Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Flaws Of Multiculturalism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:36 pm

What is multicultural about creating a single hyper-race,nation, and civilization on this planet?

Ultimately over time that is where multiculturalism leads to.

Integration is just another word for assimilation.

The whole myth that multiculturalism can be a mosaic where seperate cultures can live in the same proximity yet remain independent and unique seperate of each other does not exist.

In such a situation absorption is inevitable destroying any resemblance of independence or uniqueness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:57 pm

The Fool wrote:
What is multicultural about creating a single hyper-race,nation, and civilization on this planet?
Nothing is "multicultural" about hyper-race. Globalization exists to destroy multiculturalism in the name of hypocrisy.

Religions and cultures cannot freely practice their beliefs in America, because there is no such thing as the "Freedom of Speech".

Everybody is constrained.


The Fool wrote:
Ultimately over time that is where multiculturalism leads to.

Integration is just another word for assimilation.

The whole myth that multiculturalism can be a mosaic where seperate cultures can live in the same proximity yet remain independent and unique seperate of each other does not exist.

In such a situation absorption is inevitable destroying any resemblance of independence or uniqueness.
I agree.

However, Individual men are still allowed to compete with one another and create new forms of 'culture' that threaten the supraorganism.

Without this competition, then the supraorganism will fail to progress itself and collapse. People predicate their lives around lies, but this does not mean that the truth threatens them with every turn. It does threaten them. Thus, if a man speaks the truth, then he will be castrated and locked away in a dark cell: Hell.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
deepthought
Potential Contributor
Potential Contributor
avatar

Number of posts : 24
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:52 pm

The Fool wrote:
The whole myth that multiculturalism can be a mosaic where seperate cultures can live in the same proximity yet remain independent and unique seperate of each other does not exist.

In such a situation absorption is inevitable destroying any resemblance of independence or uniqueness.
The ruling elites will maintain their own uniqueness through physical distance.

The lower classes will simply be bred together to keep the peace and insure the uninterrupted flow of production and wealth creation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:30 pm

Here are some intellectual arguements against multiculturalism which I believe holds some merit from wiki:

Quote :
Lawrence Auster, another conservative critic of multiculturalism, has argued that although multiculturalism is meant to promote the value of each culture, the reality is that its real tendency has been to undermine America's traditional majority culture. In Auster's view, multiculturalism has tended to "downgrade our national culture while raising the status and power of other cultures."

He writes:

The formal meaning of “diversity,” “cultural equity,” “gorgeous mosaic” and so on is a society in which many different cultures will live together in perfect equality and peace (i.e., a society that has never existed and never will exist); the real meaning of these slogans is that the power of the existing mainstream society to determine its own destiny shall be drastically reduced while the power of other groups, formerly marginal or external to that society, will be increased. In other words the U.S. must, in the name of diversity, abandon its particularity while the very groups making that demand shall hold on to theirs.[79]

According to Auster:

Since multiculturalism claims to stand for the sanctity and worth of each culture, the discovery that its real tendency is to dismantle the existing, European-based culture of the United States should have instantly discredited it.[80]



Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has argued in his trilogy of books on Judaism that Jews have been prominent as main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism in an attempt to end anti-semitism.[82] MacDonald considers multiculturalism to be dangerous to the West, concluding in his Jack London Literary Prize acceptance speech:

[Given] that some ethnic groups—especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization—will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by some groups means only their surrender and defeat—the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition in which ethnicity plays a very large role.

The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans’ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness—an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.[83]


Canada
Approximately 20% of today's Canadian citizens were born outside Canada,[85] the highest net immigration rate per capita in the world.[47] Recent immigrants are largely concentrated in the cities of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, which have high population growth due to this concentrated immigration.[citation needed] The policy of multiculturalism was officially enforced in the Constitution Act of 1982 by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, with the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which officially recognized that (27) the "Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians."[86]


[edit] Criticism from Quebec
To many Quebecers, despite an official national bilingualism policy, multiculturalism threatened to reduce them to just another ethnic group. Quebec's policy seek to promote interculturalism, welcoming people of all origins while insisting that they integrate into Quebec's majority French-speaking society. In 2008, a Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences, headed by sociologist Gerard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor, recognized that Quebec is a de facto pluralist society, but that the Canadian multiculturalism model "does not appear well suited to conditions in Quebec".[87] Four reasons were given by the commissionners against multiculturalism for the Quebec society: a) anxiety over language is not an important factor in English Canada; b) minority insecurity is not found there; c) there is no longer a majority ethnic group in Canada (citizen of British origin account for 34% of the population, whereas citizen of French-Canadian origin form 79% of Quebec population); d) less concern for the preservation of a founding cultural tradition is found in English Canada. Interculturalism, the commissionners pleaded, "seeks to reconcile ethnocultural diversity with the continuity of the French-speaking core and the preservation of the social link".[87]

This policy seeks to integrate immigrants into the mainstream French-speaking province of Quebec on the basis of French as the common public language of all Québécois; all residents are in this way held to be invited to participate in a common civic culture. Interculturalism is in this way consistent with the Quebec government's view of itself as the "national" government for all Québécois. Interculturalism strongly emphasizes interaction between the communities, in particular by sharing the same school system, which provides a cultural anchor, and by intercommunity action, while it recognizes the right to maintain an affiliation with one's ethnic group and the right for cultural and religious differences to be displayed in the public domain.



In English Canada, the most noted critics of multiculturalism are Kenneth McRoberts, Neil Bissoondath, and Daniel Stoffman. As a young man, McRoberts worked for the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and his career as a political scientist has roughly coincided with the policy of multiculturalism. Against the view that the shift in official discourse from biculturalism to multiculturalism has had a neutral effect on relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, McRoberts believes that it was disastrous for Canadian nationalism, as it offended Québécois and their dualistic vision of Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society.

In his Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, the Trinidad and Tobago-born Bissoondath argues that official multiculturalism limits the freedom of minority members, by confining them to cultural and geographic ghettos. He also argues that cultures are very complex, and must be transmitted through close family and kin relations. To him, the government view of cultures as being about festivals and cuisine is a crude oversimplification that leads to easy stereotyping.



Daniel Stoffman's Who Gets In raises serious questions about the policy of Canadian multiculturalism. Stoffman points out that many cultural practices, such as allowing dog meat to be served in restaurants and street cockfighting, are simply incompatible with Canadian and Western culture. He also raises concern about the number of recent immigrants who are not being linguistically integrated into Canada (i.e., not learning either English or French). He stresses that multiculturalism works better in theory than in practice.[citation needed]

Another more recent and conservative criticism, based largely upon the Nordic and Canadian experience, is presented by the administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson, who views multiculturalism as a utopian ideology with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to communism, anarchism, and many strains of liberalism. According to Njalsson, multiculturalism is particular to a Western urban environment and cannot survive as an ideology outside it. Some variants of multiculturalism, he believes, may equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with power and influence. This, in turn, may alter the value system of the larger society. This realist criticism of multiculturalism also asserts that in Western "settler societies", such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, multiculturalism may aggravate a situation where old-stock families are too far removed from their ancestral homelands in Europe to still consider themselves English, French, Irish, German etc., while newer arrivals can claim two or more national identities. [88]


In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book The Philosophy of Human Rights.[98] Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: Western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-Western culture and values. They are the product of the Enlightenment. Cliteur sees non-Western cultures not as merely different but as anachronistic. He sees multiculturalism primarily as an unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism, which would lead to acceptance of barbaric practices, including those brought to the Western World by immigrants. Cliteur lists infanticide, torture, slavery, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangs, female genital cutting, discrimination by immigrants, suttee, and the death penalty. Cliteur compares multiculturalism to the moral acceptance of Auschwitz, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Ku Klux Klan.

Cliteur's 1999 work is indicative of the polemic tone of the debate in the following years. Most of the "immigrant barbarities" which he names are regularly cited by opponents of multiculturalism, sometimes as a reductio ad absurdum, but also as factual practices of immigrants in the Netherlands.

In 2000, Paul Scheffer — a member of the PvdA (Labour Party) and subsequently a professor of urban studies — published his essay "The multicultural drama",[99] an essay critical of both immigration and multiculturalism. Scheffer is a committed supporter of the nation-state, assuming that homogeneity and integration are necessary for a society: the presence of immigrants undermines this. A society does have a finite "absorptive capacity" for those from other cultures, he says, but this has been exceeded in the Netherlands. Specifically:

a huge influx of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, in combination with multiculturalism, resulted in spontaneous ethnic segregation.
the Netherlands must take its own language, culture, and history seriously, and immigrants must learn this language, culture, and history.
multiculturalism and immigration led to adaptation problems such as school drop-out, unemployment, and high crime rates.
a society which does not respect itself (its Dutch national identity) also has no value for immigrants
multicultural policy ignored Dutch language acquisition, which should be a priority in education.
Islam has not yet reformed itself, and does not accept the separation of church and state. Some Muslims did not accept the law in Amsterdam because its mayor was Jewish.
immigrants must always lose their own culture - that is the price of immigration, a "brutal bargain" (quote from Norman Podhoretz).
Scheffer approvingly quoted the Dutch sociologist J.A.A. van Doorn as saying that the presence of immigrants in the Netherlands had "put the clock back" by 100 or 150 years. The high immigration rate and the lack of integration threatened society, and must be stopped. His essay had a great impact, and led to what became known as the "integration debate". As in the essay, this was not simply about multiculturalism, but about immigration, Islam, the national identity, and national unity.

In 2002, the legal scholar Afshin Ellian, a refugee from Iran, advocated a monocultural Rechtsstaat in the Netherlands.[100] A liberal democracy cannot be multicultural, he argued, because multiculturalism is an ideology and a democracy has no official ideology. What is more, according to Ellian, a democracy must be monolingual. The Dutch language is the language of the constitution, and therefore it must be the only public language — all others must be limited to the private sphere. The Netherlands, he wrote, had been taken hostage by the left-wing multiculturalists, and their policy was in turn determined by the Islamic conservatives. Ellian stated that there were 800 000 Muslims in the country, with 450 mosques, and that the Netherlands had legalised the "feudal system of the Islamic Empire". Democracy and the rule of law could only be restored by abolishing multiculturalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#United_States_2
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
myhypocricy
Potential Contributor
Potential Contributor
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 30
Age : 30
Location : the fire nation
Registration date : 2009-01-03

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:05 am

IS Ammerica a melting pot or a salad bowl? Why is it impossible to have a multicultural society? Because I can assure you that at time T(n), the moment of time when a multitude of cultures live near each other in the same society, it is truly a mutlicultural setting--a true salad bowll. What you seem to be getting at is not so much the possibility of uniqueness in relation to a given moment, but through a duration of time. In time salad bowls may end up being melting pots. But don't we run into contradiction when we view possibility and impossibility of multiculturalism via duration in time?

Since we have established that it is very possible at time t(n) that a true multicultural milieu can exist, then multiculturalism must be impossible during an extended amount of time. Agreed? So the driving force of total absorption and uniformity is duration through time...but what happens when all is uniform? Are we to conclude that flux is no longer the driving force? Are we to conclude that time is no longer a factor?

Once uniformity, and stasis, or stagnation (mentioned in the post on devolution) is maintained, what becomes of the society? I personally do not believe all societal institutions serve a function of absorption, because there are institutions that may very well oppose absorption and maintain the possibility of time t(n).

So in other words, there is no such thing as total absorption in the sense that all bow down to one amalgamted preordained culture. It is more likely that a constant feeding of "unique" cultures are exactly what buffer a sort of moving-equilibrium.

Total absorption implies one giant culture. If you think this is how all societies work, then pack your bags and move to india, because I can assure you you will think otherwise when you go. It's quite the stretch of the imagination to say that if the entire world is one big society it must then be one big culture, stagnant, and not very unique, when it is so obvious that the possibility of t(n) is what makes up society to begin with.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:48 am

myhypocricy wrote:
IS Ammerica a melting pot or a salad bowl? Why is it impossible to have a multicultural society? Because I can assure you that at time T(n), the moment of time when a multitude of cultures live near each other in the same society, it is truly a mutlicultural setting--a true salad bowll. What you seem to be getting at is not so much the possibility of uniqueness in relation to a given moment, but through a duration of time. In time salad bowls may end up being melting pots. But don't we run into contradiction when we view possibility and impossibility of multiculturalism via duration in time?

Since we have established that it is very possible at time t(n) that a true multicultural milieu can exist, then multiculturalism must be impossible during an extended amount of time. Agreed? So the driving force of total absorption and uniformity is duration through time...but what happens when all is uniform? Are we to conclude that flux is no longer the driving force? Are we to conclude that time is no longer a factor?

Once uniformity, and stasis, or stagnation (mentioned in the post on devolution) is maintained, what becomes of the society? I personally do not believe all societal institutions serve a function of absorption, because there are institutions that may very well oppose absorption and maintain the possibility of time t(n).

So in other words, there is no such thing as total absorption in the sense that all bow down to one amalgamted preordained culture. It is more likely that a constant feeding of "unique" cultures are exactly what buffer a sort of moving-equilibrium.

Total absorption implies one giant culture. If you think this is how all societies work, then pack your bags and move to india, because I can assure you you will think otherwise when you go. It's quite the stretch of the imagination to say that if the entire world is one big society it must then be one big culture, stagnant, and not very unique, when it is so obvious that the possibility of t(n) is what makes up society to begin with.

Quote :
What you seem to be getting at is not so much the possibility of uniqueness in relation to a given moment, but through a duration of time.

Yes.

Quote :
In time salad bowls may end up being melting pots. But don't we run into contradiction when we view possibility and impossibility of multiculturalism via duration in time?

What I embrace is the observation of multicultural territories and nations that have been assimilated over a period of time which is where I come to my own personal conclusion of things.

For instance take the Southern United States. Instead of a multicultural mosaic of different cultures existing in coexistence together simultaneously in one shared space of territory you have a rising population of one group displacing the rest. (That rising group being Hispanic or Latino.)

That right there amongst other historical examples is enough for me to illustrate the inconsistencies of multiculturalism.

In a way I think multiculturalism was born out of utopian idealism.

A remnant of the so called enlightened era in philosophy.

Quote :
but what happens when all is uniform?

The most nightmarish scenario I think of where multiculturalism will lead the world in a narrow uniformity is a hyper one world culture and race. The extreme opposite of diversity and mosaicism that supposedly multiculturalism supports.

Quote :
I personally do not believe all societal institutions serve a function of absorption, because there are institutions that may very well oppose absorption and maintain the possibility of time t(n).

The only thing that is in the way of complete and entire cultural assorption is traditional cultural perspectives embraced within the people themselves.

However even that is failing due to the success of multiculturalists and political radicals who have now define such traditional cultural perspectives with the defamation of racism. ( To hold any perspectives of traditional culturalism is to be a racist.)

So with political correctness on the side of multiculturalism opposition has become defamed, opposition has become illegal. ( To be opposite of multiculturalism or today's political correctness is to be a heretic of the highest sort.)

Quote :
Total absorption implies one giant culture.

When I discuss about total cultural absorption I'm inclined to think of many cultures being absorbed into a single hyper culture.

Multiculturalism itself as an ideology is hyper- cultural. ( It has always been hyper cultural.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
Ivan
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 96
Registration date : 2009-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:47 am

The Fool wrote:
In a way I think multiculturalism was born out of utopian idealism.

Multiculturalism is an economic policy. That's it; looking for the moral or immoral to it is misguided.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:50 am

Ivan wrote:
The Fool wrote:
In a way I think multiculturalism was born out of utopian idealism.

Multiculturalism is an economic policy. That's it; looking for the moral or immoral to it is misguided.

A economical policy built upon utopian idealism.

A remnant of the fleeting social philosophies born from the disasterous enlightenment era.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
Ivan
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 96
Registration date : 2009-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:38 pm

The Fool wrote:
Ivan wrote:
The Fool wrote:
In a way I think multiculturalism was born out of utopian idealism.

Multiculturalism is an economic policy. That's it; looking for the moral or immoral to it is misguided.

A economical policy built upon utopian idealism.

A remnant of the fleeting social philosophies born from the disasterous enlightenment era.
No, no, no. Then they fooled you. It's made to look that way; but business is the bottom line. This is why multiculturalism ideology is occurring in places without multi-cultures, it creates a positive economic environment. Not just for the businessmen themselves, but for their (foreign) products.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:27 pm

Ivan wrote:
The Fool wrote:
Ivan wrote:
The Fool wrote:
In a way I think multiculturalism was born out of utopian idealism.

Multiculturalism is an economic policy. That's it; looking for the moral or immoral to it is misguided.

A economical policy built upon utopian idealism.

A remnant of the fleeting social philosophies born from the disasterous enlightenment era.
No, no, no. Then they fooled you. It's made to look that way; but business is the bottom line. This is why multiculturalism ideology is occurring in places without multi-cultures, it creates a positive economic environment. Not just for the businessmen themselves, but for their (foreign) products.

I would say it is both. In multiculturalism's historical beginning as an ideology it was all about political correctness within the social public sphere.

( In it's early hay day there was enough local workers where foreign immigrants weren't necessary or of little importance.)

Since then it has transformed itself into economical policy.

( Only when capital markets along with global ones boomed did the political correctness devise transform itself into not just social public policy but into a economical one as cheap foreign immigrants came on demand.)

( In the early 1960's local workers, ethnicities, and cultures began to clash with foreigners through the perceivement of them infringing upon themselves where only then did multiculturalism come in to pacify everyone on a guilt trip through re-education by politically correct means. ( Especially by means of religous organizations if you recall the 1960's civil rights movement.))


Last edited by The Fool on Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:33 am

Quote :
In multiculturalism's historical beginning as an ideology it was all about political correctness within the social public sphere.
Anglo multiculturalism came out of the Raj, long before political correctness.

Quote :
clash with foreigners
Who's the foreigner?

It would be helpful to look at multiculturalism from the other way around. You look at it from the perspective of the national; but it is a weapon against the native: it means: let us in to take your copper and sell you our ABBA CDs, you can't keep us out just because we are a different color or religion!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Fool
Administrator
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 368
Age : 30
Location : United States Midwest
Registration date : 2008-12-12

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:41 am

Quote :
Anglo multiculturalism came out of the Raj, long before political correctness.

Raj?


Quote :
Who's the foreigner? It would be helpful to look at multiculturalism from the other way around. You look at it from the perspective of the national; but it is a weapon against the native: it means: let us in to take your copper and sell you our ABBA CDs, you can't keep us out just because we are a different color or religion!


I would say it's both. That's also a very neat illustration and analogy in that economical multiculturalism has been used for imperial expansion under the guise of peaceful cultural exchange on many occasions. Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:04 pm

The Fool wrote:
Raj?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj


Quote :
I would say it's both.
Of course. It is a diversion: Do as I say -- not as I do!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Flaws Of Multiculturalism   

Back to top Go down
 
Flaws Of Multiculturalism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» A call to reform the procurement reform law

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Sociology-
Jump to: