Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Jacob]

I bet there are literally dozens and dozens of Mosques in Tennessee. There is no credible threat to the ability of Muslims to build mosques in America. The basic tenet that says they can build mosques in America is not "multiculturalism", it is freedom of religion, a principle we've had for quite some time.

Wonderful, and that's how it should be.

I mean, Herman Cain (presidential candidate for the GOP) is on record as being against a mosque being built in Tennessee: http://www.christianpost.com/news/herman-cain-mosque-could-lead-to-sharia-law-52357/

I don't have any serious issues with how you guys go about doing it in the US. The "melting pot" is doing just fine in broad strokes (much like Canadian multiculturalism). If you want to call it something else, that's fine, and if you want to defend it in the name of the basic American ideal of freedom then more power to you.

So there is intolerance in some places. So multuculturalism is simply the idea that tolerance is good? Why the need for a new term then? There has been this idea that tolerance is a good thing for quite some time now.

The term multiculturalism is not particularly new, being coined at least no later than 1971 when Trudeau declared that Canada would adopt multicultural policy.

At the time, at least in Canada, the notion that cultural tolerance was a good thing to the point that it should part of the basic fabric of government was at least somewhat novel. I'm pretty sure that in most places outside of North America the notion was at best an obscure minority position.

The US has it's own thing going with how it deals with and essentially respects the cultures of its immigrants - placing it under the rubric of "as much freedom as possible, the government should stay the fuck out of everyone's business as much as possible." But that's a pretty American thing, isn't it? In places where the government is very much involved in issues of culture, the notion that the government should respect all cultures equally (within a basic framework of respecting human rights and freedoms, of course) rather than enforce the cultural norms of the majority is a relatively new thing I think - and that's what multiculturalism is.

If everyone had your attitude "yeah, so? Tolerance of other cultures, what's the big deal?" then that'd be brilliant. But the notion of tolerance of other cultures is apparently quite controversial in a lot of places still.

So the definition of multicultaralism is that cultures get to to do whatever they like? I still don't see how this is differentiated.

Uhm... no.

Individuals get to do whatever they want as long as what they want doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Some women would like to wear scarves to cover their hair as according to their culture that's modest. That's enough of a problem in several Western liberal countries that they're outlawing the practice outright.

And if they were more multicultural, they would allow this? Funny that are your examples are specifically religious in nature. Why?

Yeah, they would. I'm a bit surprised that you're arguing this, though. I'd have thought you'd be against outlawing people wearing whatever headwear they want, for whatever reason.

In any case, for some people wearing the scarf is due to cultural identification rather than religious purposes. Plenty of cultural expression overlaps with religious expression. I don't see why that should invalidate anything.

But not one where there is any difference between your definition of multiculturalism and simple tolerance of religious differences.

Well, someone (dps, I believe) helpfully asked some questions about food and language elsewhere.

But yeah, in many cases cultural and religious tolerance overlap. It doesn't invalidate the need for either.

Well, no, not if it is just limited to what examples you have given. The labels for dealing with religious freedom and tolerance have been around for a long time and perfectly describe everything you've given so far.

Then we don't have much to argue about other than a label, apprently

However, I think that you'll find that upon closer examination 99% of multicultural policies in fact are just about that - religious and cultural freedom and tolerance - that and serving the population's needs better, in spite of what the many vehement critics decry.

If you want to strip the term "multiculturalism" out of everything (because apparently it's a failure, though it's working quite here in Canada where I'm pretty sure we coined the term for our own version of the US "melting pot" paradigm) but protected religious freedom and (non-harmful) cultural expression (individual and community based) while being committed to delivering government services in the most efficient way (which means taking into consideration the culture of the target demographics) then I'd be perfectly content.

But somehow I don't think most of the opponents of "multiculturalism" would be okay with that.

For some reason I suspect that is not the case. I don't think there are too many people who argue that multiculteralism is simply tolerance of different religious views. If that is the case, we have that in spades in the US, for example, for quite some time. And yet people commonly refer to the term in a manner that implies that it applies more to Europe than the US. Why, if in fact it just means "Hey, lets let other people practice their religion without undue interference".

It's not just about religion, but also about things like language and identity. If somebody wants to wave some Mexican flags around to celebrate some holiday, for example, that shouldn't be a big controversy (as it sometimes is). And if a particular set of government services are better delivered by having a Tagalog speaker available in the office, then that's cool and shouldn't be a big controversy either.

Your definition strikes me as similar to Republicans defining Conservatism as "Conservatism is about respect for core American values and love of the Constitution!"

Ok 

I'm not sure what you're really taking issue with, to be honest. It seems that in terms of actual substance we're pretty much on the same page.

I call it multiculturalism because that's what we call it in Canada where we coined the term (I'm pretty sure).

Now, there's the caricature of multiculturalism going as well - the one so many people are against - is the one where you can't stop honour killings or clitorectomies and so on. The thing is, I don't know of any advocates of multiculturalism who actually use that definiton (with the exception of people in favour of honour killings and clitorectomies trying to get people to leave them alone, but that doesn't make it so).

And since I don't believe that anyone - at least on a government level - has ever advocated that sort of multiculturalism at all, I believe that the very strong opposition to multiculturalism is mostly about being intolerant of those who are not of the majority culture.

That's certainly what Slargos, Grallon and their ilk are going on about. When they rail about the evils of multiculturalism, they bring up the strawman ("it's their culture to rape women and murder non-believers and we HAVE to allow it if we're multicultural") to justify the intolerant discrimination against their "cultural inferiors" that's so dear to their hearts.

If it's not, then it's about being against policies that aren't implemented. So what is there to roll back? Why get so up in arms about something that's not implemented, and which there is no serious push to implement?

[Jacob]

When I hear the term multiculturalism I think of positive efforts made to encourage minorities to hold on to their culture and traditions.  As opposed to the more laissez faire tolerance.

I think those are nice. I mean, if we accept that expressions of culture are fine (again, within the basic liberal respect of the rights of others framework) then it's a nice thing to encourage people to express and hang on to their cultures. But really, that primarily comes from the people of that culture than any outside agency. All it's really about in my view is that if the local parks board is going to build baseball diamonds for little league teams in the city, then they should consider to build a cricket ground as well if there are enough people in town who might use it; even if cricket grounds are kind of a new thing in the city.

As I've touched on elsewhere it's also about things delivering services in languages other than that of the majority. It could be framed as "encouraging people to retain their culture" but it could equally well be framed as "delivering services efficiently, with respect for the recipients."

That said, I'm happy with laissez faire tolerance. Unfortunately, even that seems to be a bit of a rearguard action in many places in Europe.

[Ideologue]

When multiculturalism means you can't say things like what Grallon and Slargos say, it's gone too far.  You (Europe, not you, Jacob) ironically make their point for them: by eroding the freedom to say reprehensible things, you make the statement that freedom is only for things you like.

And when only the freedom to do things someone in power likes are allowed, sooner or later someone will come to power you do not like, and who does not like you, and freedom that has value to you will be trampled.

There's also the notion that by not--at least socially--compelling assimilation, eventually you may wind up with a separate, well-organized group that has the power to bend a democracy to its own ends.  The Christian right in America is an egregious domestic example of this.  To be honest, I can't think of an immigrant group that has done or is likely to do the same harm, at least to a democratic, modern country, but it is conceivably possible.

I strongly dislike Islam, for example, and would never want to see Muslims gain the same ascendancy as Christians in the United States.  That is a ludicrous fear in America (and one exploited by far more dangerous Abrahamics); I do not know if it is a ludicrous fear in Europe.  Given the folks who espouse it tend to be the same sort of rightist nutjobs with whom I am familiar with in my own cultural context, instead of the balls of light I know most Europeans to be, one suspects that it is, but geographically and demographically, it's a fear that has far more plausibility.

[Jacob]

Consent is a cultural concept.

Sure, if you say so. But it nonetheless falls within the broader rubric of "...within the context of respects for the rights of others" which all cultural expressions have to fall within in a multicultural society.

[Queequeg]

Spreading opium addiction throughout the American West only seems fair given that Americans made lots of money from spreading opium addiction throughout China during the very same time period.

?

I wasn't aware of any American involvement in the Opium wars.  Or the entire sordid history of European power games in China in the 19th Century.

[jimmy olsen]

When multiculturalism means you can't say things like what Grallon and Slargos say, it's gone too far.  You (Europe, not you, Jacob) ironically make their point for them: by eroding the freedom to say reprehensible things, you make the statement that freedom is only for things you like.

And when only the freedom to do things someone in power likes are allowed, sooner or later someone will come to power you do not like, and who does not like you, and freedom that has value to you will be trampled.

Eloquently put

[Jacob]

Spreading opium addiction throughout the American West only seems fair given that Americans made lots of money from spreading opium addiction throughout China during the very same time period.

?

While the British were the the driving force behind the Opium Wars and the trade of opium to China, there were many American traders willing to ride their coat tails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recreational_use_outside_of_China_.2815th_to_19th_century.29

Some competition came from the newly independent United States, which began to compete in Guangzhou (Canton) selling Turkish opium in the 1820s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bennet_Forbes

[Robert Bennet Forbes] was born in Jamaica Plain, near Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Ralph Bennet Forbes and wife Margaret Perkins, of the Perkins family, and brother of John Murray Forbes. "As a member of the Forbes family of Boston, much of his wealth was derived from the opium and China Trade and he played a prominent role in the outbreak of the Opium War. Despite the ethical problems of dealing in opium, he was known to engage in humanitarian activities, such as commandeering the USS Jamestown to send food to Irish famine sufferers in 1847."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs

China was defeated and the war ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which protected foreign opium traders from Chinese law. A related American treaty promised to end the smuggling of opium by Americans. It took until the next Opium War for the trade to be legalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_nanking

Nevertheless, the treaties of 1842–43 left several unsettled issues. In particular it did not resolve the status of the opium trade. Although the American treaty of 1844 explicitly banned Americans from selling opium, the trade continued as both the British and American merchants were only subject to the legal control of their consuls. The opium trade was later legalised in the Treaties of Tianjin, which China concluded after the Second Opium War.

[Jacob]

I wasn't aware of any American involvement in the Opium wars.  Or the entire sordid history of European power games in China in the 19th Century.

Like I said, the Brits lead the charge but plenty of Western powers took advantage at the time. The general pattern was that whenever the Brits forced an unequal treaty on the Chinese or some concession, the other powers - including the Americans - soon got similar treaties or concession for themselves if they were not signatories to the original deal (the Brits occassionally liked to include other powers so they could frame their various actions as being about principles of free trade rather than mere self-serving ambition). One example is the Treaty of Tientsin.

There was some minor US involvement in the Second Opium War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War

The U.S. was involved in two campaigns however, the first in retaliation for a Chinese attack on a U.S. Navy officer. The resulting campaign was the Battle of the Pearl River Forts, near Canton. The second was in 1859 when a U.S. warship, the USS San Jacinto bombarded the Taku Forts in support of British and French troops on the ground.

That said, I don't think any opprobrium falls particularly on the US compared to any of the European powers at the time; certainly the Brits were the driving force.

My point was merely that American sold opium to the Chinese before the Chinese sold it to the Americans.

[Jacob]

When multiculturalism means you can't say things like what Grallon and Slargos say, it's gone too far.  You (Europe, not you, Jacob) ironically make their point for them: by eroding the freedom to say reprehensible things, you make the statement that freedom is only for things you like.

Which things that Grallon and Slargos say? That 'the other people' should all be killed because otherwise they'll destroy us?

There's also the notion that by not--at least socially--compelling assimilation, eventually you may wind up with a separate, well-organized group that has the power to bend a democracy to its own ends.

Isn't that the point of democracy? For people to bend it to their own ends?

The Christian right in America is an egregious domestic example of this.  To be honest, I can't think of an immigrant group that has done or is likely to do the same harm, at least to a democratic, modern country, but it is conceivably possible.

... but that's hardly an immigration problem is it? I mean, those people are descended from immigrants, sure, but their immigrant ancestors were not members of the Christian Right, by and large, because no such thing existed when they immigrated.

I strongly dislike Islam, for example, and would never want to see Muslims gain the same ascendancy as Christians in the United States.  That is a ludicrous fear in America (and one exploited by far more dangerous Abrahamics); I do not know if it is a ludicrous fear in Europe.

It is.

[Razgovory]

I mean, Herman Cain (presidential candidate for the GOP) is on record as being against a mosque being built in Tennessee: http://www.christianpost.com/news/herman-cain-mosque-could-lead-to-sharia-law-52357/

Herman Cain is on record of being against laws that are over three pages long.

[The Brain]

Multiculturalism is retarded. Society cannot function well unless there is a dominant culture within it. Having several cultures side by side doesn't work well in a modern society. And by culture I mean the basic way you view and interact with other humans, not whether you go to a church or a mosque or how you choose to display your lack of dress sense or which ethnic dish you prefer.

Difference without clash: I say christmas, you say hanukkah
Difference with clash: people must never criticize my religion

[Tamas]

Multiculturalism is retarded. Society cannot function well unless there is a dominant culture within it. Having several cultures side by side doesn't work well in a modern society. And by culture I mean the basic way you view and interact with other humans, not whether you go to a church or a mosque or how you choose to display your lack of dress sense or which ethnic dish you prefer.

Difference without clash: I say christmas, you say hanukkah
Difference with clash: people must never criticize my religion

[Martinus]

To elaborate on Jacob said, I think the sane multiculturalism is essentially eudaimonics applied to people of different cultures. It is the same argument as allowing gays to marry - as long as it makes people happier and does not harm anyone, why shouldn't the state allow it?

[Martinus]

Now, there's the caricature of multiculturalism going as well - the one so many people are against - is the one where you can't stop honour killings or clitorectomies and so on.

The thing is, the line is not as clearly drawn as you claim. The slaughter of animals thread proves that there is quite a division as to what people perceive to be "harmless" and "harmful" expression of different cultures. There is also an issue of circumcision of boys for example. Or arranged marriages. Or polygamy. A lot of cultural issues like this are in a grey area, and this creates conflicts.

I am not saying that your approach is wrong, just that you seem to draw this rosy, optimistic picture of these issues being a no brainer, but they aren't.

[Tamas]

To elaborate on Jacob said, I think the sane multiculturalism is essentially eudaimonics applied to people of different cultures. It is the same argument as allowing gays to marry - as long as it makes people happier and does not harm anyone, why shouldn't the state allow it?

for sure, altough in that specific example, it is only true while we are talking about the legal aspect of marriage. The state should have no reason to deny same-sex people to be legally considered married.

However, the state also should have no say in forcing gay couples down the throat of churches - if people have in their backward instruction manual for life that "ghey sex is teh evöl", they should be left free to deny church weddings to gays.