Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the RTFA dept.

When we hear the word "multiculturalism," some imagine people of all races and creeds holding hands, others imagine a clash of disparate cultures that cannot co-exist. There are many more nuanced definitions in between.

In the world of mainstream politics, there is now widespread acknowledgment that the failure of immigrants to properly integrate into the culture of their host nations is causing a lot more harm that good. The backlash against multiculturalism has begun to manifest itself as a rise of nationalist parties such as England's UKIP and France's National Front gaining more support from disillusioned countrymen.

In 2010 German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that,

" This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed," Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday. "

Merkel also suggested that the onus was on immigrants to do more to integrate into German society, and late last year the European Court of Justice ruled that EU citizens who move to another member state "solely in order to obtain social assistance" may be excluded from receiving that assistance, an acknowledgement that multiculturalism's side effects are causing more harm than good.

Those interested in this topic should read Foreign Affairs' excellent article The Failure of Multiculturalism.

As a political tool, multiculturalism has functioned as not merely a response to diversity but also a means of constraining it. And that insight reveals a paradox. Multicultural policies accept as a given that societies are diverse, yet they implicitly assume that such diversity ends at the edges of minority communities. They seek to institutionalize diversity by putting people into ethnic and cultural boxes—into a singular, homogeneous Muslim community, for example—and defining their needs and rights accordingly. Such policies, in other words, have helped create the very divisions they were meant to manage.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:47PM

    by VLM (445) on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:47PM (#187193)

    People who can't handle these differences

    Don't forget the ones that shoot cartoonists in your list of intolerance.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:15PM (#187200)
    He didn't forget, the number is just very low.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:49PM

      by VLM (445) on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:49PM (#187215)

      The problem isn't the dude pulling the trigger or the dude getting hit, but all the cheering from the sidelines and the apologists.

      For all of history people have been pretty lazy. Pulling a historical 60s civil rights example, the problem wasn't black dudes getting lynched, because the odds were higher of getting hit by lightning (or at least of a similar order of magnitude, point being it wasn't a genocide). The problem was the stereotypical couch potatoe thinking thats the best idea ever even if they just kinda sat on their couch that night, and eventual success was defined not by a slightly lower lynch rate but by stereotypical couch potatoe thinking thats now the worst idea ever.

      I think you could argue cause and effect for a long time, who's leading, the 999 couch potatoes muttering the conventional wisdom back and forth, or the 1 dude who took action making the couch potatoes think (note, people hate to think, and the eventual result might not be supportive...)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:04PM (#187225)
        No, there aren't millions of people grouped in a particular religion who want to kill you but are too lazy to do it. If you keep thinking like that, though, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:05PM (#187284)
          Bollocks, of course there are. In addition there are even more grouped in "a particular religion" that wouldn't be unhappy to hear about one of their co-believers martyring themselves and taking a bunch of infidels with them. Let's put a name to it. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If 0.1% of them would actively choose to kill me given the chance, then there are 1.6 million that would do so. If there are 10x as many that would look on with approval, then there are 16 million that are "too lazy". What percentage of the population of people that believe in Islam worldwide would you say could be classified as "radical"? My feeling is that 1% is a low estimate.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:21PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:21PM (#187403)
            Yet you feel safe where you live. Must be under a force field.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @08:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @08:30AM (#187550)

              Yet you feel safe where you live. Must be under a force field.

              No, I am in a bunker with massive amounts of ammo and my entire porn collection! Not! Actually I am cowering in fear that someone of a religion I know next to nothing about may attack me in my living room and CUT MY F**KING HEAD OFF! That's where I am. Where are you, and how's it going?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:11PM (#187234)

        > The problem isn't the dude pulling the trigger or the dude getting hit, but all the cheering from the sidelines and the apologists.

        Why don’t more moderate Muslims denounce extremism? [washingtonpost.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:21PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:21PM (#187349)

          That anecdotal experience by one journalist is counter to the polls around the western world that show apathy to outright support for this sort of behavior by islamic communities.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:31PM (#187355)

            That anecdotal experience by one journalist is counter to the polls around the western world that show apathy to outright support for this sort of behavior by islamic communities.

            (1) You don't seem to understand the definition of "anecdotal."
            (2) Also, false: Muslims Americans more likely than other faith groups to reject attacks on civilians [gallup.com]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @01:21AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @01:21AM (#187443)

              1. You obviously don't understand the definition of anecdotal nor how to make a point. He has individual experiences that he is using for generalizations and you just believe it blindly while denouncing anyone pointing out the complete lack of reason.
              2. Also, my point is true: and my source has many polls proving my point [chersonandmolschky.com] while yours is one poll that is only tangentially related.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @01:47AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @01:47AM (#187452)

                > He has individual experiences that he is using for generalizations

                He is a reporter, reporting on facts.

                > and my source has many polls proving my point while yours is one poll that is only tangentially related.

                (1) You don't seem to understand the definition of "tangential."
                (2) Not even close. For one thing "23 countries across Southeastern Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Middle East" is literally not the western world and for another belief in sharia is no more support for extremism than keeping kosher and obeying the talmud is.

                You really suck at definitions. Srsly. Stop using words you don't understand.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:33PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:33PM (#187406)
            The denouncement of the attacks is fact. Your claim about the polls isn't.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @01:17AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @01:17AM (#187441)

              Make up things all you want the truth remains the same.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @02:30AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @02:30AM (#187472)
                The denouncements are verified. The polls, even if they exist, are not a statement of fact. Your reply doesn't belong where it landed.