Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Valmy]

Well, certainly cultures have changed in America, but then so what? I mean, it isn't like Italians back in Italy are still the same as Italians in 1910, right? 

Yes they changed and became part of the mainsteam.  The extent it exists at all are simply fond memories like Irish Americans on St. Patrick's day.  As it should be.  That is a tad more dramatic than the evolution of a distinct Italian-American culture.

[Valmy]

They ("we" really, since I'm a kid of immigrants) join the mainstream culture soon enough. Multi Culturalism, as I see it, isn't permanent tribalism as some try to portray here, but more of a buffer between old and new with a constant turnover.

Yep.  Which is why I find the term a bit misleading.  A society with multiple cultures is not really the outcome.  Rather one with many more cultural bases.

[Martinus]

claims by Anders Behring Breivik, who has admitted carrying out Friday's twin attacks in Norway, that he has "two more cells" working

That would be his brain cells.

[Malthus]

Nobody sane wants Sharia law being introduced as an equal system of law in western societies. Nobody wants women to be forced to be married etc.

If that's multiculturalism hardly anyone supports it.

You might not be aware that the introduction of Sharia as a valid, parallel legal system was almost accomplished in Ontario a few years ago...  I daresay there will more attempts in the future.




G.

No matter how many times I read this, or variations on it, it always makes me laugh. 

No, Grallon, it is not the case.

What happened is that some people freaked out about Sharia-based arbitration. Cooler heads eventually prevailed, and the actual source of rational concern (the use of arbitration in family-law matters) identified, and limited; and life goes on.

You can, right now, do Sharia-based commercial arbitration in Ontario if you want to*. Oh noes!


*You can also do Klingon-based commercial arbitration if you want to ... 

[Martinus]

Apparently, the mats the guy used to build his bomb were sold to him by a Polish businessman from Wroclaw(Breslau).

Poland! Poland! Poland! 

Wow, Wroclaw is Breslau? I heard it's a nice place, my company has a new office there, my office might be closed because of them one day.

Wroclaw/Breslau Languish Meet! They won the title of the "European Capital of Culture" recently for one of the upcoming years.

[Valmy]

*You can also do Klingon-based commercial arbitration if you want to ... 

Sweeeet!

[HVC]

*You can also do Klingon-based commercial arbitration if you want to ... 

just think of all the personal safety waivers you'd have to sign. Lawyers would make a killing on paper work alone. You're sneaky bastards!

[Malthus]

Are you seriously saying that all those who think that halal/kosher slaughter should be banned are really doing this out of hatred for islam or judaism and intolerance?

The issue of tolerance isn't simply about hatred of one group or another, but about justifying (or putting aside) that visceral reaction of "eeeeww!" when confronted with habits that do not match one's own.

Lots of people who are not gay are simply squigged out by homosexuality, particularly by those who practice anal sex, and justify that gut-reaction by adopting an anti-gay stance; they are all the more likely to view it as a public-heath risk, as "not normal", as "degenerate", etc. They may not be inherently gay-hating, but their unwillingness to set aside their gut feelings and attempt to examine matters objectively makes them so.

Similarly, lots of folks are squigged out by slaughter that involves slitting the throat (as opposed to driving a bolt through the brain). They are all the more likely to view it as "cruel" and "inhuman". They may have nothing in particular against Jews or Muslims, but again, their unwillingness to set aside their feelings and examine the matter objectively makes them so.

In both cases, one could if one wanted to justify the "ewww, yuck" reaction; in both cases, the justification is on its face weak and lame, and on its merits would not satisfy a neutral observer that restrictions on the practice are really justified. There is a lack of scientific evidence, for example, that animals killed by having their throats cut by ritual slaughterers actually suffer measurably more than animals being bolted. But scientific evidence isn't what that debate was about - it was more about the "eeeww" factor.

The difference of course is that gay men are born with a need to have sex with other men, but noone is born with a biological need to slit animals' throats.

That's not a significant diffence. If gay sex actually was objectively harmful to society, the fact that gay men were born with such a sex drive would not be any sort of excuse: see pedophiles.

[Martinus]

Exactly. Multiculturalism is just a slightly different way of expressing an ideal, similar to that American ideal, in the context of how different cultures interact.

The term multiculturalism suggests that different cultures can exist side by side.  I think, at least my American in me feels, that that is just impossible.  Both cultures will die (and rather quickly, in just a few generations) and be replaced by a new one with aspects of both.  Multi-culturalism actually means the death of culture which, to me, is fine but it seems a bit disingenous to sell it otherwise.  Our melting pot is honest and to the point.  Yes your culture will be preserved but not as it entered this country and this country will be changed by your arrival and joining our colorful tapestry of American slobbery.

I think it really depends how you define "culture" - I think it means something else in America than it does in Europe. In Europe, culture is much more ethnically ingrained, in America it is more of an overall template, not like that of the Imperial Rome (where they would adopt foreign gods or give them Roman names and tell people to worship the Ceasar - the European approach to culture is more like that of crusaders who would kill anyone not worshipping their only god).

[Viking]

Exactly. Multiculturalism is just a slightly different way of expressing an ideal, similar to that American ideal, in the context of how different cultures interact.

The term multiculturalism suggests that different cultures can exist side by side.  I think, at least my American in me feels, that that is just impossible.  Both cultures will die (and rather quickly, in just a few generations) and be replaced by a new one with aspects of both.  Multi-culturalism actually means the death of culture which, to me, is fine but it seems a bit disingenous to sell it otherwise.  Our melting pot is honest and to the point.  Yes your culture will be preserved but not as it entered this country and this country will be changed by your arrival and joining our colorful tapestry of American slobbery.

But that is true of cultures in isolation - none simply continue unchanged. Cultures change all the time, whether one wants that or not.

Fact is though that some people don't seem to have much of a problem carrying on side by side with different folkways. See my own city as example.

I'd rather point out that what is being objected to is not the brown people living next door, it is the permissive attitude from his own society which permits the brown people next door to maintain an identity of otherness vis a vis the society around them meaning that they don't assimilate generation after generation assisted by the helpful social worker which assists them in not assimilating and the immigration system which permits them to import spouses for the legal residents each generation from pakistan (as happens in norway). These are not your 3rd generation american style immigrant that is 1/8 creol, 3/8ths japanese, 1/4 Irish and 1/4 Lebanese.

[dps]

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 agree.  For example, there are calls to move away from teaching non-English speaking immigrants (and their children) English, and making education only available to them in their native languages.  While I have no problem (within budgetary limits) with making some instruction available in other languages for those who haven't mastered English yet, making it tougher for them to learn English is just wrong IMO, not because they should be required to learn English, but because those who don't will be so badly economically disadvantaged in our society in most cases.

[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?

Who is going to decide whether the act causes sufficient happiness and no harm and on what basis?   Havent you just defined "sane" multiculturalism as things that make Marti happy.

Shouldn't there be a more basic recognition of cultural differences and values so long as they do not violate the general and criminal law.

And who decides what violates the general and criminal law? You are talking as if law was immutable or a given - it is the expression of the will of the people. Surely, the law actually reflects what the majority sees as being harmful or beneficial - no?

Why do you also require that cultural practices make people "happier" - a rather hedonistic and impossibly subjective requirement.

Happiness is not about hedonism - the principle of making as many people as possible as much happy as possible and as little people as possible as little unhappy as possible is the basis of the utilitarian ethics.

[Viking]

But that is true of cultures in isolation - none simply continue unchanged. Cultures change all the time, whether one wants that or not.

Fact is though that some people don't seem to have much of a problem carrying on side by side with different folkways. See my own city as example. 

And even then it's not a static stratification. To an outsider it might seem that little Italy (or Portugal, or whatever) remains an unchanged section of town. But that's not true. Kids and grand kids move out to other parts of the city as they start to identify themselves as "Canadian" over what their cultural heritage is. As they leave they're replaced by new immigrants. They ("we" really, since I'm a kid of immigrants) join the mainstream culture soon enough. Multi Culturalism, as I see it, isn't permanent tribalism as some try to portray here, but more of a buffer between old and new with a constant turnover.

This is the melting pot as I have seen it. This is what we want. What we don't want is the third generation immigrant who's primary identity is the old country because for three generations his family have been told that they are different, that they will never be like the society around them and their troubles are due to discrimination and hatred by the evil local culture.

[Martinus]

*You can also do Klingon-based commercial arbitration if you want to ... 

Sweeeet!

What about Ferengi-based commercial arbitration? Or would that be indistinguishable from Talmud law?

[Cecil]

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 agree.  For example, there are calls to move away from teaching non-English speaking immigrants (and their children) English, and making education only available to them in their native languages.  While I have no problem (within budgetary limits) with making some instruction available in other languages for those who haven't mastered English yet, making it tougher for them to learn English is just wrong IMO, not because they should be required to learn English, but because those who don't will be so badly economically disadvantaged in our society in most cases.

OMG RACIST. 

And yes writing what you just wrote would be enough to get that label flung at you over here.