So, multiculturalism is dead

[The Anti-Targ]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8317497/Nicolas-Sarkozy-declares-multiculturalism-had-failed.html

French president Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday declared that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

So what's replacing it? Forced assimilation? or "send them back to where they came from"?

Interesting those leaders and former leaders named as signing the death certificate are all from the political right.

David Cameron saying multiculturalism has failed at the same time as calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home grown extremism. Wha? So kill the idea of multiculturalism and instead try to make everyone fit into one of the pre-multicultural British stereotypes? Forcing people to adopt a culture not of their own is a recipe for breeding extremism.

Multiculturalism failed mostly because no one really gave it an honest try. Not enough of those in power ever really believed in it enough to try to get it to work. And no immigrant group at whatever time they started immigrating into a country was ever given a warm welcome.

[TrueMetis]

Didn't we have a thread saying this a while back? In any event multiculturalism works fine. These idiots are just pissy that some people don't want to act like they do.

[CelticBrennus]

Forcing people to adopt a culture not of their own is a recipe for breeding extremism.

How do you think things like British or French culture were created?

Wha? So kill the idea of multiculturalism and instead try to make everyone fit into one of the pre-multicultural British stereotypes?

Traditionally, yes. Combined with torture and brutal government actions of course.

[mcbigski]

David Cameron saying multiculturalism has failed at the same time as calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home grown extremism. Wha? So kill the idea of multiculturalism and instead try to make everyone fit into one of the pre-multicultural British stereotypes? Forcing people to adopt a culture not of their own is a recipe for breeding extremism.

Really depends on the culture. If you're trying to instill a self confident culture of tolerance for ideas that are tolerant of a civil brand of dissention from the norm, fine. But if multi-culit means letting religious minorities keep, for example, sharia law instead of tolerance for dissention, then you need to stand firm. Liberalism shouldn't be a suicide pact.

[S John]

Forcing people to adopt a culture not of their own is a recipe for breeding extremism.

I wouldn't advocate stripping anyone of their cultural values for the sake of completely seamless assimilation. The world isn't static, after all, and cultures have been influencing one another since the beginning.

But surely there is some middle ground to be found between complete acceptance of foreign values in the host country vs. breeding extremism.

Say I moved to Mexico. I'm going to go into that situation knowing that its not going to be just like the United States. I'm going to make myself responsible for learning some of the language and customs of the local people, and to at least be respectful of those customs that I don't choose to adopt myself. I don't see how the expectation of a reasonable level of assimilation on the part of Mexico is an affront to me, or a recipe for extremism to anyone who isn't a douche to begin with. You choose to move somewhere new, you make some concessions. The job of Mexico would be to prevent discrimination against me, but I would have no expectation for accommodation of my values from the government, or from my new neighbors, where those values do not already intersect with their own.

[Alexia]

In terms of learning language, since this is something I frequently see being brought up.

After about six years old or so, it gets really difficult to learn another language. Some people simply can't do it; its all in the brain wiring and you have some people who can easily learn to speak five languages, including the tonal, and some people who can try and try and are never going to be able to learn.

For example, my brother and I. Our parents split when we were very small and we lived with our mom for a long time, who is not Hispanic and can't speak a word of Spanish (despite a good faith effort to learn while she was married to my dad). We eventually transferred households when we were 11 and 9, and went to live with my dad. I picked Spanish right up and now speak adequately, am semi-literate, and can get by with no trouble. OTOH, my brother can't speak more than a handful of phrases, despite being exposed to the same experiences as me and despite some real efforts to learn. In my case, I think I was able to pick it up easily because I was already speaking Spanglish by the time my parents split (I was about three at the time) whereas my brother was just a baby.

Also, English is a particularly difficult language to learn. I volunteered with ESL student eons ago and that's when I realized just how difficult. No and Know. There, Their, and They're. You get the drift. It doesn't help that in general, immigrants all tend to move to the same location which means its easier for the older generation to get by.

So while I totally agree that learning the language is important and would advise anyone emigrating to the U.S. to make the effort to learn (it makes a huge difference in the types of jobs one is able to get, for one thing), I'd just like to point out that it isn't always that easy.

That being said, I totally agree that there has to be some give and take, and some acclimation. For example, I'm not shedding any tears for this particular guy.

[mormont]

The trouble is that 'multiculturalism', contrary to what these speeches suggest, is vague and poorly defined. It's not a unified and clear philosophy with a particular set of adherents. Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel are all using the term to refer to a doctrine of separateness, almost a voluntary apartheid: but this is a straw man. This has never really been the aim of 'multiculturalism' as a mainstream philosophy. It's only ever been a characterisation used by opponents of multiculturalism, people who want to say (for various reasons) that it's failed. In fact, what they are referring to is largely what immigration looked like before multiculturalism: immigrants lived in separate communities that took a long time to integrate because they felt forced to choose between two identities. Compromise was not an option.

Proponents of multiculturalism see it as a philosophy of mutual tolerance: not separateness, but community. To them, respect for other cultures allows aspects of those cultures to be maintained in a more complex sense of identity. In this sense, multiculturalism has been an enormous success - almost unprecedented, in fact. Within the space of a few decades, most Western societies have become comfortable with having as part of their national makeup a whole range of cultures and influences. It's not just about the number of Chinese restaurants on the high street: remember that it used to be a huge deal to marry across cultural boundaries, as recently as thirty years ago. Now, nobody bats an eye. Conversely, the majority of second-generation immigrants in most Western countries see no problem in having an ethnic identity and a national identity. I can name many of my friends who feel completely relaxed about saying that they are both a Pakistani and a Scot. Each makes up part of their life, and they see no conflict. We all have a richer and more nuanced national identity and a richer life as a result of multiculturalism in this definition.

The problem is that bashing that first straw-man sense of 'multiculturalism' is often dog-whistle politics - those who dislike the second sense, who dislike immigration in general, think you're on their side. It's therefore quite dangerous. And quite cheap. These speeches achieved nothing but a few easy headlines.

[MinDonner]

[Happy Ent]

Also, English is a particularly difficult language to learn.

Off-topic: What? I can think of no other language that is easier to learn. The grammar is downright trivial, the breadth of acceptable dialects is huge, and it is ubiquitous.

[Lyanna Stark]

Off-topic: What? I can think of no other language that is easier to learn. The grammar is downright trivial, the breadth of acceptable dialects is huge, and it is ubiquitous.

I agree. Straight forward structure, only one definite article, no complicated endings or mind-boggling word order in sub-clauses. The only problem I have with it is the pure number of words. I still come across new ones I've never heard about before (I am looking at you China Mieville).

I'd say that failure to learn a language is in 99% of the cases down to just not making enough effort. I personally know people who have moved countries as adults and learnt a foreign language good enough to be absolutely fluent. If I hadn't known that these people were immigrants, I would never have even suspected.

I started to learn English at age 10 and while I certainly am not 100% perfect, I can normally pass myself off as native well enough that it takes people a while to notice that I am foreign.

HE is not Swedish, and I know for a fact his Swedish is better than my own :)

[Spoony]

.... Multiculturalism being Dead can now never die.

Instead it will rise once more. Harder and stronger.

[Filippa Eilhart]

After about six years old or so, it gets really difficult to learn another language. Some people simply can't do it; its all in the brain wiring and you have some people who can easily learn to speak five languages, including the tonal, and some people who can try and try and are never going to be able to learn

Nope. If you're forced to learn a language to communicate, you will. You might not be perfect and will never be considered a native, but you will get by.

[Errant Bard]

Sarkozy is an idiot pandering to the xenophobic crowd, don't listen to him, what he says has no real meaning beyond that. He still manages such things as making the justice system go on strike against him, something that never happened before, with these eructations, though, so he has a certain talent.

Also, not totally on topic, but :

Also, English is a particularly difficult language to learn.

I don't think it's difficult. English feels really malleable to me. Homophones happen in every language, they're not a problem. Of course it depends on who is learning: a french guy will have way way less problems learning it than a chinese (half English is old french anyway), but on the whole I have a hard time seeing what was less difficult for me to learn. Maybe spanish, portugese and italian would be easy too, considering the roots... Arabic is harder (if I ever managed to produce the right sounds), German was harder, so was greek, Russian I don't know, but doesn't seem so easy, Japanese is hard as fuck, chinese probably is too, hindi... huuuu not sure but doesn't look so nice, let's not talk about Finnish.

All in all, not many languages I can think of I would rank as easier.

[Horza]

.... Multiculturalism being Dead can now never die.

Instead it will rise once more. Harder and stronger.

Ia! Ia! Multiculturalism ftaghn!

(Hmm. Actually given Lovecraft's views on ethnicity you could make the case that modern multiculturalism would be a thing of horror to him on the level of the shoggoths or the Old Ones anyway).

On a serious note: what mormont said.

The vagueness is deliberate, if they had to define it they'd end up disappointing the people who thought they were thinking what they were thinking.

Actually that last sentence is a good example of the problems English sometimes gets into, had to bring out the italics to prevent confusion.

[gladius]

The grammar is downright trivial, the breadth of acceptable dialects is huge, and it is ubiquitous.

Sure, but its writing and pronunciation system doesn't makes sense.

[Happy Ent]

The vagueness is deliberate, if they had to define it they'd end up disappointing the people who thought they were thinking what they were thinking.

I think that sword cuts in both directions. Multiculturalists can’t agree on much beyond spicy food either.

Even if this is just an exercise in rhetoric, it’s certainly interesting that Germany, the UK, and France have come out so strongly in this matter. Was this really all caused by Sarrazin’s book? (Which I still haven’t read…)

[Errant Bard]

Sure, but its writing and pronunciation system doesn't makes sense.

On the other hand, what language does?

Even if this is just an exercise in rhetoric, it’s certainly interesting that Germany, the UK, and France have come out so strongly in this matter. Was this really all caused by Sarrazin’s book?

It was likely caused by the global situation and viewpoints that prompted Sarrazin's book. Politicians are quick to seize opportunities, when they see trends in the opinion, they're not morons.

The "multiculturalism" is totally different in France, UK and Germany anyway, so this is just the use of a buzzword to qualify different realities. What Sarkozy really says, for example, is "the policies of parking the poorest in suburb building ghettos and marginalizing them, that we have been implementing since the 70's, combined with our need for a strong immigration, created a subculture. We thus failed to build an homogeneous, united culture but I want you to put the blame on the immigrants and vote for me to do something(but I won't do anything, I cannot)". I really doubt it's the same in UK or Germany, or that Sarrazin's book is in any way relevant.

At the end of the day, the only common denominator is the implication of "immigration sucks, give me your votes to stop it".

[mormont]

Even if this is just an exercise in rhetoric, it's certainly interesting that Germany, the UK, and France have come out so strongly in this matter. Was this really all caused by Sarrazin's book? (Which I still haven't read…)

Obviously not. It's caused by various political pressures within those three countries: I doubt that any of the three leaders have read that book, and I suspect that less than 1% of their audience have even heard of it.

[Happy Ent]

Obviously not. It's caused by various political pressures within those three countries: I doubt that any of the three leaders have read that book, and I suspect that less than 1% of their audience have even heard of it.

But Merkel’s initial rejection of multiculturalism was a direct response to Sarrazin’s book, after the surprisingly favourable reception. This seems to have opened the floodgates in making an explicit rejection of multiculturalism (whatever that should mean) part of acceptable political rhetoric. Cameron and Sarkozy just quickly followed when the window of opportunity was there.

[mormont]

But Merkel's initial rejection of multiculturalism was a direct response to Sarrazin's book, after the surprisingly favourable reception. This seems to have opened the floodgates in making an explicit rejection of multiculturalism (whatever that should mean) part of acceptable political rhetoric. Cameron and Sarkozy just quickly followed when the window of opportunity was there.

No, I don't think it follows. The specific language is one thing, but politicians of the centre-right have been making the same sort of speeches for a while now, searching for coded language to appeal to those who don't like these funny brown people. Neither the audience's concern nor the politicians' urge to pander to it stems from the book, so the answer to 'was this really all caused by this book?' the only sensible answer is 'no'. Or at least 'not in any meaningful sense'. There's a big difference between causing something, and being one (quite minor) catalyst amongst many.