Multiculturalism

[feduptaxpayer]

So does anybody here think that this program called multiculturalism is good for a country? Does it divide rather than unite? Me personally, I think it divides and if allowed to continue and promoted by the government than I believe that it may be a recipe for starting to create new countries within a country. If a country wishes to survive I don't think that promoting several different languages,cultures,religions and heritages is the way to go as eventually those different cultures or races of people increase in numbers so does the division as those different cultures of people start their own ghettoes or turfs and tend to stay way from the mainstream host citizen's of that country. Maybe not all do it but eventually that could change as they might say, where is might rights to the preservation of my culture,language and religion. Even though they may work with the host countries people and mingle with them at work, they still at the end of the work day, they go back to their own communities and carryon from whence they came and appear to avoid trying to allow themselves to be assimilated into they mainstream communties. We see it happening today here in Canada,Britain and America. And multiculturalism is/has been promoted by our politicians for decades and all at the host taxpayer's dollars expense without the consent of those taxpayer's. This has cost the host taxpayer's hundreds of millions of dollars and for what good reason was this done for. To try and not have to get immigrants to assimilate? If someone decides that they want to start a new life in a new country than they should learn that they must assimilate and not carryon as though they were still back home. But that seems, for some unknown reason, government policy. Why?

We also have seen that the people of the host countries have to put aside some of their heritage and traditions,as with the celebrating of Christmas, or so as we have been told, it apparently offends other cultures and races of people. It's ridiculous for the government to be promoting other cultures and religions at the expense of the host countries traditions where we see today that we are not suppose to say or post the words Merry Christmas. Businesses, government buildings and schools go out of their way to try and avoid saying or posting those oh so offensive words "Merry Christmas". It's bloody ridiculous, to say the least. If immigrants from other countries find that they don't like how things are done in their new country well then they can always go back from whence them came. No problem there. I won't stop them. We have our traditions and they have their's and when it comes down to the crunch they must accept ours and not try to change it. It's alright for them to keep it at home, but once you step outside, they must learn to live with our's or leave. A country cannot allow and promote and cater to so many different cultures, religions and languages and try to make them all live in harmony together, because eventually the crap may just hit the fan and all hell may break loose when the turf fighting starts to rear it's ugly head.

So does anyone here think that multiculturalism is good or bad for a country to try and promote? Can there be problems down the road for the country? What say you,

 

[Jay Canuck]

so I guess whoever was there first gets to stay? and if so everybody else should fuck off along with Christmas.

 

[Oddball]

Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism

 

[feduptaxpayer]

so I guess whoever was there first gets to stay? and if so everybody else should fuck off along with Christmas.

Whoever conquered the land, gets to stay and keep the land and all others get to stay if they become a part of the land and the people who conquered the land or in other words, assimilate. All immigrants should not be bringing with them what they left behind, which today, so many are doing ie:latinos for instance. It's alright to keep it at home, but not promote it outside your home. Immigrants will not assimilate if they are not forced to assimilate and become a part of the whole. This is what multiculturalism does, divides, not unites. An example is the American south where it is beginning to look more like the country of Mexico, rather than the country of America. Why should that be or allowed to happen? Do you think that it would be alright for Americans to immigrate into Mexico and start to promote and push their culture and language and heritage on the people of Mexico. Do you think that they would accept that with wide open acceptance? I doubt that very much. There would be riots in the streets. At least we all know that the Mexicans would standup for their country a lot more than what Americans appear to be doing in their country. Christmas is a part of Western men/women's heritage and culture and should be protected and not diminshed just because it's suppose to offend others. What crap. If Christmas were eliminated or diminshed it would be another part of our heritage out the window. What's next? Tear down The Alamo site because it might appear to be offensive to others. Maybe I should have not said that. Hey, you never know, it could happen.

 

[Munin]

I think that multiculturalism is mostly an economic policy, since a selfrespecting society will not improve by throwing away its values and traditions. Multiculturalism is good for migration, but for other purposes?


I believe that culture is a good thing as long as it doesn't conflict with the culture of the country that you migrate too. It shouldn't be too hard to adapt yourself a bit if you really want to live in a certain country. Using the word "multiculturalism" is a form of political correctness, just wanting to state that all cultures should be equally respected. But I disagree with that: should we really respect a culture that believes in dismemberments (and other cruel punishments), discrimination, inequality of men and women, slavery, ... ? Is it not true that our Western culture is superior to a culture that has those traditions?

 

[Yukon]

Multiculturalism works. Conservatives hate it but it does work.

 

[Canucklehead]

Isn't multiculturalism necessary? Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?

What I mean by that is this. In both Canada and the US, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion above all else. Say I'm an immigrant and I come to Canada. Am I not entitled to those same rights as a new citizen?

So then that means I get to express my culture, subscribe to whatever religion I choose to subscribe to, eat my own foods, listen to my own music. How can anyone be against multiculturalism in that light? To say I should "assimilate" is essentially telling me I DO NOT have those rights, which is 100% utterly false. If I am a citizen of Canada or the US, I have those rights.

And for anyone to tell me that instead of listening to some foreign band, I should listen to Charlie Daniels.....or instead of eating some sort of foreign food, I should eat hot dogs and hamburgers.....or instead of worshipping cows, I should worship Jesus, IS inherently fascist. It's denying the rights granted to us by our respective countries' forefathers and spitting on the graves of those who died to defend those rights.

By telling me to assimilate, you're telling me what to do. By telling me what to do, you take my freedom away. By taking my freedom away, you're a fascist.

If it turns out that lots of people from a specific region move to your country and become citizens and change the racial/ethnic makeup of a certain region, so be it. If they vote differently than you, so be it. This is the Western free world where people love freedom so much they die for it. We're supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

 

[Si modo]

Isn't multiculturalism necessary? Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?

What I mean by that is this. In both Canada and the US, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion above all else. Say I'm an immigrant and I come to Canada. Am I not entitled to those same rights as a new citizen?

So then that means I get to express my culture, subscribe to whatever religion I choose to subscribe to, eat my own foods, listen to my own music. How can anyone be against multiculturalism in that light? To say I should "assimilate" is essentially telling me I DO NOT have those rights, which is 100% utterly false. If I am a citizen of Canada or the US, I have those rights.

And for anyone to tell me that instead of listening to some foreign band, I should listen to Charlie Daniels.....or instead of eating some sort of foreign food, I should eat hot dogs and hamburgers.....or instead of worshipping cows, I should worship Jesus, IS inherently fascist. It's denying the rights granted to us by our respective countries' forefathers and spitting on the graves of those who died to defend those rights.

By telling me to assimilate, you're telling me what to do. By telling me what to do, you take my freedom away. By taking my freedom away, you're a fascist.

If it turns out that lots of people from a specific region move to your country and become citizens and change the racial/ethnic makeup of a certain region, so be it. If they vote differently than you, so be it. This is the Western free world where people love freedom so much they die for it. We're supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

I think there is nothing wrong with assimilating in certain societies - those with Constitutions that grant individual freedoms, for example. As such, the only assimilation I demand is that Constitution be respected as one's new way of life - live and let live.

However, if my wearing my hair down and shorts offends one's religion, tough shit. If my purchase of alcohol offends one's relgion, tough shit again. If one wishes to cover their head and avoid contact with alcohol, that's fine. I don't care unless you are affecting MY freedoms.

 

[Canucklehead]

Isn't multiculturalism necessary? Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?

What I mean by that is this. In both Canada and the US, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion above all else. Say I'm an immigrant and I come to Canada. Am I not entitled to those same rights as a new citizen?

So then that means I get to express my culture, subscribe to whatever religion I choose to subscribe to, eat my own foods, listen to my own music. How can anyone be against multiculturalism in that light? To say I should "assimilate" is essentially telling me I DO NOT have those rights, which is 100% utterly false. If I am a citizen of Canada or the US, I have those rights.

And for anyone to tell me that instead of listening to some foreign band, I should listen to Charlie Daniels.....or instead of eating some sort of foreign food, I should eat hot dogs and hamburgers.....or instead of worshipping cows, I should worship Jesus, IS inherently fascist. It's denying the rights granted to us by our respective countries' forefathers and spitting on the graves of those who died to defend those rights.

By telling me to assimilate, you're telling me what to do. By telling me what to do, you take my freedom away. By taking my freedom away, you're a fascist.

If it turns out that lots of people from a specific region move to your country and become citizens and change the racial/ethnic makeup of a certain region, so be it. If they vote differently than you, so be it. This is the Western free world where people love freedom so much they die for it. We're supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

I think there is nothing wrong with assimilating in certain societies - those with Constitutions that grant individual freedoms, for example. As such, the only assimilation I demand is that Constitution be respected as one's new way of life - live and let live.

However, if my wearing my hair down and shorts offends one's religion, tough shit. If my purchase of alcohol offends one's relgion, tough shit again. If one wishes to cover their head and avoid contact with alcohol, that's fine. I don't care unless you are affecting MY freedoms.

I agree 100%. I'm not saying people shouldn't assimilate. They should do so if they choose to. But my point is that nobody should be FORCED to assimilate. And I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't have accomodationist laws (i.e. Implement Sharia Courts to accomodate a small, minority Muslim population). We should keep our existing laws and democratically change them if need be.

 

[Munin]

Isn't multiculturalism necessary? Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?

What I mean by that is this. In both Canada and the US, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion above all else. Say I'm an immigrant and I come to Canada. Am I not entitled to those same rights as a new citizen?

So then that means I get to express my culture, subscribe to whatever religion I choose to subscribe to, eat my own foods, listen to my own music. How can anyone be against multiculturalism in that light? To say I should "assimilate" is essentially telling me I DO NOT have those rights, which is 100% utterly false. If I am a citizen of Canada or the US, I have those rights.

And for anyone to tell me that instead of listening to some foreign band, I should listen to Charlie Daniels.....or instead of eating some sort of foreign food, I should eat hot dogs and hamburgers.....or instead of worshipping cows, I should worship Jesus, IS inherently fascist. It's denying the rights granted to us by our respective countries' forefathers and spitting on the graves of those who died to defend those rights.

By telling me to assimilate, you're telling me what to do. By telling me what to do, you take my freedom away. By taking my freedom away, you're a fascist.

If it turns out that lots of people from a specific region move to your country and become citizens and change the racial/ethnic makeup of a certain region, so be it. If they vote differently than you, so be it. This is the Western free world where people love freedom so much they die for it. We're supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

No it s not and Ironically this (fascism) is what makes multiculturalism such a failure; for example the way "Islamic culture" has clashed with the Western culture of free speech & free press when a danish guy is publishing a cartoon IN HIS OWN country and his freedom is not respected just because people have a different culture (do not allow the prophet mohammed to be portrayed). I disagree with the reasoning that their culture of godworshipping and denial of speech is equally to ours of free speech and free press just because "every culture should be respected": you would be incredibly naieve to believe that.

Basically you re saying that allowing the danish guy to publish what he wants (free) speech, is fascist. Because not allowing it would be multicultural as it would "respect" the other culture, but the sad thing is you sacrifice the values of your own "native culture" to achieve this "multiculturalism".


"We re supposed to be a democracy and not a dictatorship" is the reason why we should not allow foreigners or native citizens to create dictatorships within the society (even if they re based upon "culture"), this is why multiculturality fails in certain cases. Multiculturalism only "works" when it is not needed (when cultures already are compatible).

 

[Diuretic]

Isn't multiculturalism necessary? Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?

What I mean by that is this. In both Canada and the US, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion above all else. Say I'm an immigrant and I come to Canada. Am I not entitled to those same rights as a new citizen?

So then that means I get to express my culture, subscribe to whatever religion I choose to subscribe to, eat my own foods, listen to my own music. How can anyone be against multiculturalism in that light? To say I should "assimilate" is essentially telling me I DO NOT have those rights, which is 100% utterly false. If I am a citizen of Canada or the US, I have those rights.

And for anyone to tell me that instead of listening to some foreign band, I should listen to Charlie Daniels.....or instead of eating some sort of foreign food, I should eat hot dogs and hamburgers.....or instead of worshipping cows, I should worship Jesus, IS inherently fascist. It's denying the rights granted to us by our respective countries' forefathers and spitting on the graves of those who died to defend those rights.

By telling me to assimilate, you're telling me what to do. By telling me what to do, you take my freedom away. By taking my freedom away, you're a fascist.

If it turns out that lots of people from a specific region move to your country and become citizens and change the racial/ethnic makeup of a certain region, so be it. If they vote differently than you, so be it. This is the Western free world where people love freedom so much they die for it. We're supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

I think there is nothing wrong with assimilating in certain societies - those with Constitutions that grant individual freedoms, for example. As such, the only assimilation I demand is that Constitution be respected as one's new way of life - live and let live.

However, if my wearing my hair down and shorts offends one's religion, tough shit. If my purchase of alcohol offends one's relgion, tough shit again. If one wishes to cover their head and avoid contact with alcohol, that's fine. I don't care unless you are affecting MY freedoms.

I agree 100%. I'm not saying people shouldn't assimilate. They should do so if they choose to. But my point is that nobody should be FORCED to assimilate. And I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't have accomodationist laws (i.e. Implement Sharia Courts to accomodate a small, minority Muslim population). We should keep our existing laws and democratically change them if need be.

I have to disagree on that last point, but I think the disagreement isn't huge. I have no problem with Muslims accessing Sharia for private matters. I have no problems with Jews accessing Beth Din courts for private matters. In both cases and in similar situations, the secular law of the state should obviously be observed and to the best of my limited knowledge that is the case.. In Canada because of some wise statesmanship by the Brits Quebecois are able to access their own Civil Code. I realise this is due to that original settlement between Britain and France but it's still in place and it seems to be okay.

Interestingly a little debate is happening here in Australia about something similar.

Sexism in the European cultural tradition has been attacked on a broad front, including violence against women. However, there are important racial, ethnic and religious minorities in Australia who come from nations with sexist traditions which, in some respects, are even more pervasive than those of the West

Sexism And The Law | Cultures and the Law

 

[Ravi]

I'm surprised the OP lives in Vancouver, one of the most multi-cultural cities I've ever seen.

So, what's the solution? Shoot everyone that isn't white?

 

[Canucklehead]

Isn't multiculturalism necessary? Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?

What I mean by that is this. In both Canada and the US, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion above all else. Say I'm an immigrant and I come to Canada. Am I not entitled to those same rights as a new citizen?

So then that means I get to express my culture, subscribe to whatever religion I choose to subscribe to, eat my own foods, listen to my own music. How can anyone be against multiculturalism in that light? To say I should "assimilate" is essentially telling me I DO NOT have those rights, which is 100% utterly false. If I am a citizen of Canada or the US, I have those rights.

And for anyone to tell me that instead of listening to some foreign band, I should listen to Charlie Daniels.....or instead of eating some sort of foreign food, I should eat hot dogs and hamburgers.....or instead of worshipping cows, I should worship Jesus, IS inherently fascist. It's denying the rights granted to us by our respective countries' forefathers and spitting on the graves of those who died to defend those rights.

By telling me to assimilate, you're telling me what to do. By telling me what to do, you take my freedom away. By taking my freedom away, you're a fascist.

If it turns out that lots of people from a specific region move to your country and become citizens and change the racial/ethnic makeup of a certain region, so be it. If they vote differently than you, so be it. This is the Western free world where people love freedom so much they die for it. We're supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

No it s not and Ironically this (fascism) is what makes multiculturalism such a failure; for example the way "Islamic culture" has clashed with the Western culture of free speech & free press when a danish guy is publishing a cartoon IN HIS OWN country and his freedom is not respected just because people have a different culture (do not allow the prophet mohammed to be portrayed). I disagree with the reasoning that their culture of godworshipping and denial of speech is equally to ours of free speech and free press just because "every culture should be respected": you would be incredibly naieve to believe that.

Basically you re saying that allowing the danish guy to publish what he wants (free) speech, is fascist. Because not allowing it would be multicultural as it would "respect" the other culture, but the sad thing is you sacrifice the values of your own "native culture" to achieve this "multiculturalism".


"We re supposed to be a democracy and not a dictatorship" is the reason why we should not allow foreigners or native citizens to create dictatorships within the society (even if they re based upon "culture"), this is why multiculturality fails in certain cases. Multiculturalism only "works" when it is not needed (when cultures already are compatible).

You like to build straw men arguments and you're very disingenuous. I didn't say even 3/4 of what you said. Allow me to clarify so you may better understand the point I'm trying to get across.

You bring up the example of Islamic "culture" clashing with Western "culture". Good example. Muslims in Denmark have a right to express their offence and outrage - justified or not. They do not have a right to commit violence against the cartoonist nor do they have the right to incite violence against him.

I never said their culture is equal to ours. Quite the opposite. I think what we have in the West has been so far the best any civilization has produced. We have a society where everyone has a voice and certain guaranteed freedoms. We do not live under the thumb of someone claiming to be a god and trying to act like one.

Nor did I say that every culture should be respected. There are some cultures that commit barbaric practices (such as cannibalism or honour killings). My point is that we should allow everyone to express their culture, so long as it is within the confines of our existing laws. No more, no less.

The entire point of my post was that nobody should have a culture imposed on them when they live in a society where they have the freedom of speech, expression, and religion.

I did not say allowing the Danish cartoonist to publish what he wants is fascist. In fact, I said the opposite. I said everyone has the freedom of speech, expression, and religion. Pay attention, please. I'm supporting the cartoonist in publishing whatever the hell he wants.

Lastly, how are immigrants creating a dictatorship here?

 

[Munin]

You like to build straw men arguments and you're very disingenuous. I didn't say even 3/4 of what you said. Allow me to clarify so you may better understand the point I'm trying to get across.

I argued from the point of view I have when it comes to multiculturalism, I disagree with you when you imply that "Isn't being against multiculturalism inherently fascist?"

fascism has little to do with culture, it has to do with its general ideology and racism. Multiculurality on the other hand can tolerate "fascist cultures" that oppose their views upon others. The question I ask when you talk about tolerance: should we tolerate the intolerants? Should we tolerate fascists (I assumed that you were in favor of it when you supported multiculturalism)

You bring up the example of Islamic "culture" clashing with Western "culture". Good example. Muslims in Denmark have a right to express their offence and outrage - justified or not. They do not have a right to commit violence against the cartoonist nor do they have the right to incite violence against him.

I never said their culture is equal to ours. Quite the opposite. I think what we have in the West has been so far the best any civilization has produced. We have a society where everyone has a voice and certain guaranteed freedoms. We do not live under the thumb of someone claiming to be a god and trying to act like one.

You never did directly say that, but the idea you support (Multiculturalism) does. Culture is not just religion, the clothing you wear or the food you eat, it is also the values you have: some of those values may be that you do not accept free speech above your religious values. for example: do not allow people to mock your god (you want them burned/beheaded/...).

You say "they do not have the right", but on what ground do you claim that? You claim this on your Western Cultural value that free speech is more important than certain religious values. Our "superior culture" (the culture that is more important) is rooted into our laws that enable the expression of free speech & other issues, free speech is part of our culture.

In Saudi Arabia you can't argue that you have a cultural different value than them and that this is the reason why you insulted their culture (and religious values). In the Western World I do not want it either that someone should feel they can argue that they can threaten native people on their foreign cultural grounds.

Nor did I say that every culture should be respected. There are some cultures that commit barbaric practices (such as cannibalism or honour killings).

Again: You never did directly say that, but the idea you support (Multiculturalism) does.

Those barbaric practices are part of certain cultures, if you deny them then you deny them their culture: it s as simple as that. It is directly opposing multiculturalism as it denies them to express their culture: for them it is not much different than a muslim killing a sheep for religious reasons.

My point is that we should allow everyone to express their culture, so long as it is within the confines of our existing laws. No more, no less.

Then you are against multiculturalism as laws represent your cultural values of free speech, free press, ... . Our laws are behavior rules for our modern western culture. Laws protecting free speech/... are laws that protect those cultural values. Yes there are laws that can co-exist with other cultural values like common crimes (theft, kidnapping, ...) but that is because they already are adapted by other cultures (this can certainly not be said about all western laws).

The entire point of my post was that nobody should have a culture imposed on them when they live in a society where they have the freedom of speech, expression, and religion.

Freedom of speech, expression and religion are values of the Modern Western Culture. You re saying you don't want the values of the Modern Western Culture to be suppressed by another culture. This is the same as saying that you want your culture to be superior over others, which is clearly not multiculturalism.

I did not say allowing the Danish cartoonist to publish what he wants is fascist. In fact, I said the opposite. I said everyone has the freedom of speech, expression, and religion. Pay attention, please. I'm supporting the cartoonist in publishing whatever the hell he wants.

Lastly, how are immigrants creating a dictatorship here?

Allowing the Danish cartoonisht to publish what he wants is not multiculturalism: it opposes respecting the other culture, making a picture of muhammed is insulting for the people who have an "islamic culture"


I said immigrants and civilians.

American Civilians example: religious sects and cults that have a community in which you have "rules" that violate the official US laws, people born in a sect/cult are denied of their freedoms and rights given by US laws.

Immigrants example: immigrated extremist muslims "owning" a whole neighbourhoud and making it like a small Iran, were shariah law is active. Women who cheat on their husbands are brutally murdered, assaulted by their family (because the family honor is smeared). Women belonging to the families there who do not wear headscarves in these neighbourhoods are harrased or assaulted or worse (rape, ...).



If you really find it difficult to believe that Free speech, Free press, ... are Western Cultural values then maybe look at Afghanistan & Iraq. We re not able to empose our values upon them because they contradict so much. Give an afghan guy democracy and he will elect a guy that implements a religious dictatorship with laws based upon his religion.


My belief is that anyone who should come to my country should respect my culture and not do anything that really "violates" it, sure they can have their culture but on 1 condition: it must be inferior to the most important values of my native culture (freedom of speech, expression, womens rights, free press, ...).

 

[Canucklehead]

It might not seem like it, but we're almost in complete agreement.

What we seem to agree on is that people who come to our respective countries should be tolerant of our existing laws, rights, and freedoms and that they are free to express themselves and live insofar as it does not violate our existing laws, rights, and freedoms.

The question I ask when you talk about tolerance: should we tolerate the intolerants? Should we tolerate fascists (I assumed that you were in favor of it when you supported multiculturalism)

Insofar as the intolerants operate within our existing laws, yes. When they violate those laws, no.

You say "they do not have the right", but on what ground do you claim that? You claim this on your Western Cultural value that free speech is more important than certain religious values. Our "superior culture" (the culture that is more important) is rooted into our laws that enable the expression of free speech & other issues, free speech is part of our culture.

In Saudi Arabia you can't argue that you have a cultural different value than them and that this is the reason why you insulted their culture (and religious values). In the Western World I do not want it either that someone should feel they can argue that they can threaten native people on their foreign cultural grounds.

I completely agree.

Those barbaric practices are part of certain cultures, if you deny them then you deny them their culture: it s as simple as that. It is directly opposing multiculturalism as it denies them to express their culture: for them it is not much different than a muslim killing a sheep for religious reasons.

Not necessarily. Yes, it denies them a specific practice, but not their entire culture. If their entire culture is rape and murder, these people have no place in our society. I'm all for them expressing their culture, if it is within our laws. And I'm going to add another qualifier too: so long as our laws are fair (determined democratically).

Here in Canada, Sikhs are allowed to carry ceremonial daggers. But if I were to walk in a dangerous part of town, I wouldn't be able to bring even a pocket knife with me as it would be illegal. Why is a Sikh allowed to carry a weapon and I'm not? Yeah, they believe it's sacred and all that, but fact of the matter is there is one set of laws to which I must abide and another for which a Sikh must and that is unfair. So even though - at least here - that Sikh would be obeying the existing laws, it's an unfair accomodationist law that I'm completely against. However, the law was put in place by a democratic government, so as much as I find it unfair, that's democracy.

Then you are against multiculturalism as laws represent your cultural values of free speech, free press, ... . Our laws are behavior rules for our modern western culture. Laws protecting free speech/... are laws that protect those cultural values. Yes there are laws that can co-exist with other cultural values like common crimes (theft, kidnapping, ...) but that is because they already are adapted by other cultures (this can certainly not be said about all western laws).


Freedom of speech, expression and religion are values of the Modern Western Culture. You re saying you don't want the values of the Modern Western Culture to be suppressed by another culture. This is the same as saying that you want your culture to be superior over others, which is clearly not multiculturalism.

Not precisely, but close. In a Western country where we have existing laws and culture, I think all citizens should be allowed to express themselves as much as our society will allow. In, say, a Middle Eastern country where they have existing laws and culture quite different to our own, I think it would be wrong of Westerners to impose our ideals upon those people, no matter how much we find our culture superior. Like I said, my main point is that nobody should have a culture imposed on them because that is authoritarian.

If Muhammed Allahu Aqbar comes up to us and says we must pray five times a day and worship Allah, and kill our daughters if she sleeps around, he is taking our freedom if he enforces his ideals upon us. If we come up to Muhammed Allahu Aqbar and tell him that he must oppose the religious dictatorship in his country and instead install a democratic government of elected officials, that would be authoritarian as well.

If other people in the world want to commit the aforementioned barbaric practices, that's up to them, not us, in my opinion. No matter how much we frown upon them. But the people who come to the West should take full advantage of the freedoms we offer and should be allowed to express their culture where it does not conflict with our own.

I do concede the point to you that I want Western values imposed in the West above all else - namely the freedom of speech, press, religion, expression, etc. and am opposed to full-blown multiculturalism.

 

[Canucklehead]

Oh, and thanks for correcting me, Munin.

 

[Munin]

Oh, and thanks for correcting me, Munin.

Thx for the compliment, but I really wasn't trying to be the "annoying know-it-all smartass guy" here. I was just expressing and trying to explain my point of view on this issue. It s probably the lack of a clear definition of multiculturalism that may cause a lot of confusion (as it does with me).

It really does sound like something good at first (when you hear of multiculturalism the first time), I think the idea originates from some ancient cities in the past like alexandria in egypt. These cities consisted of people from different cultures and lived peacefully close to each other (at least that s what the history books based upon the propaganda of the rulers of the past tell us). But I m very critical about that: it s just the naieve image that has been created around multiculturism that bothers me, like some farytale world were all people of all cultures live next to each other in peace (ignoring the conflicts that result out of opposing cultures).

I know it is possible for some cultures, like in Europe we ve come to some kind of cultural peace that has been unknown to the continent for centuries. But imao you must also see why they are so close to each other before you jump to the conclusion that multiculturalism was and is the answer. The reason is that European countries have similar modern cultures based upon secularism, a christian past (shared christian values), shared concept values with regards to freedom, shared values with regards to human rights, ... This is the compatibility of cultures that multiculturalism as a " fairly new western concept" seems to ignore, I really do not believe that 1 person believing in the death penalty for everyone that insults his culture (even verbally), also violently threatening + committing violence to obtain this and another person believing in free speech can peacefully live together.

The other problem is that we take this freedom, free speech, ... so much for granted that we don't think of it as a part of culture anymore. Also the hypocritical nature of what many people see in the word "multiculturalism": seeing it as a place were all cultures are being equally respected, "because we should all respect each other and live peacefully together". It just comes down to idiocy when you have 1 guy threatening to kill everyone that insults his religion (and also murdering people to achieve this) and another 1 that believes he can say everything he wants (insulting other religions included) and then believing they will live peacefully together.

 

[editec]

So does anybody here think that this program called multiculturalism is good for a country? Does it divide rather than unite? Me personally, I think it divides and if allowed to continue and promoted by the government than I believe that it may be a recipe for starting to create new countries within a country. If a country wishes to survive I don't think that promoting several different languages,cultures,religions and heritages is the way to go as eventually those different cultures or races of people increase in numbers so does the division as those different cultures of people start their own ghettoes or turfs and tend to stay way from the mainstream host citizen's of that country. Maybe not all do it but eventually that could change as they might say, where is might rights to the preservation of my culture,language and religion. Even though they may work with the host countries people and mingle with them at work, they still at the end of the work day, they go back to their own communities and carryon from whence they came and appear to avoid trying to allow themselves to be assimilated into they mainstream communties. We see it happening today here in Canada,Britain and America. And multiculturalism is/has been promoted by our politicians for decades and all at the host taxpayer's dollars expense without the consent of those taxpayer's. This has cost the host taxpayer's hundreds of millions of dollars and for what good reason was this done for. To try and not have to get immigrants to assimilate? If someone decides that they want to start a new life in a new country than they should learn that they must assimilate and not carryon as though they were still back home. But that seems, for some unknown reason, government policy. Why?

We also have seen that the people of the host countries have to put aside some of their heritage and traditions,as with the celebrating of Christmas, or so as we have been told, it apparently offends other cultures and races of people. It's ridiculous for the government to be promoting other cultures and religions at the expense of the host countries traditions where we see today that we are not suppose to say or post the words Merry Christmas. Businesses, government buildings and schools go out of their way to try and avoid saying or posting those oh so offensive words "Merry Christmas". It's bloody ridiculous, to say the least. If immigrants from other countries find that they don't like how things are done in their new country well then they can always go back from whence them came. No problem there. I won't stop them. We have our traditions and they have their's and when it comes down to the crunch they must accept ours and not try to change it. It's alright for them to keep it at home, but once you step outside, they must learn to live with our's or leave. A country cannot allow and promote and cater to so many different cultures, religions and languages and try to make them all live in harmony together, because eventually the crap may just hit the fan and all hell may break loose when the turf fighting starts to rear it's ugly head.

So does anyone here think that multiculturalism is good or bad for a country to try and promote? Can there be problems down the road for the country? What say you,

All empires seem to become multicultural eventually.

And all empires eventually fall.

I'm not really sure that multiculture and society cohere all that well in the long run.

It depends, I think, on how different those cultures really are and how well emerging cultureal players can adapt to the dominant cultural values extant in that empire.

 

[Canucklehead]

Thx for the compliment, but I really wasn't trying to be the "annoying know-it-all smartass guy" here. I was just expressing and trying to explain my point of view on this issue. It s probably the lack of a clear definition of multiculturalism that may cause a lot of confusion (as it does with me).

Nah, you didn't come across that way at all. I have an opinion, you have an opinion. If I see the flaws in my previous way of thinking, I change it. No big deal lol.

As for the rest of what you said, I do agree, and I admit I didn't really think of those freedoms being part of a culture, but you're absolutely right. They are.

I think multiculturalism is a utopian ideal - that everyone despite their background and upbringing can live together in peace. But the stark reality is that there are conflicts that don't allow that to happen and is a big part of the reason why there is no world peace. While it sounds great, it can't happen unless every other culture is comparable to our own.

Thanks again.

 

[feduptaxpayer]

I'm surprised the OP lives in Vancouver, one of the most multi-cultural cities I've ever seen.

So, what's the solution? Shoot everyone that isn't white?

We don't have to go that far as to shooting people, but how about slowing down the rate of non-whites immigrating to America and Canada? It seems like multiculturalism is all about non-whites and their culture,language,religion and heritage. Caucasions have all those things mentioned above also but yet it never seems to be promoted, only non-white celebrations of whatever appear to occour and make headline news. I remember one time many years back in Nova Scotia,Canada when a politician wanted to have a British/ European heritage day and he was shot down and was labeled by some special interest group as trying to promote white supremacy. This same group didn't appear to have a problem with non-whites promoting their culture, but when caucasions do it, it's deemed to be promoting white supremacy. Here in Canada we celebrate Sikhs,Asian,Black,Native Indian or whomever but we never celebrate anything caucasion.

Maybe you can tell me, because I would sure like to know why caucasions seem to be left out of the loop?