Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Barrister]

Tell that to Sarkozy.

In Sarkozy's case each immigrant generation married a frenchman/frenchwoman and assymilating. Anecdotes do not trends make. But, not all immigrants are equal. A Hungarian or a Greek (in Sarkozy's case) are much much easier to assymilate than a turk or a berber. In my case as and Icelander I'm pre-assymilated in Scandinavia as I'm considered one of "us". Europe has through history had a constant flow of people and refugees for centuries, usually moving to a polity more tolerant of their religion/politics. The Mayflower is just a continuation of an old tradition. This tradition is, however, a tradition of moving towards similarity rather than towards difference. Hugenot Protestants would move to Protestant England, English Catholics would move to France.

The concept of multi culturalism was invented in the 1960's in concert with post-modernism and cultural relativism and has a common set of assumptions (yes I know, post-modernism using meta-narratives, how droll). This happened at the same time as a new form of immigrant arrived in western europe, the guest worker. Never intended to be assimilated he was not and still has not.

Are you really arguing there's any meaningful difference between a Greek and a Turk?

[Slargos]

Turks are generally more hard working.

[Valmy]

I'd consider the war of the Vendee a bit more then a "bit histrionically hostile".  It was a act of Genocide that the would make the Soviets proud (and in fact they used it as an example of what a revolutionary regime should do).

Yes that was irony.  It is quite intensly histrionically hostile.  But still it is hardly characteristic of the process which took a long time to happen and was not, by and large, done in that fashion.  The process I am talking about largely happened post 1870 not 1793.

[Razgovory]

Are you really arguing there's any meaningful difference between a Greek and a Turk?

A Greek is a Turk who's on our side.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the term multiculturalism takes on some added meaning when you consider that it was originally coined by the francophone leader of a majority English country.

[crazy canuck]

I think the term multiculturalism takes on some added meaning when you consider that it was originally coined by the francophone leader of a majority English country.

And was specifically designed to differentiate Canada from the Melting Pot of the US.

[Barrister]

I think the term multiculturalism takes on some added meaning when you consider that it was originally coined by the francophone leader of a majority English country.

You sure about that etymology?

[Admiral Yi]

You sure about that etymology?

No.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I think overall I cannot really accept Jacobs definition of multiculturalism. I think of it more as a subset of the tolerance he is talking about, or even a rejection that that tolerance is adequate.

MC suggests that more than just tolerance is needed - active accommodation to differing cultures, even at the expense of the "host" culture, is required. The host culture must not only tolerate the other culture, it must even adapt itself to the secondary culture to cater to it if necessary to accomdate those elements that the immigrant culture find important. After all, if all culture are equally valid, then why should Muslim immigrants be required to adapt to French norms? Rather France should actively shift their norms to make room for the secondary culture.

MC is, to me, not so much about allowing other languages, but rather *requiring* that signs be in both languages, even if one is a clear minority (for example).

The American ideal of tolerance is that you can come here, and hang onto whatever culture you like, to whatever extent you like, but you should have no real expectation that American culture will actively change to accommodate you. It might - because cultures are hardly static - but that change will be driven by cultural evolution, so to speak, nt by any active decisions on the part of political parties to protect or integrate portions. American culture will assimilate those things that America as a whole finds culturally useful or compelling, as opposed to those things that the immigrant culture might find important to them.

We love your food, so please open an Indian restaurant so we can eat it. However, that Hindu crap about castes? Yeah, that is stupid, so it is going to have to be left at the border. Beatles yes, boiling our meat, no.

The key is that it is American culture that picks and chooses what gets assimilated. We make no promises that what the immigrant culture finds important will be retained.

[crazy canuck]

I think the term multiculturalism takes on some added meaning when you consider that it was originally coined by the francophone leader of a majority English country.

You sure about that etymology?

Pretty sure it became widely used during the first Trudeau term - he may not have coined it but the Liberal Party certainly built it into their platform and enjoyed electoral success for decades because of it since I think most Canadian would view MC differently then how Berkut described it.

[Malthus]

Yeah, I think overall I cannot really accept Jacobs definition of multiculturalism. I think of it more as a subset of the tolerance he is talking about, or even a rejection that that tolerance is adequate.

MC suggests that more than just tolerance is needed - active accommodation to differing cultures, even at the expense of the "host" culture, is required. The host culture must not only tolerate the other culture, it must even adapt itself to the secondary culture to cater to it if necessary to accomdate those elements that the immigrant culture find important. After all, if all culture are equally valid, then why should Muslim immigrants be required to adapt to French norms? Rather France should actively shift their norms to make room for the secondary culture.

MC is, to me, not so much about allowing other languages, but rather *requiring* that signs be in both languages, even if one is a clear minority (for example).

The American ideal of tolerance is that you can come here, and hang onto whatever culture you like, to whatever extent you like, but you should have no real expectation that American culture will actively change to accommodate you. It might - because cultures are hardly static - but that change will be driven by cultural evolution, so to speak, nt by any active decisions on the part of political parties to protect or integrate portions. American culture will assimilate those things that America as a whole finds culturally useful or compelling, as opposed to those things that the immigrant culture might find important to them.

We love your food, so please open an Indian restaurant so we can eat it. However, that Hindu crap about castes? Yeah, that is stupid, so it is going to have to be left at the border. Beatles yes, boiling our meat, no.

The key is that it is American culture that picks and chooses what gets assimilated. We make no promises that what the immigrant culture finds important will be retained.

This is certainly not how "multiculturalism' is viewed in Canada. There is no expectation that the "host culture" has to conform to the "immigrant culture".

Rather, there is an aknowledgement that people have a right to retain what they want from their own culture - so long as this conforms to the rule of law. It is non-intervention and reasonable accomodation. 

Unlike, apparently, America, we have no public cultural enforcer who prevents one from boiling one's meat, if one wishes to do so. 

[Razgovory]

You do have public enforcers to require that signs and labels be in French, which strikes me as enforced multiculturalism.

[Valmy]

This is certainly not how "multiculturalism' is viewed in Canada. There is no expectation that the "host culture" has to conform to the "immigrant culture".

Rather, there is an aknowledgement that people have a right to retain what they want from their own culture - so long as this conforms to the rule of law. It is non-intervention and reasonable accomodation. 

Was there a period in Canadian history where people did not have this right?

[ulmont]

The key is that it is American culture that picks and chooses what gets assimilated. We make no promises that what the immigrant culture finds important will be retained.

...yes, we do.  But only for the religious points:

a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

[Admiral Yi]

That doesn't sound anything like a promise that what the immigrant finds important will be retained.