So, multiculturalism is dead

[Commodore]

If a culture doesn't believe in pluralism it can't really coexist with other cultures in a multicultural/melting pot/assimilation sense.

[Valmy]

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

How about nothing? I find it rather bizarre the dichotomy is either an ideology focussed on preserving cultures or destroying them. Why not just let people alone?

[mormont]

One of the problems here is the idea that assimilation is necessarily bad. Forced assimilation sure is bad, but I can't see how two cultures can coexist without at least some adapting to one another.

To me, making assimilation voluntary (within certain limits - for example forced marriage) is the very definition of 'multiculturalism'. Obviously, Cameron et al aren't using the same definition, as I said. And if you truly believe in your values, you should logically support voluntary assimilation. There's a kind of insecurity inherent in the idea that people need to be forced to accept your values. Their merits should be enough.

If a culture doesn't believe in pluralism it can't really coexist with other cultures in a multicultural/melting pot/assimilation sense.

A good example of the monolithic view I was talking about earlier, I think. A 'culture' doesn't believe in anything. The people of whom they consist do. And as a result of this, cultures are adaptable, divisible, flexible. If individuals see advantages or virtues in pluralism, they will come to believe in it, incorporate it into their world view. And the cultures of which they are a part will therefore become pluralist as a result - or become marginalised to the extent that they have little option but to live peacefully within the larger culture. We can see examples of both in Western societies. Either way they'll coexist just fine. I don't pretend that the path towards this will always be smooth or easy, mind you.

[Insert Edit]

This whole 'multiculturalism' is dead thing relies so heavily on revisionist history it ain't funny. The idea that 'enclaves' are a product of modern multicultural thought is just bullshit. There have always been 'enclaves.' Hell, in the tiny little community that I went to high school in, there was 'Little Italy.' The miners that immigrated to the company towns to dig coal underground liked to congregate based on shared language and culture. It's funny because the homes themselves were built differently. One house I lived in had incredibly short counters and doorways, because the Italians who built it were small. I kept hitting my head on the damn doorways.

At any rate, cultural assimilation will happen eventually anyway. Even groups like the Hutterites (think Amish) are slowly being dragged into modern ways of thinking. They have no choice. Their young were deserting and leaving the 'colony' to live in towns and cities. They wanted to watch TV and surf the net and wear Levis.

So at the colony I toured about a year ago, they have net access. They still wear their trademark clothes, and they still speak in their thick German accents (the older colony members anyway), but they're slowly changing their culture to fit in with ours. And that's a group of people that actively TRY to resist change.

--

The other thing that drives me nuts about these discussions is why the reverse isn't true. I live in Alberta, the land of oil and gas - and I've talked to and know plenty of people who have worked overseas in that industry. When people move to Saudi Arabia, and make incredibly high salaries, do they attempt to live like Saudis? Heh. Nope. You won't see western women wearing what Saudi women wear. Westerners live in walled compounds. They wear western clothes. They certainly don't try too hard to learn Farsi.

Are these people contributing to the decline of Saudi civilization? Is the fact that few of them will actually live permanently in Saudi Arabia a bad thing? Or are they just people living their lives and doing their jobs, and contributing economically to the Saudi nation?

Good grief, if immigrants taking a few generations to assimilate caused the ruination of civilizations, then how the eff did North America survive in the first place?

[adamsputnik]

Japanese the Language is pretty easy, Japanese the Embedded Hierarchy of Mannerisms, Social Tics and Subtle Nuances... to use the Australian vernacular: yeah, no.

'Nah', not 'no'. Get it right... ;)

[Aemon Stark]

The other thing that drives me nuts about these discussions is why the reverse isn't true. I live in Alberta, the land of oil and gas - and I've talked to and know plenty of people who have worked overseas in that industry. When people move to Saudi Arabia, and make incredibly high salaries, do they attempt to live like Saudis? Heh. Nope. You won't see western women wearing what Saudi women wear. Westerners live in walled compounds. They wear western clothes. They certainly don't try too hard to learn Farsi.

Setting aside that few speak Farsi in Saudi Arabia, my understanding is just the opposite. Western women absolutely must conform to local customs, i.e. gender-segregated compounds unless living with their immediate families, no driving, local clothing when out on in public (accompanied by male relative of course), etc. That they live in walled compounds is more something imposed by the Saudi authorities to ensure "integration" on only the most rigid terms.

[palimpsest.]

The other thing that drives me nuts about these discussions is why the reverse isn't true. I live in Alberta, the land of oil and gas - and I've talked to and know plenty of people who have worked overseas in that industry. When people move to Saudi Arabia, and make incredibly high salaries, do they attempt to live like Saudis? Heh. Nope. You won't see western women wearing what Saudi women wear. Westerners live in walled compounds. They wear western clothes. They certainly don't try too hard to learn Farsi.

Because of many different factors.

People are migrating from the periphery to the center, which would be what we call the West. More often than not, these people migrate not because their line of business takes them elsewhere, but because they are seeking something better - better life standard, bigger job market, better education for their children, whatever. They're often not very well off and/or are poorly educated. The center also has more than enough people willing to invest in it and work there. They have to blend in to be able to compete on the job market, and they are usually in a situation when they have to interact with local population.

People who migrate from the center, though, usually do so because of their job or to live with their partners. Those people with high salaries you mentioned - they don't go to a country because they'd want something from it. I assume (because I don't know anything about oil industry, so correct me if I'm wrong) that those people could easily work in the US and went to Saudi Arabia with a job already guaranteed there. They probably don't need to interact with the locals and don't need to know the language to work there; I believe they'd all learn Farsi very fast if they had to. They probably don't feel as unwanted as those who migrated to the center, because the periphery isn't as interesting for investors and job seekers, so there are fewer immigrants there, and they have the feeling of having come from the 'superior' culture / from the land of milk and honey that everyone wants to live in.

I also don't know much about Saudi Arabia, so I'm speaking about migrating in general here. I think Aemon Stark might have a point, though.

I think learning the language and obeying the local law is only polite when you move to another country, regardless of where on the map it is and where you came from. As for trying to live like a local, I don't really think that's necessary. Learning the language and respecting the local culture is one thing, but everyone can dress however they want and eat whatever they want (as long as it's not illegal).

[TerraPrime]

If a culture doesn't believe in pluralism it can't really coexist with other cultures in a multicultural/melting pot/assimilation sense.

Oh, you mean like some of the fundamentalist Christian groups in the U.S.?

[Guest Raids]

They really are a great example.

[Insert Edit]

Setting aside that few speak Farsi in Saudi Arabia, my understanding is just the opposite. Western women absolutely must conform to local customs, i.e. gender-segregated compounds unless living with their immediate families, no driving, local clothing when out on in public (accompanied by male relative of course), etc. That they live in walled compounds is more something imposed by the Saudi authorities to ensure "integration" on only the most rigid terms.

Interesting. I've got an ex-coworker who is doing NGO work in that neck of the woods. He and his now wife travel around the Middle East doing mostly journalist type work. I'll ask him what his experience is with dress. From the pics I've seen, I've never seen his wife dressing like a local.

And sure, I think it's fair to say that the compounds are as much the Saudi's idea as the employees of the oil and gas companies - but there's not really any attempt for westerners to assimilate. And why should there be? In most cases, they're staying long enough to qualify for the no tax break, and then they're taking their retirement nest egg back to North America.

I just don't see why we hold immigrants in our society to a different standard. First generation immigrants are not going to assimilate well. Their kids and grandkids will though. It was always this way.

To me, multiculturalism is just making official what has always been in play. We can take away that 'officialdom' tomorrow, and immigrants are still going to come and settle like they always have.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This whole 'multiculturalism' is dead thing relies so heavily on revisionist history it ain't funny. The idea that 'enclaves' are a product of modern multicultural thought is just bullshit. There have always been 'enclaves.' Hell, in the tiny little community that I went to high school in, there was 'Little Italy.' The miners that immigrated to the company towns to dig coal underground liked to congregate based on shared language and culture. It's funny because the homes themselves were built differently. One house I lived in had incredibly short counters and doorways, because the Italians who built it were small. I kept hitting my head on the damn doorways.

That's completely true. The question, though, is how different were the cultures of the enclaves versus the culture as a whole. Short counters and doorways really don't have much of an effect on interacting with other people.

However, U.S. history is filled with examples of different such enclaves giving rise to different gangs, feuds that continue based on ethnic or familial grievances from the "old country", etc. Those conflicts were not good.

At any rate, cultural assimilation will happen eventually anyway.

That's generally true, but that doesn't mean that the rate of assimilation or the problems that may occur are not without potentially severe consequences that are better off being avoided if possible. And that, really, is the point. When you say "cultural assimilation will happen eventually anyway", that seems to be an acknowledgement that such assimilation is desirable, which is really the point of the thread anyway. And I'm also not at all sure that everyone necessarily agrees that assimilation is desireable.

[Insert Edit]

Because of many different factors.

People are migrating from the periphery to the center, which would be what we call the West. More often than not, these people migrate not because their line of business takes them elsewhere, but because they are seeking something better - better life standard, bigger job market, better education for their children, whatever. They're often not very well off and/or are poorly educated. The center also has more than enough people willing to invest in it and work there. They have to blend in to be able to compete on the job market, and they are usually in a situation when they have to interact with local population.

People who migrate from the center, though, usually do so because of their job or to live with their partners. Those people with high salaries you mentioned - they don't go to a country because they'd want something from it. I assume (because I don't know anything about oil industry, so correct me if I'm wrong) that those people could easily work in the US and went to Saudi Arabia with a job already guaranteed there. They probably don't need to interact with the locals and don't need to know the language to work there; I believe they'd all learn Farsi very fast if they had to. They probably don't feel as unwanted as those who migrated to the center, because the periphery isn't as interesting for investors and job seekers, so there are fewer immigrants there, and they have the feeling of having come from the 'superior' culture / from the land of milk and honey that everyone wants to live in.

I also don't know much about Saudi Arabia, so I'm speaking about migrating in general here. I think Aemon Stark might have a point, though.

I think learning the language and obeying the local law is only polite when you move to another country, regardless of where on the map it is and where you came from. As for trying to live like a local, I don't really think that's necessary. Learning the language and respecting the local culture is one thing, but everyone can dress however they want and eat whatever they want (as long as it's not illegal).

Well historically in North America, yes, the poor and desperate were who came to settle. In Canada, when they opened the west, they desperately wanted the 'right' kind of people to come. They advertised heavily in British newspapers, offering free land. What they didn't understand was that the average educated Brit who was going to be reading the newspaper had an okay life already, and wasn't going to risk life and limb to homestead in the Canadian west.

So who came? The religiously oppressed (Hutterites etc). The Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Ukranians etc. Flip through the Edmonton phone book, and you'll see as many 'ski' suffixes as anything else.

Today you still have the desperate coming to do manual labor jobs. Meat packing operations in Alberta are mainly staffed by people from Sudan and other African nations.

You ARE seeing though a new kind of immigrant. A wealthier immigrant, who can afford to buy their way in. Setting up businesses. Maybe not intending to even stay forever. There's TONS of people like this in western Canada, mostly Asian. And I suppose those would be the people who would equate best to my example of westerners working in Saudi Arabia. They're contributing economically to the nation, but may very well have little intention of staying forever.

Anecdotally, that's my personal history. Bounced around the world as a kid, from the US to Canada to Australia, to Canada, ----> growing up, and then back to the US, and then back to Canada again.

If it was up to my father, we'd probably have stayed in Australia.

Now that I've got a kid of my own, I'm committed to staying in one place for a good long time. :)

[Insert Edit]

That's completely true. The question, though, is how different were the cultures of the enclaves versus the culture as a whole. Short counters and doorways really don't have much of an effect on interacting with other people.

However, U.S. history is filled with examples of different such enclaves giving rise to different gangs, feuds that continue based on ethnic or familial grievances from the "old country", etc. Those conflicts were not good.

At any rate, cultural assimilation will happen eventually anyway.

That's generally true, but that doesn't mean that the rate of assimilation or the problems that may occur are not without potentially severe consequences that are better off being avoided if possible. And that, really, is the point. When you say "cultural assimilation will happen eventually anyway", that seems to be an acknowledgement that such assimilation is desirable, which is really the point of the thread anyway. And I'm also not at all sure that everyone necessarily agrees that assimilation is desireable.

Here's the town(s) I was talking about.

http://www.crowsnestpass.com/

It actually has a very fascinating history, one which the very conservative current residents often selectively edit out. Being company mining towns to start, they were definitely frontier rough and tumble places. Crime, smuggling, booze running, prostitution. Sadly a lot of deaths.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0003028

At that time, the worst mining disaster in Canadian history. And deaths weren't uncommon outside of spectacular incidents like that one either. Now add in the fact that the miners lived in homes owned by the mining company, and bought all their goods from company stores, and you had the fist democratically elected communist party in North America.

So strike breaking, and the violence surrounding it on both sides was VERY commonplace. Ethnic violence was common too, add in natives, and Chinese to the mix.

Wasn't all negative though. At one time there were only four symphony orchestras in North America, and the CNP had one of them. Lots of those European undesirables brought their instruments with them. :)

--

Anyway, sure, immigration brings gang problems. In Calgary, the Vietnamese gangs are a problem. But we've also got a thriving legit Vietnamese community. But again, as you've noted, ethnic gangs were a problem in America historically too.

I think we just want immigrants to become like us immediately. And I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. It never was.

Is assimilation 'desirable?' I dunno, it's just inevitable. Over time. Whether we'd be served better by speeding that process up is open to debate. It might do more harm than good.

[palimpsest.]

You ARE seeing though a new kind of immigrant though. A wealthier immigrant, who can afford to buy their way in. Setting up businesses. Maybe not intending to even stay forever. There's TONS of people like this in western Canada, mostly Asian. And I suppose those would be the people who would equate best to my example of westerners working in Saudi Arabia. They're contributing economically to the nation, but may very well have little intention of staying forever.

Yes, they're very similar to people who leave the US to work in Saudi Arabia. Japan and China are two of the newest economical centers, though (AFAIK Saudi Arabia is not yet one ... or is it?), so it's maybe even more like you leaving Canada to work in the US ... only with a much bigger cultural difference. Such people are usually not treated like 'typical immigrants', though, and are not the ones who make local politicians despair over multiculturalism.

ETA: FLOW, I think we all agree that cultural assimilation is necessary and therefore desirable. Its pace, however, and how to encourage it, is a whole other thing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think we just want immigrants to become like us immediately. And I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. It never was.

I think the problem is that if the number of immigrants grows quickly enough, and is in sufficient numbers, the community may become so large that it ends up interacting almost exclusively with itself. Assimilation may virtually stop at that point. It's not automatic.

Look at what happened in places like Cyprus, or Sri Lanka. The assimilation between different ethnic groups never really happened, and to the extent it eventually did, it was only after enormous problems and tensions that no reasonable country would prefer to endure. Even in the Sudan. Sure, that's due to the drawing of boundaries rather than immigration, but the principle that assimilation of different ethnic groups within the same country isn't automatic is the same.

[mormont]

And that, really, is the point. When you say "cultural assimilation will happen eventually anyway", that seems to be an acknowledgement that such assimilation is desirable, which is really the point of the thread anyway. And I'm also not at all sure that everyone necessarily agrees that assimilation is desireable.

First, I think the term 'assimilation' is inappropriate, because to me it carries an implication that multicultural mixing is a one-way street in which only the immigrant's culture can or should change, while the host culture remains unchanged: that the right answer is to hammer down the nail that doesn't fit. I think 'cultural adaptation' is better.

Whatever you call the process, though, I think whether you see it as desirable depends on how you see culture. As a means to an end, i.e. a good life for all, or as an end in itself. If you believe your culture is an end in itself - as many conservatives in every culture do, from conservative Muslim Pakistanis to conservative Christian Americans - you're probably not ever going to like the idea of 'multiculturalism' and certainly you're not going to like 'assimilation' unless it is people assimilating to your culture. But I believe most people don't see it that way. They see it, consciously or not, as a tool to be used for their happiness. If an aspect of their culture makes them unhappy, they are likely to look for ways to become happy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Whatever you call the process, though, I think whether you see it as desirable depends on how you see culture. As a means to an end, i.e. a good life for all, or as an end in itself. If you believe your culture is an end in itself - as many conservatives in every culture do, from conservative Muslim Pakistanis to conservative Christian Americans - you're probably not ever going to like the idea of 'multiculturalism' and certainly you're not going to like 'assimilation' unless it is people assimilating to your culture.

That's an interesting point. So let me draw a distinction between "cultural" assimilation and the assimilation of political/social values necessary for interaction with the society as a whole. I don't see the necessity of religious assimilation, for example. I could care less if someone celebrates Diwali, Passover, Christmas, Ramadan or whatever because that really doesn't/shouldn't substantively affect their interactions with other people.

However, if an immigrant group is 1) sufficiently large; 2) sufficiently discrete in terms of culture/national origin/religion, and 3) discontented with their status in society, that becomes potentially dangerous, because such individuals may view themselves as having little or no loyalty to the nation as a whole. It also can be dangerous if such a group holds views that are incompatible with some basic premises of the society as a whole.

[palimpsest.]

First, I think the term 'assimilation' is inappropriate, because to me it carries an implication that multicultural mixing is a one-way street in which only the immigrant's culture can or should change, while the host culture remains unchanged: that the right answer is to hammer down the nail that doesn't fit. I think 'cultural adaptation' is better.

It's only inappropriate if you're not talking about assimilation :) Assimilation is when new members of society integrate into it to the point when they're no longer distinguishable from the old members. The exchange of customs that happens in the process actually goes both ways. Adaptation is, afaik, just a part of assimilation.

'Acculturation', however, is the term that carries negative connotations of cultural imperialism.

[Ormond]

I think the problem is that if the number of immigrants grows quickly enough, and is in sufficient numbers, the community may become so large that it ends up interacting almost exclusively with itself. Assimilation may virtually stop at that point. It's not automatic.

Look at what happened in places like Cyprus, or Sri Lanka. The assimilation between different ethnic groups never really happened, and to the extent it eventually did, it was only after enormous problems and tensions that no reasonable country would prefer to endure. Even in the Sudan. Sure, that's due to the drawing of boundaries rather than immigration, but the principle that assimilation of different ethnic groups within the same country isn't automatic is the same.

I don't think Cyprus and Sri Lanka are good examples of modern immigration, because the origin of the two ethnic groups which have been fighting in those two countries is so far in the past.

Though there are Tamils in Sri Lanka whose ancestors came from India recently, there are many Sri Lankan Tamils whose ancestors have been on that island almost as long as the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese began to immigrate to the island in the 5th century B.C., and the Tamils in the 3rd century B.C. When you are talking about two communities which have both lived on the island for well over two millenia, I don't think expecting the Tamils to "assimilate" into some overall Sri Lankan society is logical. It would be almost as bad as as telling the Basques in Spain they should "assimilate" into general Spanish culture when they were there first.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107992.html

The Turks in Cyprus have also been there a lot longer than the immigrant groups the politicians in western Europe are referring to. The Ottomans conquered Cyprus in 1570, and by 1600 there were at least 20,000 Turkish settlers on Cyprus. So the Turks in Cyprus have been there a bit longer than English speakers have been in what is now the United States.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Turkish_Cypriots

I think it was a lot easier for ethnic groups to develop separate identities which could be maintained for the long-term back in 1600 than it is in 2010. Modern technology and education makes it harder for people to isolate their children from the surrounding culture.

[Ormond]

It's only inappropriate if you're not talking about assimilation :) Assimilation is when new members of society integrate into it to the point when they're no longer distinguishable from the old members. The exchange of customs that happens in the process actually goes both ways. Adaptation is, afaik, just a part of assimilation.

'Acculturation', however, is the term that carries negative connotations of cultural imperialism.

Really? My emotional reaction to the two words is exactly the opposite. "Acculturation" is the word normally used by psychologists to describe what goes on when someone moves to another culture. It does not necessarily result in the total abandonment of one's original culture that the word "assimilate" connotes, at least to me. I think the contrast in meaning between the two words is exactly the opposite that you do. Acculturation is the process where the two cultures influence each other; assimilation would be when one culture overwhelms the other.

Of course, I may have been too influenced by the use of the word "assimilate" in old Star Trek episodes about the Borg. :)