Pro/Against multiculturalism ?

Question

Some people say multiculturalism is a catalyst for progress, while others suggest that putting togheter cultures in different stages of evolution it's crime. What's your opinion on this ?

Answer 1

Multiculturalism catalyst for progress. I would very much enjoy visiting other cultures in its own Sovereign nation,its original cultural form,each its own culture meaning life styles, food. entertainment even to experience/observe in the manner in which each culture is governed that is unique.
However:(you knew this was coming) to bring all cultures together in one nation is not a catalyst for progress. In describing progress, I believe progress would be obtained by taking from or using what it is that makes that culture unique,some of its ideas,its sciences and health habits,wisdom,foods and blend these unique differences to enhance and make progress into a culture that wants progress.
The original natives to the America's took from each differing mammal, their mannerisms,survival techniques,etc and combined those with what was already known to them. As a result the natives learned how to survive in the harshness's of survival at that time. To assimilate all whole cultures into one,would bring about a sour drink, as there will be clashes in ideologies to the original or founding culture. This is not bigot or racist. Its about survival in a perfect way.

Answer 2

Neither of those points of view are actually valid. "Progress" is a relative thing - what one person or culture may construe as progress may not be the same for another person or culture. Furthermore, since cultural evolution is no more linear than any other kind of evolution, there is no way of telling who or what is more or less evolved than anything else.

My opinion of multiculturalism is this: it's a nice ideal in terms of political practice. It's nice to think that a single society can include many different cultural worlds and that those groups could all get along together. And it's certainly not impossible!
On the other hand, multiculturalism - that is, a kind of political celebration of difference and inclusion despite that difference - may serve as a kind of ideological cover up for the persistance of violence and inequality between cultures, as it has in the U.S. and in the U.K. For instance, British television requires that a certain diversity of accents and skin colors be represented in every television program. This is a nice idea, but racial and social minorities still often appear in stereotyped roles in those programs. See what I mean?

Answer 3

I'd try to consider a compromise between these two extremes. Let's look back at, say, early 20th century New York City, probably one of the most culturally diverse places on earth. The thing is it was not blended into a mish mash of undiscernable "mocha" people, nor was it a heavily segregated, borderline "ethnic cleansing" seitting either. It was made up of poor emigrants, mostly from European countries, who began huddling together to recreate little neighborhoods and barrios that reflected their mother land. Now even though these emigrants stayed together according to culture, they still had to assimilate in to the previous culture in order to survive. This then creates a sort of hybrid culture where are children being raised to learn both, say, for instance, Italian and English. When it comes to language, English in early 20th century New York was nothing more than an auxilary or bridge language to allow emigrants to communicate with Americans as well as with eachother.

In Iraq, American interpreters who are tought Arabic and Farsi are used but with the relative establishment of the ISF, the military has transitioned to using more Iraqi soldiers alongside American companies. This is not only because Iraqi soldiers understand the language but because they understand the culture, the people.

So when it comes to multiculturism, it is an in-betweener as are the solutions to most issues. (I still don't understand why people see everything in black and white, I mean that literally and figuratively.) Cultures can generally live peacefully together, given that a "cross-over culture" exists and that these cultures have some "space" or "breathing room" where the mother land can be adequately recreated.

Answer 4

Don't like the way multiculturalism is forced down the throats of the majority as if we did something wrong....It does have value as far as understanding where people come from...but if you have read Sue and Sue's Counseling the Culturaly Diverse...it really is reverse racism disguised as educational material.

It all depends on how you take it...and if you are open to new ideas...but it still may be a hard pill to swallow.

Personally, I tend to view everyone on equal ground so I don't care for its presentation...

Answer 5

Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status. Multiculturalism contrasts with the monoculturalism which was historically the norm in the nation-state. (Monoculturalism implies a normative cultural unity, 'monocultural' can be a descriptive term for pre-existing homogeneity). The term multiculturalism is almost always applied to distinct cultures of immigrant groups in developed countries, not to the presence of indigenous peoples.

Multiculturalism began as an official policy in English-speaking countries, starting in Canada in 1971.[citation needed] It was quickly adopted by most member-states in the European Union, as official policy, and as a social consensus among the elite.[citation needed] In recent years, several European states, notably the Netherlands and Denmark, right-of-centre governments have reversed the national policy consensus, and returned to an official monoculturalism.[citation needed] A similar reversal is the subject of debate in the United Kingdom and Germany, among others.

Multiculturalism has its supporters and critics alike. Its supporters often see it as a self-evident entitlement of cultural groups, as a form of civil rights grounded in equality of cultures. They often assume it will lead to interculturalism - beneficial cultural exchanges, where cultures learn about each other's literature, art and philosophy (high culture), and influence each other's music, fashion and cuisine. Its opponents often see it as something which has been imposed on them without their consent. They fear it will lead to cultural ghettos, undermining national unity. In Europe especially, opponents see multiculturalism as a direct assault on the national identity, and on the nation itself, and sometimes as a conspiracy to Islamise Europe.

Answer 6

W/O reading the link, multiculturalism failed for the easy reason that a super type of folk have seen it for the absurd attempt at forced integration that it incredibly is, and the social engineering stupidity it replaced into from its inception.

Answer 7

here in London what is happening is that people are experiencing a variety -- and developing blends -- of music, dance, spiritualities, food, clothes.... all aspects of life. And the indigenous Brits have become somewhat less reserved and more feelingsful as a result of foreign influences.

Answer 8

None of this really matters in the grand scheme of things. We are all God's children and we should all get to know each other and learn to coexist. Those who feel different are afraid of what their culture would lose in forms of control and power if it were to be "diluted" in their eyes.

Answer 9

I think it is a bad idea. Nothing wrong with societies having their own identity and customs. Multiculturalism is nothing more than the liberal version of the nazi plan one world one race. Personally I like our differences.

Answer 10

Well, since I pass for white Protestant but am not, I would say that wherever I go is multicultural for me. People are just as bigoted as they ever were, they just hide it better.