Multicultural Societies

[Blue_UK]

In Britain, there are many government activities trying to promote 'multiculturalism'. This is due to the enormous variety of ethnic communities and their associated religions and subcultures.

I have been wondering: which is more socially stable: a state with ONE culture or a state with many cultures?

It is important to note here that this question has nothing to do with which culture the 'one' culture would be, nor do I imply that if one culture was better we should forcefully direct the country to conform.

<hr>
It is my belief that it is in human nature to be naturally suspisious of people not in your social group and to take offence far more easily. For example, I buy my meat from an asian local butcher whose shop is called "UK Halal Meat", the only butcher within lazy walking distance. I was buying stuff with a friend and he was slightly nervous about eating 'halal' meat (meat that is ok for muslims to eat). I was about to say out loud "Oh it's ok, its exactly the same as the normal stuff," when it struck me that I very much doubt the shopkeeper or any other muslims in the shop would agree with me on that one!

Many cultures do things in the same way. For example, no one is offended by the use of toilet paper! But where there is lifestyle conflict, like in the food example above, there are also oppertunities of offence and social segregation. Does this really help society? Wouldn't things be much better if there was just one culture? I would expect that in may years to come, there probably will be one main culture and it will contain a mix of elements from varying previous ones. Mainstream British culture has already adopted various components, such as Tikka Massala from Indian/Bangladeshi immagrants.

There is nothing wrong with being considerate to the subcultures, but surely we should be promoting integration rather than going head-over-heals to accomidate their differances. A good example to finish on is the case of school uniforms (that's uniform, not polyform) in British and French schools.

Recently in the UK, a young girl won a court hearing for the right to wear her head-scarf to a school which initially asked her not to wear it. In France, a simular conflict was resolved with the disallowing of religious clothing in schools in a bid to promote social integration.

 

[Light]

In Britain, there are many government activities trying to promote 'multiculturalism'. This is due to the enormous variety of ethnic communities and their associated religions and subcultures.

I have been wondering: which is more socially stable: a state with ONE culture or a state with many cultures?

It is important to note here that this question has nothing to do with which culture the 'one' culture would be, nor do I imply that if one culture was better we should forcefully direct the country to conform.

<hr>
It is my belief that it is in human nature to be naturally suspisious of people not in your social group and to take offence far more easily. For example, I buy my meat from an asian local butcher whose shop is called "UK Halal Meat", the only butcher within lazy walking distance. I was buying stuff with a friend and he was slightly nervous about eating 'halal' meat (meat that is ok for muslims to eat). I was about to say out loud "Oh it's ok, its exactly the same as the normal stuff," when it struck me that I very much doubt the shopkeeper or any other muslims in the shop would agree with me on that one!

Many cultures do things in the same way. For example, no one is offended by the use of toilet paper! But where there is lifestyle conflict, like in the food example above, there are also oppertunities of offence and social segregation. Does this really help society? Wouldn't things be much better if there was just one culture? I would expect that in may years to come, there probably will be one main culture and it will contain a mix of elements from varying previous ones. Mainstream British culture has already adopted various components, such as Tikka Massala from Indian/Bangladeshi immagrants.

There is nothing wrong with being considerate to the subcultures, but surely we should be promoting integration rather than going head-over-heals to accomidate their differances. A good example to finish on is the case of school uniforms (that's uniform, not polyform) in British and French schools.

Recently in the UK, a young girl won a court hearing for the right to wear her head-scarf to a school which initially asked her not to wear it. In France, a simular conflict was resolved with the disallowing of religious clothing in schools in a bid to promote social integration.

There is a great deal of truth in what you've said.

For many, many years, the U.S. was considered a "Great Melting Pot" which many cultures contributed to. Many things were assimilated into the mainstream and many other cultural items and practices simply faded away.

Yes, there were many pockets that consisted of a single culture or two, for example the China Towns, the Amish, and others. But on the whole, there was no real issue raised over these groups and no effort was made to provide special accomodations for them in general society, as in bi- and multilingual school classes, ballots, etc. Whenever they interacted with the major culture, they did so on it's terms (learned English, for example) and there were no real problems.

And yes, it's true - and sometimes a shame, even - that some cultural practices become lost in the process. But overall it seems to work out better that way. You can still have Chinese, Italian, Mexican and other restaurants that serve traditional foods, homes that reflect different cultures, etc.

But when everyone speaks the same language, communications between individuals and groups is much better and smoother. And if everyone in the society follows the same general guidelines for what is acceptable and what isn't, there is MUCH less friction and discontent.

There will always be some differences, of course, but it's only when those differences are glaringly in opposition that trouble arises. Consider that even among the so-called White race, there are individual differences - things like hair and eye color, the tint of skin, regional dialects, choice of clothing, different preferences in the style of homes, movies, sports and other entertainment. But those differences seldom lead to anything confrontational.

Whenever any society tries to allow broad multi-cultural differences is when clashes occur. I can't quote any specific numbers at the moment, but in some states the ballots must be printed in as many as five or six different languages. That places an extra burden of cost on the state and is actually only the tip of an iceberg worth of troubles. In the primary grades of schools where books are furnished by the state, they have to be bought in different languages. There are several other problems as well.

But even those things - which are very obvious - do not address the main problem: the one in which people feel disjointed, not even a part of the "main" group, and are left with the feeling that their special "needs" are being ignored. And that's where the whole society breaks down into fragments divided against one another. And it often becomes a serious problem.

 

[Blue_UK]

individual differences - things like hair and eye color, the tint of skin, regional dialects, choice of clothing, different preferences in the style of homes, movies, sports and other entertainment. But those differences seldom lead to anything confrontational.

Excelent point.

As you say, things like fashion don't cause that many disharmonies - but it's things like religion, where people truely believe that certain ways of living are wrong, that cause the kind of conflict I am refering to.

One of my collegues at work, an 18 yr old Pakistani, mentioned that he sympathised with the 9/11 attackers. "Even though killing innocent people is wrong, the Americans had it coming. They're bastards."

Even as a British person who doesn't care much about what happens containably outside of his island, I was not at all impressed with this guy's general idocy. I thought about getting him busted for cocaine dealing (which he does in small amounts apparently), but my main concern is the root culture behind his - and presumably many others - point of view.

 

[Xerxes]

Get him busted? I would have broken his jaw for saying shit like that.

To answer your question- a state with many cultures. It's harder for one group to sieze power when the society has so many diverse groups. Even idiots.

 

[Blue_UK]

If there was one majority group, what would be the problem of it seizing power?

 

[Baron Max]

If there was one majority group, what would be the problem of it seizing power?

Look at history ...seizing power is really not all that difficult. Holding it is a very, very difficult thing to do, indeed! Especially in the present world political climate. And if you check history, you'll see that the group(s) who held power the longest were the also the most ruthless and dangerous.

Just think about it for a moment; how long would a leader like, say, Saddam Hussein have allowed the rioting and looting and killing that's going on in France right now? Or how 'bout Genghis Khan? How 'bout Alexander the Great? ...and many, many others.

Baron Max

 

[Blue_UK]

No, no you don't understand the point (or I don't understand Xerxes or probably both).

If there was one group that wanted power, and they were the only group, then no one would have any problems with that by definition. If there were many groups, then this would not alviate the situations to which you refer like the middle east.

The topic here is: one culture vs. many cultures and the conflicts of lifestyle that occur.

 

[Xerxes]

You have many interest groups/parties- they forms coalitions (majorities), the coalitions split and break into different coalitions and so on, forming new majorities, and the power balances itself out this way.

Baron Max, you give examples of great leaders, but what about the shitty ones? Robert Moses had full control of New York and almost destroyed Manhattan before getting ousted (he ruined many other parts of the city earlier..)

Take a look at the Americas politcal system, and then compare it to most Europian/Canadian ones. Multi-party goes hand in hand with multi-culture works better.

 

[Blue_UK]

coalitions split and break into different coalitions and so on, forming new majorities, and the power balances itself out this way.

This sort of behaviour is exactly why governments like those in Italy are so short lived and unstable. Continually reforming and joining such that combined votes get the power.

But all of this is besides the point - I am not talking about single-party democracy when I talk about single culture society.

 

[JFS321]

America was the Great Melting Pot, but you have to think that during this time it was mainly white ethnic groups being melting together. Perhaps only now, with African/Asian/Arabic populations truly beginning to rise, will we see how much of a Melting Pot we are.

 

[Baron Max]

But all of this is besides the point - I am not talking about single-party democracy when I talk about single culture society.

Yes, I understand. But even in a single-cultural society, there will be various opinions on things such as how to run the nation. Just because a nation has only one culture, doesnt' mean that it will be without problems.

However, if I read your concerns properly, then I have to agree that a multi-cultural society WILL have more internal problems than a single-culture society. But I'm not so sure that there IS such a thing in the world ...or ever will be again. Attaining such "purity" would be impossible.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

America was the Great Melting Pot, but you have to think that during this time it was mainly white ethnic groups being melting together. Perhaps only now, with African/Asian/Arabic populations truly beginning to rise, will we see how much of a Melting Pot we are.

One thing that stands out, I think, is that in the early days, America really was a "melting pot" ....meaning all or most of the cultures "became" American. they learned English, they learned the American systems, etc. As more and more different cultures arrived, they began to ...NOT... "melt" into the American culture, but attempted to remain a distinct culture WITHIN the American culture. And slowly, the American culture, the "melting pot" principle was lost. We're now not "American", but we're "(something-or-other)-American" ....we've lost the idea, the principle of being American.

Baron Max

 

[Light]

One thing that stands out, I think, is that in the early days, America really was a "melting pot" ....meaning all or most of the cultures "became" American. they learned English, they learned the American systems, etc. As more and more different cultures arrived, they began to ...NOT... "melt" into the American culture, but attempted to remain a distinct culture WITHIN the American culture. And slowly, the American culture, the "melting pot" principle was lost. We're now not "American", but we're "(something-or-other)-American" ....we've lost the idea, the principle of being American.

Baron Max

Hi, Baron,

I could be wrong but I slightly disagree with the thought that "we've lost the idea." It seems that a very large number of Americans still think it's a good idea and that moving away from it is bad, needlessly expensive, and potentially dangerous.

At the risk of starting a debate about conservatism/liberalism, it's primarily the extreme liberals that are creating a problem that is very costly to this nation by encouraging exactly the opposite of the "melting pot" approach.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, it results in expensive multi-lingual school classes - including teachers and supplies, ballots printed in several different languages, etc. It encourages and promotes disunity and the formation of distinct splinter groups.

And yes, I'm well aware that there already are (and forever will be) a large number of splinter/special interest groups. But this approach adds yet another unnecessary faction to that whole equation.

It also results in MUCH more racial discrimination. The irony of the whole thing is that discrimination is one of the things that liberals scream about so much. Yet it is THEIR policies that are actively creating even more of it.

 

[Baron Max]

I could be wrong but I slightly disagree with the thought that "we've lost the idea." It seems that a very large number of Americans still think it's a good idea and that moving away from it is bad, needlessly expensive, and potentially dangerous.

Well, I'm not so sure about that ...and I'm definitely not so sure about "...a very large number...". If it IS a very large number, then they're definitely a very quiet group of people! But I hope, for America's sake, that ye're right.

One thing that bothers me, when comparing America today to the America that I grew up with in the 50s, is how much more selfish people are now versus when I grew up. In my early days, the town/the society was very, very important and the individual fit INTO that society. Now days, the individual seems to be ULTRA-IMPORTANT, with the society taking a much lesser role of importance. In effect, that breaks down almost all of the "basic rules, laws, etc" of that society. *I* want - *I* need ...takes precedent over the needs of their OWN society/city/town. Consider that there might be millions in that city/town, the problems should become obvious to even the most casual observer!

That's why I say we've lost that sense of unity in America ...that sense of belonging to the greater social order.

But ye're right, Light, about the issues of multi-culturalism. It's no longer the "melting pot" ...those other cultures don't want to be Americans, they want to live and work and thrive IN America ....basically sucking at the tit of American society. While still trying to maintain the culture ...FROM WHICH THEY FLED! How does that make any sense?

And we've "politically corrected" ourselves right into a major, horrible mess. One from which we just might not survive. Can we turn back the clock now?

Baron Max

 

[Bells]

...those other cultures don't want to be Americans, they want to live and work and thrive IN America ....basically sucking at the tit of American society. While still trying to maintain the culture ...FROM WHICH THEY FLED! How does that make any sense?

And the founding fathers of "America" really embraced the culture of the Native Americans when they landed? No? Ah yes that's right. Not only did the settlers maintain their culture. They proceeded to attempt to eradicate the Native American's culture and the Native Americans themselves by enforcing their own religion, way of life and basically their "culture". Payback's a bitch huh?

 

[Light]

And the founding fathers of "America" really embraced the culture of the Native Americans when they landed? No? Ah yes that's right. Not only did the settlers maintain their culture. They proceeded to attempt to eradicate the Native American's culture and the Native Americans themselves by enforcing their own religion, way of life and basically their "culture". Payback's a bitch huh?

Although there's a grain of truth in what you've said, you're purposely omitting the main part of the story. Upon arriving here (or at the first real chance, actually), they created a DIFFERENT culture from the one they left.

In establishing the country, did they set up Kings and Queens? Dukes, etc?

Hardly. So if you want to discuss what happened here at least tell the WHOLE story and stop ignoring the most important part. Sheesh!

 

[Roman]

Multiculturalism is inevitable. Besides the obvious divides that occur along skin color that have been implicitly underlining this conversation, there are many divides between regions, classes and age groups.

There are subcults of all kinds, and depending on their ideology and organization, can cause different levels of problems. The subcult of heroin users won't ever cause as many problems as those who traffic. Straigh-edgers may knife a few pushers, but they'll never cause the political waves of, say, conservative christians.

 

[Light]

Multiculturalism is inevitable. Besides the obvious divides that occur along skin color that have been implicitly underlining this conversation, there are many divides between regions, classes and age groups.

There are subcults of all kinds, and depending on their ideology and organization, can cause different levels of problems. The subcult of heroin users won't ever cause as many problems as those who traffic. Straigh-edgers may knife a few pushers, but they'll never cause the political waves of, say, conservative christians.

Sure, there are subcultures. Many, in fact, in every culture. There always have been and always will be. But be it regions, religions, classes or ages, they cause no problem as long as they attempt to (or allow) just a very general conformity with the prime culture. That's been mentioned a few times already in this thread.

It's when a group or groups insist on maintaining a culture that is in direct conflict with others that trouble arises. The quote from the Bible an Lincoln about a "house divided against itself" is a lot more important than being just some time-worn phrase.

I'm actually very surprised that no one has yet brought the current situation in France into this thread. Sure, there are other issues but the existence of different cultures is a major part of the source of the problem.

France has long ignored those slum areas building up outside their cities. They made no effort to assimilate them into the mainstream and neither did the immigrants. The government was quite happy (and complacent) in keeping their police forces inside the cities to provide tourists with a feeling of protection and comfort. They allowed the immigrant's slums to steadily degenerate in a downward spiral.

In their typical aloofness of ignoring major problems throughout the world, they did the same thing on their home tuft. And while they merrily went about their business of disregarding all the indicators, a strong "us-vs.-them" culture grew and exploded right on their very doorsteps.

Yes, there's oppression involved. Economically and otherwise. But oppression is one thing and blatant indifference is yet another. And beyond that, The French didn't want them to be a part of their culture. Today, they are paying a steep price for their indifference and arrogance.

 

[Bells]

Although there's a grain of truth in what you've said, you're purposely omitting the main part of the story. Upon arriving here (or at the first real chance, actually), they created a DIFFERENT culture from the one they left.

In establishing the country, did they set up Kings and Queens? Dukes, etc?

Hardly. So if you want to discuss what happened here at least tell the WHOLE story and stop ignoring the most important part. Sheesh!

What does their lack of setting up royalty have to do with anything? Yes they set up a different culture, but you can hardly say that they accepted the prevailing culture on the continent at the time of their arrival. Instead they decided to live their lives as they saw fit and force the natives to abide by their rules because they saw themselves as being better and higher due in part to their own background, culture and religious beliefs.

Such beliefs led to the eradication of the Native Americans. I'd think that would be one of the most important parts of the story... wouldn't you? Or do you prefer to overlook that little fact and attempt to excuse their behaviour? You see light, 'settlers' in those times never adapted to the law and cultures of the land they invaded. Instead, they are doing what you are bitching about what you claim is being done to you today. As I said previously. Payback's a bitch huh?

 

[Light]

What does their lack of setting up royalty have to do with anything? Yes they set up a different culture, but you can hardly say that they accepted the prevailing culture on the continent at the time of their arrival. Instead they decided to live their lives as they saw fit and force the natives to abide by their rules because they saw themselves as being better and higher due in part to their own background, culture and religious beliefs.

Such beliefs led to the eradication of the Native Americans. I'd think that would be one of the most important parts of the story... wouldn't you? Or do you prefer to overlook that little fact and attempt to excuse their behaviour? You see light, 'settlers' in those times never adapted to the law and cultures of the land they invaded. Instead, they are doing what you are bitching about what you claim is being done to you today. As I said previously. Payback's a bitch huh?

Sorry, Bells, but you are completely missing the point.

No one over the age of 16, unless they live in some third-world country, would disagree with you about what was done to the American Indians. It was an absolute atrocity, I agree.

But the thing about not establishing a royalty and all the rest that goes with it is in direct counter-point to your statement that they BROUGHT their culture with them. My whole point is that they did not. They established a completely new culture from the one they had left behind. If you go back and read what you first said I believe you will understand what I'm getting at.