SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:24PM
There is no culture on earth today that is "evil" or "wrong".
Duckspoken like a double plus good good thinker. There is good and evil and that while there is debate about some of the details it is currently possible to reason out much of a moral code. Some cultures measure up better than others when compared to absolute standards of morality. Fucking children is wrong. There, I said it; I'm taking a boldly intolerant position on that. We can, should and must argue about the details and corner cases, age of consent laws, etc. but the idea of sex with children is right out and I think we can all agree that marrying a six year old is right over the damned line beyond any debate. So cultures that approve of that practice is evil. And when the infallible 'prophet' of a religion does it and current leaders can't imagine denouncing it, in fact is now trying it's best to restore the practice, we should question any who fail to condemn and certainly any who try to apologize and distract attention from such barbaric practices.
Or take NAMBLA, who has the motto of 'Sex before eight or it is too late.' This is a culture we can say with absolute certainty is vile, evil and must be exterminated from the Earth.
Ok, two very extreme examples but the cultural equivalence theory is a cherished fallacy of the Prog left and it must be demolished utterly. For by refusing to admit the existence of evil, it facilitates it and is thus itself evil.
People are intrinsically good...
Which is one of the basic disagreements in political philosophy. My side holds that man is inherently wicked, vile, and prone to commit atrocities, in short: fallen. Which is why we have religions, civilizations, rule of law, social customs and all that stuff to reign in our base impulses. The other side believes man in inherently good, removes all restraints and when Hell on Earth is unleashed makes excuses that it was done improperly, latent *ism was to blame, blah blah blah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:03PM
People are intrinsically good...
Which is one of the basic disagreements in political philosophy. My side holds that man is inherently wicked, vile, and prone to commit atrocities
We see ourselves in others.
Or more colloquial, takes one to know one.
Seriously, you seem unapologetically vile, your posting history on this topic is one of someone just itching for a race war.