Multicultural societies: Do they really work?

Multicultural societies such as Australia claim to offer the best of all worlds to those who wish to participate. Australia is a free, democratic society where freedom of religion and culture is supposedly respected and tolerated.

I personally think this idea of a utopian society that social engineers and politicians keep thrusting at us doesn't truly work. There is always going to be areas where different communities clash - mainly in the area of religion but it is also evident in the way communities congregate together and exclude each other. There are parts of Sydney Australia where whole suburbs have been populated by a singular group of people. In my opinion this is not good for society as a whole. There are some real tensions out there between the Arab community, the Asian community and the general community. Racism and ethnic hatreds definitely do exist no matter what we are told in the media. The very fact that there are seperate communities indicates that a general homogenous melting pot doesn't and will never truly exist.

Would society be better served if we dropped the banner of multiculturalism and moved on to a multiracial approach? By multiracial I mean an approach where members of the community blend in with the general culture no matter what creed or code they are from. I don't know how it would be managed, but would that mean an end to freedom of religion and freedom of movement or would it mean a more harmonious society where the will of the majority is respected and followed? I've heard talkback radio hosts deriding multiculturalism recently and saying we are a single country and should have one culture. Immigration to Australia means adopting the Australian way of life, not trying to change it to resemble another culture. That's extreme I know, but that's the thought of many of the mainstream majority. Will multiculturalism or multiracialism ever truly work? Will there always be racial tension, racial underclasses and racial vilification in societies that blend cultures and religions?

 

I think a certain degree of ethnic heritage is a good thing, it brings the best of each culture to a given society. However, I don't subscribe to the idea of racial and/or cultural preferences.

Things such as hyphenated names are ridiculous, IMHO, unless you actually emigrated from a particular region (e.g., Italian-American, African-American, etc.). If you are born here, then you are an American with other such ancestry.

 

If you are born here, then you are an American with other such ancestry


You know, for the first time, i agree with you, DM.

Having such specific heritage divides a culture, IMO.

and yes, in response to the origional question, i believe they work. I think there is no more segregation in a mulit-cultural society like Australia than any other place. In fact, if there was a uni-cultural country, with a small section of other groups, you'd think that would be worse, in terms of seperation etc.

 

multicultural naitons work just fine, it takes a while for newer cultures to a region to be absorbed into mainstream society though and afterwards the original society will have changed a bit, but thats social evolution its been happening for thousands of years

 

True but do the formation of cutural and ethnic areas where the majority of a single culture or group congregate cause problems? Chinatown is called such for a good reason and it's been there for a century. It hasn't assimilated into the mainstream.

Don't many of these congregations create ghettos?

 

I think our American society works ok...even poor people here live better than most people in the world...

 

in the bigger picture the creation of 'ghettos' or racially/culturally insular communities would be a short term situation

there would still be areas that were once the centre of that specific culture/race's community (Leichardt, Sydney for the Italians,Chinatown, Sydney for the Chinese) but they are more a novelty culturally defined place of commerce etc rather then a place where all those people of a specific culture or race live

 

Cabramatta, Lakemba, Bankstown, Ultimo are all enclaves for ethnic groups of one form or another. I honestly think they are not beneficial to society to have such ethnic segregation in a single city. Look at the reputation that Bankstown, Cabramatta and Ultimo have for crime and drug abuse. Reputations are not made by accident. This pattern is evident in cities around the world.

Obi-Wan Mcartney - who is the poorest social group in the US? Which section of society figures highest in crime statistics?

Basically I'm simply asking does the majority truly accept minorities like we are lead to believe? Will races ever truly mingle without prejudice of one form or another?

 

Will races ever truly mingle without prejudice of one form or another?

Not in this generation. maybe not in the next.

But eventually, when people grow accustomed to being around other cultures, it will be a possibility.

 

I think your first post is accurate. For a long time in America, the idea was the "melting pot", where individuals from different countries come together, all of the differences are thrown into the pot, and out of the equation emerges a single national culture to which all belong. The idea of "multiculturalism", on the other hand, is that people from different backgrounds should strictly cling to their original culture and supposedly still manage to live side by side without conflict. This, in my opinion, actually causes increased segregation and conflict, and is in fact racist in that it states that people are not really all the same in the final analysis.

It's an idiotic notion dreamed up by academics with ulterior motives and foisted upon the general public through an active campaign of indoctrination and propaganda. It ought to be discarded.

 

I think our American society works ok...even poor people here live better than most people in the world...

I trust you haven't been to the area between West Virigina and Kentucky? ?



As to the original question... Yes, the multicultural societies does work, as long as the so-called "main stream society" is not composed of decendents of British criminals.



My point in the above joke being, despite what you would like to claim, your government still follow a policy of racial/cultural discrimination, and is probably the worst in the Western world. As late as the late 90's, before all this war on terrorism stuff drown out other headlines in the media, I have read about Aborigini rights groups protesting that the Australia government's policy of forceful adoption of Aborigini children. In my opinion, this is a barbarious act on par with the ethnic cleansings of native Americans of the 19 century. You should look at your neighbors, the New Zeeland kiwi's and how they treat their indegenious folks with respect.

 

Kiwis are birds.

There is absolutely no racist legislation in Australia at the moment. In the past there was, but I'm not going into the revisionist arguments here.

 

I'm with AJA. Without a common culture, people will segragate themselves into their cultural ghettos where there is no cross-cultural communication between neighboring groups--they may as well be seperate nations or states. It is something that is prominent in LA where certain groups live in their "own" neighborhoods and are territorial (not to mention the lack of cultural assimilation and/or learning English). In the melting pot scenario, some people may lose certain cultural aspects (like a foreign language or certain cultural practices that don't fit with the dominant culture) but the trade off is that there is a common ground that people can meet on.

 

Ok, I think most of you guys are totally, totally off the mark.

What is the reason that most of the ethnic groups that have immigrated here to the U.S. have been able to thrive and succeed?

Personally, I AM TOTALLY CONVINCED IT WAS THE CULTURE AND VALUES THEY BROUGHT OVER. First let me say that I think the notion that we USED to be a melting pot and NOW liberal multicultural rhetoric is ruining the country is totally and completely false.

When ethnic groups of any kind first came to this country, while they were given a shot, they were still despised. People despised newcomers, and people still do. Racial groups from Italy, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, China, India, Mexico, and Africa, and wherever else peoeple come from, were initially met with less than a warm reception.

The people already living in America didn't believe in this "melting pot," they believed in preserving the current culture, and were opposed to new racial groups. The only way these racial groups were able to survive was by sticking together, forging out a place in America for themselves where they could live free and without the scorn of other Americans. Multiculturalims, existed FROM THE BEGINNING.

THEN, once immigrants were firmly settled and new generations were born, ONLY THEN did the melting pot begin to form. Children being born from an Italian background still grew up and went to the public schools in America, they were influenced BY BOTH THEIR HERITAGE AND THE DOMINANT CULTURE.

The reason that there was anything left to add to the pot at all was because their parents preserved the culture they brought with them, and their children integrated both, teaching their friends outside their cultural background their ways and vice-versa. Intercultural marriages occurred, and the cultures blended.

Now, my own personal feeling on why blacks have had such a hard time attaining social and financial success is because they were brought here in chains. No, I'm not blaming anyone currently alive, but Blacks were brought here in chains and their culture was completely eradicated here. Not only that, they were held in bondage for centuries, and when they were finally freed, they still faced enormous challenges in the face of the prejidce they endured every day. To top it off, they had no common heritage, aside from slavery, to fall back on and support them when they came.

Furthermore, I would like everyone here to realize that multiculturalism is the very reason that America thrives today as the NUMBER ONE NATION ON EARTH. The United States recruits the best and the brightest minds from all over the earth, for good reason. Multiculturalism itself leads to the melting pot, they sharing and exchanging of common and new ideas, beliefs, and goals.

There is certainly a need to assimilate to some degree and to work with the ways of the west. But to abandon your cultural heritage completely and simply try to change yourself entirely would be a detriment to the United States itself.

I realize that I did not address everything I meant to with this post, I am currently typing away at fifteen page paper due tomorrow, but I will be happy to debate this further and answer any questions.

 

*Stands up and claps* Could'nt have said it better myself! 'Ethnic minorities' (read: those not of Germanic or Scandinavian lineage who were in the majority at the beginnings of the country.) were made to feel postitively NOT American and were reminded of who they were and where their place was and they better not have forgotten that either. The Irish were reminded they were Irish, the Italians, the Russians, the Hungarians, blacks, etc. I don't think it was the fact that they were reminded of their heritage, but made to feel ashamed because of it. After a while instead of being downed by it, they began to celebrate it. Hence the hyphening.

 

There is certainly a need to assimilate to some degree and to work with the ways of the west.

But this is entirely against the multiculturalism framework. Multiculturism, as I have been taught, is to deny ANY assimilation because all cultures are equal and deserve equal representation in a society without any "watering down". The main idea being that any assimilation jeopardizes a person's cultural heritage and makes them a "sell out". I don't think anyone would argue that people should leave their heritage behind. However, there has to be some middle ground where cultural heritage is balanced with some assimilation into a dominant culture--ie learning the language, appropriate behavior, etc. Otherwise we are left with ghettos in which people have made no attempts at assimilation. Like I said before, in LA there is tremendous amount of territorialism between groups and "their" neighborhoods. ALL of it belongs to ALL of us and not some of it belongs to some of us.

 

Chi, I don't know what conservative thug taught you about multiculturalism, but the idea is supposed to be as I've stated. It's supposed to be about retaining your cultural heritage, while teaching your ways to those around you and learning the ways of others around you.

Multiculturalism is simply meant to promote understanding and compassion between humans, and most of the time people are amazed at how much their cultures are actually the same, how traditions in one culture have very similar counterparts in other cultures. That's where the "unity through diversity" comes in.

 

Conservative = perserving the present state of affair.

Liberal = trying to move the society forward progressively towards some utopia.

Reactionary = trying to move the society back in time.

So the political position of people wanting to go back to racial/cultural segregation should be correctly refered to as that of a Reactionary, and not that of a Conservative.

 

Conservative and liberal ideologies are much more complicated than that, Jet.

On the topic of multicultural socities, I don't have a problem with them. They are generally a good thing, when there is open communication and understanding among the different cultures. If any of the cultures closes itself off, however, (ie, refusing to accomodate the basic habits of the society as a whole, such as language, basic ideals of modesty and coexistence, traffic laws) then their social consciousness excludes everybody else ... they see themselves as an independent group first and foremost, with a responsibility to each other over the so-called social contract. This is bad.

 

Generally...I agree. But what about native Americans?

Also, Jet, you left out REVOLUTIONARY. I would say that the terms you gave would go like this:


On the EXTREME RIGHT we have, REACTIONARY, and slightly more towards the left we have CONSERVATIVE. Then the MODERATES, then to the left of them we have the LIBERALS, and then to the EXTREME LEFT, we have REVOLUTIONARIES.

Reactionaries and Revolutionaries have typically resorted to any means necessary to promote their agendas, historically speaking.

 

No, I learned multiculturalism in liberal schools throughout my life. You do not get unity through diversity--you get fractured pieces.

 

Living in Singapore, where we have 4 major races and a few minority races, I do believe that multicultural societies work.

Behind it all, we are led to believe more in the concept of nationhood than individual racial culture. Although we hold on to our culture as something that has been passed on from generation to generation, as a source of our roots and heritage, we are aware of the consequences of disharmony between races and what race riots have cost.

I do believe that it is possible to have harmony while holding on to your own racial culture, as long as there is no attempt made to force it upon others.

 

That sounds more like a melting pot scenario than multicultural, IMO.

 

The melting pot is a byproduct of multiculturalism.

 

Segregation is different from multiculturalism. Segration means to divide, but multiculturalism is more along the lines of keeping separate cultures but still communicating. "Melting pot" can be seen in 2 ways: a conformist melting pot where everyone must conform to the same set of standards that were formed by combining cultures or one in which people share cultural values and adopt them voluntarily.

I've always believed that multiculturalism means to keep your own culture, respect other people's culture and start sharing cultures. It's not as extreme as complete assimilation or segregation. I would argue that segragation is not multiculturalism.

As for the actual question, multicultural societies can work; although there will always be concentrations of a certain group in one area, that is no different than concentrations of rich people and poor people, or any other divide in society.