolerance in allowing this should not be celebrated, it should be reviled. Hundreds of girls were sexually abused in Rotherham, and the authorities allowed it to happen because they were afraid of offending the Pakistani community and being seen as racist. That is disgusting.

    Multiculturalism should only be tolerated in so far as the culture is compliant with the views and norms of British society. It should not be used to justify or rationalise domestic violence, fgm, paedohilia etc.

    The UK is indeed one of the least racist countries you will find, but that should not be conflated with multiculturalism.
    QFT
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevva888)
    As a third generation immigrant to the UK, I always think that people see the grass as greener abroad. However, they don't see the level of intolerance that occurs abroad. My family has lived through the years in the UK when we were not so multicultural as a country and racist attacks were commonplace. People attack multiculturalism, but I personally think it has made the UK a much better place on a purely personal level.

    Interested to read your views on this.
    I would agree with the outline of Observatory's response. Multiculturalism is valuable to the extent that cultures which don't violate others' preferences are all tolerated and allowed to co-exist without any challenge. This is certainly preferable to a situation in which one culture is forced onto people, and I think that that's the case whether or not these people would have been part of a morally superior culture otherwise - forcing a culture onto people doesn't tend to end well.

    Whether or not multiculturalism is ideally preferable to uniculturalism depends on where we draw the line between culture and ethics. If people share the same ethical principles but still have different cultures (in terms of entertainment, festivities, and so on), then I would argue that multiculturalism in that sense is fine.

    However, cultures are usually broader than that. Today, most cultures have some good ethical standards and some not so good ones, but there are clear cases in which some cultures are morally superior to others. For example, cultures that are indifferent to the suffering of others, whether it is people in their own community, or outsiders beyond their borders, or non-human animals, are less ethical than cultures that are concerned about people, and sentient beings, everywhere, both in the present and in the future. In these cases, shifting towards a single culture consisting of promoting the general welfare should be prioritised, or at least towards all cultures sharing these basic values.
    Offline

    18
    Multiculturalism is good, but only to the extent where morals don't begin to clash.

    One thing that really riles me up is when people don't attack the flaws of a culture in order to seem 'tolerant'. Some of the most significant flaws include sexism and homophobia.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Anything which emphasises people's differences rather than their similarities is inevitably going to cause conflicts and divisions within society. If we want to avoid this, rather ather than encouraging the coexistence of multiple cultures we should instead be aiming for everyone to be assimilated into a single monoculture which incorporates all the best aspects of each of its components.

    I see this as no different to trying to de-emphasise the social and cultural differences between men and women, or homosexuals and heterosexuals, or Muslims and atheists.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They call it "melting pot."
    I see it as "too many hands in the pot ruins the soup."

    Segregation has roots in hatred and racism. However, when people have to get by on their own due to exclusion, it just might make them stronger. So as a group it might be better. With integration you force haters and newcomers to co-exist. And then all these inequality problems come.

    Multiculturalism only came about because of imperialism anyway; that's why the Caribbean and America is so racially diverse in the first place. People from all over were brought over (not just blacks) to work; Asians were indentured in US, Caribbean and Latin America. Then slavery was abolished and worker's rights came about soon after with much struggle, and soon everyone finds themselves living among others. It just increased seclusion and heightened racism.

    But now that there is multiculturalism, it needs to be attended to while laws, legislature and policies are being made and while businesses are running and being created. So don't blame multiculturalism for the mess that society might be in [your] eyes; blame the government for neglecting that the world is diverse, as well as the nation they're meant to be protecting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EphemeralLove)
    They call it "melting pot."
    I see it as "too many hands in the pot ruins the soup."

    Segregation has roots in hatred and racism. However, when people have to get by on their own due to exclusion, it just might make them stronger. So as a group it might be better. With integration you force haters and newcomers to co-exist. And then all these inequality problems come.

    Multiculturalism only came about because of imperialism anyway; that's why the Caribbean and America is so racially diverse in the first place. People from all over were brought over (not just blacks) to work; Asians were indentured in US, Caribbean and Latin America. Then slavery was abolished and worker's rights came about soon after with much struggle, and soon everyone finds themselves living among others. It just increased seclusion and heightened racism.

    But now that there is multiculturalism, it needs to be attended to while laws, legislature and policies are being made and while businesses are running and being created. So don't blame multiculturalism for the mess that society might be in [your] eyes; blame the government for neglecting that the world is diverse, as well as the nation they're meant to be protecting.
    That is more America than here. The whole idea of a "melting pot" is depressing because in America multiculturalism takes a backseat and people must culturally assimilate to become Americanized or face ostricization.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Anything which emphasises people's differences rather than their similarities is inevitably going to cause conflicts and divisions within society. If we want to avoid this, rather ather than encouraging the coexistence of multiple cultures we should instead be aiming for everyone to be assimilated into a single monoculture which incorporates all the best aspects of each of its components.

    I see this as no different to trying to de-emphasise the social and cultural differences between men and women, or homosexuals and heterosexuals, or Muslims and atheists.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, I agree, but we should use America as an example of how not to do it. I.e. Black and White Americana are way too dominant, the whole world is not black and white, the whole world does not revolve around them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    are you reducing this to a dichotomy of multiculturalism vs racism?
    I'm not proud of our multiculturalism because it is against liberal democratic values at its heart - it rewards cultures for being against liberal culture, as opposed to sanctioning them. it says that all cultures are equal in their value in this society, even though clearly that's an absurd statement when you consider islamic culture(s). it says that instead of cultures having to compete for their legitimacy via free speech, they ought to get it handed to them, or have the competition silenced via censorship, either formally or informally. it is also associated with the false conflation of culture/religion with race. I'm in favour of freedom, so I am in favour of the mutliculturalism that allows all cultures to be simply allowed to exist without the government favouring or penalising cultural groups - but this isn't mainstream multiculturalism. mainstream multiculturalism seems to be "give that man some more **** because he's of a different culture and it would be racism if you didn't"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevva888)
    Well, I agree, but we should use America as an example of how not to do it. I.e. Black and White Americana are way too dominant, the whole world is not black and white, the whole world does not revolve around them.
    Actually, I think America has done a much better job of dealing with the problem than any European country could. The current problems simply reflect the fact that the merger process isn't quite complete for blacks and whites there, whereas it is for most other established communities.

    So long as blacks or whites or anyone else continue to see themselves as distinct identifiable groups, it's human nature that they will continue to treat one another as distinct. Therefore, the goal needs to be to remove that distinction in people's minds.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nope, and what irks me most is that it's something which we never voted for. To bring about such change without any kind of plebiscite is ludicrous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Rejoice in mongrelisation and fear the absolutism of the pure.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Actually, I think America has done a much better job of dealing with the problem than any European country could. The current problems simply reflect the fact that the merger process isn't quite complete for blacks and whites there, whereas it is for most other established communities.

    So long as blacks or whites or anyone else continue to see themselves as distinct identifiable groups, it's human nature that they will continue to treat one another as distinct. Therefore, the goal needs to be to remove that distinction in people's minds.
    No, there is an absolute multitude of problems in the USA for all minority groups. I don't think you quite understand how ill treated all Asians and Middle Eastern people are over there. I think your view here is dangerous in fact and is representative of the fact that American white people are notorious for downplaying civil rights of minorities.

    I mean, for an example of how ****ed up it is over there. You have a black bringing Chinese kids out to make a racist joke at the Oscars. You have a Jew coming out and making Asian **** jokes to millions of people. If you made the same jokes about white people or black people then there would be outrage. E.g. Would it be acceptable if I brought out some black children and called them all criminals with mugshots? Would it be acceptable if I publically said black people all have big lips? There are many many disadvantaged groups in the USA... they merge to become "Americanized" because they are powerless. The racism and lack of tolerance is a lot more visceral over there. I can see why many closet racists would like that though.

    But yeah, I can see black and white Americans all come out in arms and say "But its Asians so it is not racist to slander them" or "They're all terrorists so it doesn't matter!". When you reduce the racial problems of America to a black vs white thing, you fail to realise that these two groups hold the most political power there and their treatment of the other groups is not exactly benevolent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    also, we don't really have "multiculturalism" - we have "dual monoculturalism" - the different cultures live different lives and live apart in different communities. they segregate themselves voluntarily because multiculturalism as a project/intention doesn't exist without forcing people to assimilate amongst each other, and that never happens (and shouldn't). different peoples live apart. that's just kind of how things end up happening. it's not a prescription. it's a description. what I'd like is a system where different cultural individuals genuinely lived amongst each other in the same community, but people who immigrate here don't want to do that - the first thing they end up doing is booking it to the slum where their families are and that just ends up snowballing and then that slum becomes a "*culture* slum" e.g. the muslim slums, or the chinese slums, etc. multiculturalism doesn't end up happening. nobody really wants multiculturalism. and cultural minorities sure as hell don't want it. they only want the benefits of it (e.g. the recognitions by the state) but not the detriments (e.g. having to mingle with the natives).

    and the government officials that push or this failure see their effort as noble - well it's not - they don't have to live in these slums. they don't feel the negative effects of it. they get seen by their useful-idiot supporters as "the enlightened" ones. well they're not. to be a politician is to be a master manipulator. to be a politician is to maximise your clientèle. it isn't to leave a lasting legacy. look at tony blair, for example. all he wanted to do was cash in. he had a tiny time horizon. and now he's hated. the legacy left by multiculturalism won't be a good one. the historians aren't going to understand it as something liberal. they'll see it as the politician parties trying to appear liberal to the dumb while making society illiberal by importing individuals that hold illiberal views. just look at cologne. our politicians now are seeming to get the hint that this has all been a total failure. but you can't reverse "multiculturalism". once you've started, you can't stop. once you've sewn the ethic that to oppose different cultural customs that oppose liberal values is "racism", then that's it. nobody wants to be seen as racist, even if they know its not racism. the invisible/cultural disciplinary power that this has given the regressive/illiberal order is immense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well we should have some immigration but now it's gone too far, polish people themselves are apparently surprised at the lack of white British people in BRITIAN. The government and population in general should grow some balls and stand up for the white British ethnicity because in a few centuries time, I reckon this ethnicity will become extinct
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    are you reducing this to a dichotomy of multiculturalism vs racism?
    I'm not proud of our multiculturalism because it is against liberal democratic values at its heart - it rewards cultures for being against liberal culture, as opposed to sanctioning them. it says that all cultures are equal in their value in this society, even though clearly that's an absurd statement when you consider islamic culture(s). it says that instead of cultures having to compete for their legitimacy via free speech, they ought to get it handed to them, or have the competition silenced via censorship, either formally or informally. it is also associated with the false conflation of culture/religion with race. I'm in favour of freedom, so I am in favour of the mutliculturalism that allows all cultures to be simply allowed to exist without the government favouring or penalising cultural groups - but this isn't mainstream multiculturalism. mainstream multiculturalism seems to be "give that man some more **** because he's of a different culture and it would be racism if you didn't"
    I hear this a lot but i dont quite see where yall are getting this from. May i have some examples?
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.