From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1 sub-page for Multiculturalism

Contents 1 Previous comments 2 The Ed Poor rewrite 3 Separate out states 4 Removed line 5 Kymlicka 6 Seven criticisms by Dunshi 7 NPOV edit 8 Who's this Kymlicka fellow? 9 Toronto: the world's most multicultural city? 10 France 11 External link to page not found 12 External links 13 Lopsided article 14 The Netherlands - Disputed 15 Bad debate techniques in the Criticism section 16 Gunnar K. A. Njalsson??? 17 Multiculturalism - The big one 18 Canadian Issues 19 United States Critique 20 Peer review request 21 Citation needed 22 Merge monoculturalism 23 Deleted Gunnar Njalsson 24 Polarisation: comment by User:Skookum1 25 Opposition to multiculturalism in Canada: inline comments 25.1 Andrew Bolt behind multiculturalism? 25.2 Xenophobia 26 Why does monoculturalism redirect here?

[edit] Previous comments

'Much of Australia's traditional Anglo-Celtic population are either opposed to or show apathy towards multiculturalism.'

As an Australian, I find this not only incorrect, but very offensive.

As another Australian I must comment that this statement is true in that historically White Australia showed up various prejudices (towards Chinese and Aboriginals for example, culminating in the Stolen Generation) and we mustn't be too quick to disclaim that these biases of as recently as 50 years ago are extinct. Recent "race riots" in Sydney show up an all too quick volatility, and the present political climate is introducing a degree of fear and xenophobia towards immigrants (particularly Islamic) that however you argue it is definitely taking place.

---

From Voivod:

• Multiculturalsim is a mixbag of 1)elite-group chartered relations (Toryism), 2)popular, civil society tribalism, 3)post-material reactions to neoconservative "monoculturalism", 4)traditionalism and mutual, ethnocentric rejections, 5)Orientalist fetishism and 5)pluralist attempt to distract the civil society from real issues.

See Also Inter-faithism

This article badly needs more NPOV. There is a general democratic ideal that says everyone and of every background has equal rights. There is also, however, a more politically focussed belief that concentrates on one set of minorities taken to be "naturally leftist" to the exclusion of others. This article concentrates on the latter viewpoint.

In the US, for instance, attempts are frequently made to directly exclude conservatives of Latin Americans or African-American background as Uncle Toms and it is rare that celebrations of diversity include, say, gypsies, French Canadians, or rural whites.

This article also excludes what might be called "cultural multiculturalism", such as world music, the proliferation of Thai restaurants, inclusive conventions like "tokens", etc. In all, this is still a pretty unsophisticated article, Ortolan88

--

Gypsies, French Canadians, and Rural Whites: As an American, I can't really speak about gypsies, who are far more visible as communities in Europe. A paragraph about the treatment of gypsies in Europe would highlight the difference between monocultural and multicultural approaches, actually.

French Canadian celebrations - have you ever heard of Mardi Gras? The maintenance of that tradition and culture in Louisiana, as well as its celebration (literally and figuratively speaking) by people with no French-Canadian heritage is an exemplar of multiculturalism.

Equal rights and multiculturalism are linked. Think voting, religion, speech. Also just the general notion of a democracy - the "of the people" part. There should be much more foundational stuff about this premise. Often ethnic and religious minorities are marginalized in the democratic process, while their marginalizers claim the reverse is happening (all the while buying books by the D'Souzas, Malkins, and Ajamis of the world.). Part of multiculturalism is for the larger society to respect the views that are representative of the smaller communities, rather than cherry-pick the anomalous opinions when it suits a member of the majority race, or religion, etc. Those perspectives are already expounded by a majority of the majority - is the majority so insecure that they need to be abetted by a minority of a minority?

"Cultural multiculturalism" would best go under cultural pluralism, an article which I am currently writing, or at least attempting.

Finally, is it just me, or does it seem like 75% of this article is criticism rather than exposition of the subject. Why doesn't this happen in say, cosmopolitanism? It would be appropriate for this ratio to be inverted, by a combinastion of adding and subtracting.

---

Removed this paragraph:

multiculturalism (not all people perceive "multiculturalism" in terms of "their own" "family" "traditions" and "beliefs" and "multiculturalism" certainly serves vastly different fuctions for different social or ethnic/racial groups). It is also experienced and viewed by different individuals with different degrees of committment, attachment and enthusiasm. It is interpreted by different political ideologies to have vastly different policy significances. In other words, can't take consensus, or authoritative views for granted.

it seems just full of generalities, and the author did not make effort to integrate it in the article. Or maybe was it just misplaced talk. --FvdP

---

It has come to my attention that pluralism is not a real issue, but a distraction from real issues (such as?)

---

Would it be correct to say that "multiculturalism" is the opposite of "ethnic nationalism"?

The article as it stands doesn't seem to touch on how multiculturalism is inconsistent with and presents a challenge to traditional nation states (which are by definition culturally discriminatory).

I think this article badly need a re-write, but I want to make sure we all agree on what "multiculturalism" is before I start. - stewacide

[edit] The Ed Poor rewrite

Sorry, I took a stab at it before discussing anything here, but I'll try to address Ortolan and Stewacide's points.

America is torn between (a) embracing lots of different cultures and (b) promoting a clear standard of right and wrong. There is a view that "all cultures are equally good" which presumably means that cannibals from primitive are on the same level as America's founding fathers. This touches on the philosophical issue of "relativism", here meaning the doctrine that no one is ever in a position to say that anything is right or wrong since there is no absolute right or wrong".

Some of the bullet points from the previous version ought to be brought back into the article (gently, slowly!) -- but as paragraphs. I wouldn't like to see a hodgepodge, because that's not an article. It's not even a good outline.

I'm not saying my version is the best possible one, just that it's a valid starting point; the previous version was junk. At best, it described one POV; but it didn't even do that well. So I started with the viewpoint -- the identified and attributed POV -- of a recognized scholar.

If someone wants to add a Marxian analysis; or a "liberal viewpoint"; or a "right-wing" view from someone like Bill O'Reilly or Patrick Buchanan; or any of several spokesmen or -women from the Democratic Party, good! Please add clearly identified POVs to the article!! I'm just using Ravitch as a stub: I don't pretend she's objective or neutral. --Uncle Ed 17:15, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

[edit] Separate out states

I think the big problem with this article is two-fold. Firstly multiculturalism is understood in entirely different ways in different states. Secondly, even within those states there is no consensus among thinkers as to what multiculturalism means. So, taking the UK as an example, the leftwing head of the race equality body says he now opposes multiculturalism, but there are many on the political right who still accept it as a valid and successful element of modern Britain. I suggest that the article be rewritten with a general introduction on the history of the word and its place in modern social policy before splitting out into more comprehensive articles on each of the key nations where debates are continuing - America, Canada, UK, Germany, France and Italy to name but a few.

[edit] Removed line

I removed "California drivers can take their exams in a number of languages, something no Canadian province or Australian state permits." I do not known for certain, but I would be very surprised if driver's tests are not available in both French and English in some Canadian provinces. - SimonP 03:50, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hilariously wrong, in fact. I can't speak for other Canadian provinces, but here in BC you can take your driver's license exam in damn near any language you can find a certified translator for; which would include at three or four varieties of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Arabic, Farsi, Amharic, Russian, Polish, Yugoslav in all its varieties, and the usual list of other European languages; I wouldn't be surprised if Somali and Swahili were also available, although generally Africans speak enough English or French to be examined in those languages. (public services in the city of Vancouver and other municipalities are also available in a plethora of languages). There's thousands of BCers who barely speak a word of English who have a BCDL, and by that I mean legitimate driver's licenses. What I mean by that is that because of the translator-examiner system, there were large-scale abuses of licensing procedures in the wake of the influx from Hong Kong after that city's takeover by China; such that for $3000 your examiner and your translator would get you through the test; so all kinds of people (over 100,000) who not only didn't speak English but didn't actually study the local driving laws or do a proper exam are on our roads. When this first broke as a scandal, "multiculturalism" was invoked to keep there from being mass criminal prosecutions for bribing officials and obtaining a license illegally; the campaign against prosecutions was led by S.U.C.C.E.S.S., the United Chinese Canadian Enrichment Services Society, on the basis that since over 96% of the licenses obtained this way were to new Chinese immigrants, it would be "racist" to prosecute the driver's licensing scandal since most of the indicted would be Chinese. Of course, this is the same crowd that has no problem with Chinese-only shopping malls which habitually exclude/shun non-Chinese customers, but have also joined the bandwagon over redress for the Head Tax; one great feature of multiculturalism as experienced in Canada is the rank hypocrisy and the flexibly biased interpretations of what it means; so long as the interpretation retrenches/distinguishes your group's status within the multiculture; and the loosey-goosey use of "racism" whenever another group or groups reacts to your own group's uppitiness and sometimes arrogance (as with the driver's license scandal). There have been recent convictions concerning this, but not on the same scale, and of course prosecutions are unofficially "ethnically distributed" so it doesn't appear that any one group is breaking the law more than others; which means that some groups are "getting away with it" at a higher rate than other groups, because of "ethnic balance" in the prosecutions. One guy I knew rented a basement suite from a senior Insurance Corporation of British Columbia administrator for East Vancouver back in the early 1990s, and during a drunken neighbourly conversation one night my acquaintance asked his landlord, "c'mon, tell me how many of the accidents in East Van are caused by Chinese?" and the landlord replied "we're not allowed to keep those kinds of statistics...but, frankly, all of them" (granted this in a part of town where 30-70% of drivers/residents are now Chinese, depending on the neighbourhood). This may sound like a set of racist comments to someone not familiar with Vancouver or its ethnic milieu, but other groups than my own (white guy, granted) including Filipinos and other Asians have the same opinion/experiences. What's a tragedy, to me, is that because of multiculturalism this city does now have definable groups; before the influx it was just multicultural/multiethnic; now it's divided, despite official propaganda and big-media bumpf to the contrary....Skookum1 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kymlicka

Another criticism of Kymlicka's communitarianism: It devolves responsibility of the public society to its "subsets" which are cultural communities, which responsibility is to integrate individuals experiencing cultural alienation or in need of cultural choices. In other words: the society doesn't integrate individuals, "communities" do; the society doesn't integrate individuals, it only integrates "communities". Through such communal devolution, the society actually devests of itself the direct responsibility to rein in racism assaulting HUMAN dignity (not just "group dignity"), to provide equal opportunities and cultural fulfillment for individuals. And then, the discourses concerning anti-racism and egalitarianism is directed exclusively toward the preservation of group dignity, group integrity, group autonomy and inter-group harmony.

[edit] Seven criticisms by Dunshi

Seven faults of Multiculturalism as it is most commonly understood:

1) Inclusion of exclusiveness equals exclusion. (similarly, tolerance of intolerance equals intolerance)

2) Common Multiculturalism exploits the traditional for the use of untraditional identities. In this respect, Multiculturalism cannot withstand charges laid by people who take a Classicist understanding of cultures, such as Dinesh D'Sousa.

3) Common Multiculturalism exploits the innocuousness of the concept of "diversity" for the consolidation of caste structures (permanent ones or impermanent ones) and paints over inequalities to be compatible with egalitarian principles.

4) Common Multiculturalism fumbles over the foggy idea of diversity without discerning its reality, without distinguishing good diversity from bad diversity. It is diversity for diversity's sake.

5) "Protecting diversity" is a necessitarian act, not based on choice, as excessively claimed by Common Multiculturalism. (We protect the Buddha statues of Bamiyan not because the people of Afghanistan, General Secretary Annan or the member nations of the UN choose to, but because we have to. This is the reality of cultural protection.)

6) Common Multiculturalism furnishes catch phrases, obsolete labels, irrelevant labels that lead away from the reality of social relationships and enforce rigid stereotypes and prejudice.

7) Common Multiculturalism simply does not help, by hushing up, reacting strongly on behalf of identitarian pride (however constructed these identities are). Political correctness is a politicking game for the hypocrits.

[edit] NPOV edit

I removed this paragraph as blatantly POV:

"Despite all the criticism, multiculturalism, when coupled with laws favoring the intergration of immigrants into mainstream society, seems to have been successful in Canada. Immigrants intergrate quickly into mainstream society, and an overwhelming number of them learn one of the official languages. It is one of the most diverse and tolerant societies on Earth, and there have been little or no ethnic tensions since the implementation of the multicultral policy. The notable exception is Quebecers. However, the province still hasn't separated from Canada."

This is more a statement of some contributor's Canadian patriotism that an unbiased assessment of Canada's multicultural policies.

In general, I think this article is pretty weak in its present form.

--Peter G Werner 07:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that passage. I certainly agree with you about it's POV. As to the article, it undoubtedly is in need of improvement. What would you suggest as major faults? How would you see it better organized and written? Sunray 02:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose my biggest criticism would be the choppy nature of the article itself - its obviously had a lot of people contributing to it in a piecemeal manner and the organization of the article suffers as a result - having one person take responsibility for taking the information in the article and distilling it down to a coherent whole would be a significant improvement. A general discussion of multiculturalism, views of proponents and critics of multiculturalism, and sections relating to the history of multiculturalist policies in different countries and regions (such as, United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, other countries) would be a good outline. One thing that's definitely missing is any kind of discussion of the possible contradictions of multiculturalism, such as how does multiculturalism deal with expressions of culture that are themselves highly intolerant of other cultures. This problem has most recently come to head in the Netherlands, which has a huge Muslim population, many of whom are fundamentalists and some of whom have actually taken to murdering their critics.--Peter G Werner 08:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Are you proposing to work on that? Sunray 20:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I just did some quick copyediting and see what you mean. It needs major work. It is poorly organized and has long wordy and jargon-filled sentences that are nearly impossible to understand. Sunray 21:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

"It is one of the most diverse and tolerant societies on Earth, and there have been little or no ethnic tensions since the implementation of the multicultral policy. The notable exception is Quebecers. However, the province still hasn't separated from Canada." This is more a statement of some contributor's Canadian patriotism that an unbiased assessment of Canada's multicultural policies.

Totally agreed, speaking as a Canadian who's gotten bored and irritated (like many of us) from hearing that kind of twaddle all the time. Canada's media and politicians obsess over how successful multiculturalism and boast incessantly about how there's no discord; but that's just because they don't talk to people who don't like the policy or its effects on the country and society, and are also tired of the preachy moralism on the subject. What little anti-multicultural opinion you are allowed to hear is picked from the most radical and unsavoury ends of the spectrum, or otherwise painted as the opinions of "hick white trash bigots", i.e. people who aren't allowed to have their own culture/identity and chafe at the idea of having outside cultures enforced upon them by official policy. A recent CBC Journal profile on the multicultural/extreme Moslem tensions in England and Holland was full of this, with both English and Dutch politicians being grilled by the Canadian reporter who was "shocked, as a Canadian, that you could think like this" (banning burqas, trying to assimilate by law recalcitrant, hostile-to-Dutch-society groups); one Dutch guy shot back that "you've got these problems in Canada but they haven't come to the fore". Oh, they've come to the fore alright, it's just the CBC wants to pretend they don't exist, or anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of dinosaur or rural know-nothing. Multiculturalism in Canada is widely discussed in cafes and locker rooms and so on as a complete failure, a pain in the ass, and something most people would rather shelve so as to get on with encouraging the development of a truly Canadian society; not one defined by government policy, but by people living and working together. NOT living and working apart, as is so painfully obvious throughout any major Canadian city; when you have large groups that don't give a fig for speaking either national language, have mono-ethnic workplaces and business communities which effectively exclude outsiders, and more, then multiculturalism cannot and does not live up to the Big Brag made by Canadians like the one who mad the quote above; to disagree with any of such policies, by the way, is now "un-Canadian", a phrase also used on the CBC program mentioned, and too often heard by justifiers for what is now a widely discredited and unpopular policy (despite trumped-up polls saying the opposite).Skookum1 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

anyone who has actually grown up WITHIN a truly multicultural society realises the value of this type of society. older generations and people from suburban or rural areas are the only people who would ever claim that multiculturalism is "a widely discredited and unpopular policy." i was born and raised in downtown toronto and i have travelled to many other places and there is nowhere on the planet i would rather be from. this is because growing up in a multicultural atmosphere has made me more openminded and tolerant and socially progressive than i would have been growing up anywhere else. i have close friends who are east indian, tunisian, chinese, israeli, nigerian, philipino, dominican, el salvadorian, first nations, YOU NAME IT. my exboyfriend is jamaican and the only person who ever had a problem with it was my grandfather. you are obviously a sheltered white person who does not understand the value of multiculturalism and would prefer to exist as part of a dominant global minority . . . maybe you should try to start putting signs up on these "cafes and locker rooms" that read "whites only". maybe you should move to alabama. maybe you should get in a time machine and have some fun in berlin in 1939. or maybe you should start appreciating that you live in one of the most progressive nations on the planet and start supporting the society you so ignorantly criticize. PEACE

[edit] Who's this Kymlicka fellow?

Will Kymlicka?

And who is "administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson"? Relevant enough to be paraphrased so extensively, or is this paragraph on wikipedia his major publication? His ideas don't seem very scientific to me.--84.188.155.49 06:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Kymlicka section, because it didn't seem to be related to anything else in the article and was just floating there in its own little universe. - Randwicked Alex B 07:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto: the world's most multicultural city?

I've temporarily removed the following statement from the article:

"According to the UN, Toronto, Canada, is the most multicultural city in the world."

While I think that this is probably true, it doesn't seem to be very good form to say "According to the UN..." Is this an official statement of a UN agency? If so which one? Is it the result of a comparative study? By whom? It would be best to provide a source for this. Sunray 21:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Toronto has a way of self-aggrandizement in all things, which is one of the many reasons other Canadians shrug it (the boasting) off and despite the place (when not hypnotized by the slick if cheesy selljob the city specializes in). "Most", "best" and all that stuff; Vancouver does the same, but only because it apes Toronto, and not incidentally it began when Toronto-based media began to dominate Vancouver's....and I'd venture London as more multicultural anyway.....Skookum1 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France

For example, France has made efforts to adapt French culture to new immigrant groups

What specifically is considered a French effort to adapt French culture to new immigrants? I come from France, and haven't seen any such a thing ever. Integration, as in assimilation is the motto, and even third generation descendants of immigrants who have little to nothing in common with their original population are still considered immigrants, non integrated unless you are unable to guess they have immigrant ancestors.

This is an important comment. I suggest you not only delete this line from the article, but add a section on multiculturalism in France, too. Continental Europe is conspicuously absent from this article. Does that imply a lack of understanding of the importance of multiculturalism, at least regarding immigrants? What about Switzerland and Spain, that have long histories of multiple cultures living within one nation? All this is very important, and absent from the discussion, both here and in contempoary politics. Bruxism 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete it if I get no reference, but I'll give it a few days first, whoever wrote that must have had something in mind I guess. Good suggestion on adding a section on multiculturalism in Continental Europe. I wouldn't be able to write on any other country than France and Spain though: I don't know enough about other countries to write a quality entry about them. To quickly answer your questions : Not only French society lacks understanding of the importance of multiculturalism, it actually has a quite negative opinion of it and has policies that deeply oppose the concept (both for immigrants and native minorities). I'll describe the issue in more details when I write about it (I'm a little bit tight on time now). Spain is more open to multiculturalism, and has kept some diversity (with catalans, basques, galicians, etc.) despite Franco's policies going against that. I'm only dealing with contemporary aspects of multiculturalism and setting aside the middle ages episodes against Jews and Muslims, which AFAIU are not relevant to this article. Spain's tolerance to multiculturalism is limited to its native national components though, not to immigrant cultures at all (though immigration is too recent a phenomenon in Spain to have any significantly structured policy in that sense).--Yobaranut 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link to page not found

In the external links section, the link to the article "Multiculturalism: E Pluribus Plures" by Diane Ravitch seems to be a dead link. (I'm not learned or confident enough to edit the actual wikipedia entry) -m.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.237.91.30 (talk • contribs) .

The link is dead and I couldn't find that essay anywhere else on the net so I removed it.--Rockero 22:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

What's with the external links in this article? They all take an anti-multiculturalism position; one is even a racist diatribe by a fringe organization that warns of the impeding "Asianization" of Australia ("The Menace of Multiculturalism" by Cameron McKenzie). Somebody needs to add some balance and weed out the less credible links. As it stands it looks like somebody has an agenda to push. -- Kilgore Trout 03:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lopsided article

I too thought the section critiqueing U.S. multiculturalism was a horribly lopsided report. I believe America embraces multi-culture. Just as a small example my university is working toward a more diverse campus each year. That is an important part of their long term agenda.

In general, this can be said to be true. However, the reality of what college campus' attempt to do, compared to what "Americans want" is difficult to prove to be the same thing. Like the issue in general, this is an example of 'theory vs. practice'. In theory, my undergrad alma mater has made efforts to culturally diversify the campus. Lots of initiatives, lots of approaches. I'm not sure how one can measure if such attemps have been sucessful. Or even what success in these endovors would look like. So, it's not enough to say these things exist, but rather we need to understand the goals and whether or not they've been accomplsihed or even can be.

However, to your point, the college campus has been an on going experiment in multiculturalism policies. That should probably get some focus in the article.--Jonashart 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Netherlands - Disputed

This part is heavily biased against multiculturalism - perhaps someone could help modifying it to a NPOV? Larix 16:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation (from the CBS (dutch bureau of statistics), sorry for the typo in the description in the page's history). I don't know enough facts to remove the bias though :( ftre

I agree that there are many strong statements that are unsupported by citations. It needs work. I've changed the tag to refer to the section, rather than the article as a whole, (though there are problems in other sections of the article as well). Sunray 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some references and made the article more factual. Don't really see a strong bias against multiculturalism.

The criticism of multiculturalism in the Netherlands is backed up by factual sources. Therefore removed the disputed tag.

I've restored it. That section has serious problems. For instance why is the fact in and of itself that 52% of Amsterdam school children are of "non western" background a problem? Most of the strongest accusations about female circumcision and honor killings are unsourced, and throughout in confuses immigration with multiculturalism. - SimonP 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. It is still heavily biased. Larix 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This section has now been considerably improved, good work. - SimonP 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad debate techniques in the Criticism section

These paragraphs have been removed from the "Criticisms of multiculturalism in general" section due to the fact that they are not criticisms, but rather a defense of multiculturalism. The pro and con arguments need to be separate. The pro-multicultural portion above has no clauses that rebut their statements, yet in the criticism part, every critique is rebutted. This is poor writing technique and does not follow proper debate rules and needs to be adjusted. For now, I've taken out all of the rebuttals from the criticism and placed it here.

However, proponents claim that policies that facilitate racially proportional representation (district as opposed to at-large local elections) and the accommodation of bilingualism in voting, both do precisely the opposite: they may encourage political participation and increase minority representation in local and national political life. On the other hand, democracy can only work if there is public debate.

But it is also true that the human mind is born without any culture, and that in nearly all societies attempt to condition their citizens culturally. What is distinct about multiculturalism is the assertion of an identity, aside from the nationally imposed identity, allowing for individuals within minority cultures to exercise more free choice than they otherwise would in a universalist society.

But some multiculturalists argue that this is not supported by historical record. According to their interpretation, fears that minorities in the US or Canada will have divided loyalties have been a canard, for example, to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. Some multiculturalist research indicates that native-born ethnic and religious minorities in North America have high rates of out-marriage and participate fully in their country of birth. They tend to identify culturally but not politically with the home of their forbears. The potential struggle to alter societal values is a concern mainly in European countries with a historically monocultural development, where religious and ethnic minorities may be or at least perceive themselves to be politically and socially marginalized, a condition that can reinforce fundamentalist strains in any culture.

Instead of removing the paragraphs, it would be better to rename the section "debates" or "controversies" and present both sides of the arguments. Otherwise, the article looks very one-sided. C3po 08:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Gunnar K. A. Njalsson???

There's no source citation for this man. I checked Google and all the hits seem to refer to his mention in this WP entry if not mistaken.

[edit] Multiculturalism - The big one

Polemic removed. I cannot believe that such an essay has any place in an encyclopedia. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to start linking any appropriate quotes or sources you think would improve this article.--Saintlink 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Issues

Perhaps this is better covered somewhere else, but the Canadian subsections (history/critiques) appear to be missing some key points. Can we discuss Canadian (Federal) Multiculturalism without the history of the Mosiac and the philosphies behind that? And while the Quebec issue has been raised, it may be useful to mention the history of Canada as a country legally divided as two races since the 18th century, and the legacy that has left. Moreover, there is no discussion of the various native/Inuit issue that have arisen in the last 300+ years and how they are or are not reflected in such a policy. Also, religious identity will continue to be at the forefront of social debate in Canada, and is it unclear how federally mandated rules will play into such debates.

Althought the authors/scholars mentioned are of great importance, the work of John Porter (The Vertical Mosaic) has been central in Canadian social self-examination. His findings have been one of the cornerstones of Canadian sociolgy, and thus, understanding of the Mosaic, and Multiculturalism. He was redefining the understanding of Candian society before the B&B Commision had even finished its work.

In short, the Canadian version of legal Multicultualism has a long history. Other points include historical Canadian socio-political attitudes, relations with the United States, relations with European nations, it role as a member of the British Empire, etc., etc... --Jonashart 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points you have raised. I think a short paragraph coverning the history of the Mosaic would be most appropriate. Go for it! Sunray 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good, thanks. I'll see what I can do. Also glad to hear it from a Canadian (I assume. Or maybe just living up North?). Taking on this issue as a Yank can get one into rather 'spirited' debates. Appreciate the feedback.--Jonashart 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment there seems to be an unneccessary emphasis on the Canadian experience of multiculturalism ans its position as an "originator" of multiculturalism. Wouldn't it be better to have a section on post WW2 labour migration and the emergence of explicit multicultural policies in Canada, Australia, Great Britain (to an extent) etc. I think the development of multiculturalism as an explicit state policy differentiates the Australiand and Canadian experience from that of the United states and enables the article to get a grip on the difference between multicultured states and state multiculturalism. --campdog 07:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Attributing the Multicultural system developed in Canada to post-WWII labor migration would be overlooking exceedingly important Canadian history. That is not to say that such migrations did not and do not play a role. However, it is important to distinguish the multi-faceted phenomenon that is the development of the Canadian system. For example, the racial division between French and Anglo Canadians begun in the 18th century is unique as a pushing force behind the policies of Canada. And if you examine the (sequentially) parallel work of John Porter and the B&B Commission, you see that they were both talking primarily about European Canadians and the various cultures thereof. And yet, well prior to WWII, the Canadian population was not strictly European.

I think the article is also missing the very pertinent perspective of Western Canada, which has been multi-ethnic since the annexation of the Prairies and still has a much higher rate of non-British ethnicities even among the non-visible minority population (I hate the term "European" for various reasons I won't go into here; but it's term I prefer to avoid unless referring to straight-off-the-boat/plane Europeans); and British Columbia was multi-ethnic in its colonial days, even irrespective of the First Nations and Chinese population; likewise the Columbia District, its predecessor, although the fur company population was only marginal relative to the First Nations/Native American population (I include Native American then because our history pre-1846 includes what is now the United States). Point is that the multi-ethnic character of the West was already well-established long before multiculturalism became a federal diktat; even the Brits here were "ethnic", as were the Americans (speaking of BC, that is); many of the Brits were here, in fact, by way of the Raj, Africa, the West Indies or other parts of the then-Empire and were/are very much unlike the "Anglo-Saxon" (so-called) stock of Eastern Canada, i.e. simply by dint of being new arrivals, but also of "a different sort" than the conservative anglosphere of southern Ontarians. This paved the way for acceptance, begrudgingly or otherwise, of state multiculturalism; but the ideology of multiculturalism likes to pretend that there was a "pre-multicultural Canada"; that may be true of Central Canada and Atlantic Canada, but it's a non sequitur as far as the history and society in the West goes; we may have used English as a lingua franca out of necessity; that didn't mean we were as monolithically "Anglo-Saxon" or francophone as the Eastern Provinces. Is there a tag for "CCPOV" (Central Canadian point of view)?Skookum1 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. The term "European", in the Canadian context, has basically come to cannote Anglo or Frano peoples. Skookum, I think your pointing out exactly why the Canadian experience is worth the attention. It is not simply a question of "The Great White North" accepting non-white people. It's far more complicated, far more historical than that. As just a lowly southern observer of these things, I can tell you that your point would be missed/unknown to most. But to your point (and one I've made previously), what does it mean for a state to "declare" itself Multicultural?:

"...but the ideology of multiculturalism likes to pretend that there was a "pre-multicultural Canada"" This is great! Certainly this discussion could lead down an ugly politicized path so I'll avoid it, but you're raising another exceeding important aspect of the issue.--Jonashart 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no question that the United States (both federally, and socially) has taken a different path, for better or worse.

Further, and at the risk of sounding a bit too "nationalistic", as a southern neighbor of Canada, it's important to understand what is unique about the Canadian experience. The Mosaic and Multiculturalism policy have been publically championed as superior to the American model, by Trudeau himself no less. Such a challenge deserves examination of the policies based on their own merits.

A section dealing with migration patterns would be a great addition!--Jonashart 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Yes" to the first three paragraphs of your commentary. On the point about understanding the Canadian experience, I think a summary of the effects of multiculturalism policies in Canada, and their comparison to U.S. (and European) policies would be a great addition to this article. About Trudeau's statement that Canada's policies were "superior" to the American model, do you have a cite for that? Sunray 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparative idea would be great...but massive. Not undoable, but I'm not volunteering to spearhead. Perhaps help tho. Yes, in fact I do have the citation, but not in front of me. I was wondering if someone was going to call me out on that...glad you did. I'll put it up when I get home. Cheers.--Jonashart 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Et bien, voila. I don't have the book in front of me, but my original citation for that assertion is the following-

Leo Driedger, Multi-Ethnic Canada: Identities and Inequalities (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996) 120.--Jonashart 00:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Critique

The most recent edit changing "non-white people" to "foreigners" is interesting. If that paragraph following the Pat B quote is a follow up, then read below. If it's a stand alone comment about people's general concerns regarding multiculturalism, then it was a good change.

While it'd be nice to believe the people who express views like those of Pat B. fear all foreigners, can we really believe that to be true? If all the immigration to the US (legal or otherwise) were by white, Christian Europeans, can we honestly believe we'd see the same kind of disputes regarding these issues? The fact is, people fear the "other", especially when that other doesn't look like "us". Unfortunately, part of people's push against "multiculturalism", both in the U.S. and in Canada has very much to do with race, color and religion. As such, we should think carefully about the language we use to describe that reality. Understating can be as dangerous as overstating. Granted, I understand the difficulty in quantifying such things, so word choice can be a tricky task. However, people do not become "unracist" because we choose more politically correct language to describe the situation. --Jonashart 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

The second half of this particular qoute could use some ciation. It's far too anecdotal, and the kind of thing that breeds uninformed hearsay. While it's probably 100% true, proof always puts one's argument on more solid ground.

"Recent immigrants are largely concentrated in the cities of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, which are beginning to feel the strain of this large population growth due to this localized immigration."

--Jonashart 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The wording's problematic but it's definitely a truism. Cites should be fairly easy to dig up - this is standard fare in Canadian journalistic writing. Bear in mind that something like 90% of the country's population is in major cities, and over 80% in the three major megalopolises (megalopoles, actually, but no one uses that form...something like 85% but I don't know the exact figure) - Greater Vancouver, Greater Toronto (a.k.a. "the Centre of the Universe", said proudly by them and ironically by the rest of us...), and Greater Montreal. New immigration into other major cities - Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa - is there, but not as intense or as concentrated. The main reason appears to be, as said in the press, that the new immigrants want to live in the big cities, and around others who speak their language(s) and where services are available; the strangeness of life in smalltown Canada (and it can be pretty strange, believe you me...) largely unknown to them (few travel outside of the major cities, except to other major cities); there's a listing of the reasons somewhere that's common enough I should be able to dig them up (I just got up and am only halfway through my first coffee otherwise I'd be able to list them off), but basically it's the worldwide trend towards urban living/agglomeration that's at work. And, pointedly, Vancouver's boring enough - life in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George etc is even quieter and, unless you're into an outdoors lifestyle or are otherwise sporty, there's not much to do and local socializing revolves around exactly that (the outdoors and sports); those cities do have multiethnic populations (notably First Nations and Sikhs/South Asians, plus some Asians but relatively few in comparison to Greater Vancouver, as well as francophones and some latinos, though not in a community sense, as well as the usual BC mix of European ethnicities) but they do not have the sense of global multiculturalism that Vancouver dopes itself with like some kind of feel-good drug for its own boasting (a bad habit picked up from transplanted marketing types from T.O., in my estimation). There have been proposals that new-immigrant professionals might get moved up the entry ladder if they agree to postings in remote communities, especially for medical staff, but not much has been done about that, partly because the provincial government has been busy closing rural clinics and smalltown hospitals and care homes. Lately there's a new pitch on Prince George as "the new exciting place to be/invest" and while immigration isn't mentioned, it's pretty clear from the TV newscast that the idea is to pump people on buying real estate there and starting another land boom...because it's a given in our economy (and citable, both in stats and in govt/media commentaries) that immigration is the fuel of our economy - imported capital, new housing starts, housing demand (keeping prices crazily high), etc etc - and so far only Vancouver, for the most part, has seen the benefits; subtext of the recent Prince George hype is an agenda to "multiculturalize" the place so that it can boom to a major city, mostly filled by the new immigrants one expects, or people wanting out of the multicultural morass the Lower Mainland (a synonym, but not quite, for Greater Vancouver, q.v. each description). And as for the strain of the population growth, it's not just intercultural tensions (which are huge, but unadmitted by the media or government spin doctors) that that line was speaking of, but the megacity's poor infrastructure and even poorer planning just can't cope with the ongoing intensification of the urban population; and the skyrocketing cost of living (because of all that jacked-up real estate) makes living hard; makes this place a grind, which it never used to be...and that's hard on everybody, including the new immigrants. But it's what you get when you want to live in a self-proclaimed "world-class city" Skookum1 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't doubt the reality of the situation. My concern is that in a day and age where rhetoric surrounding immigration and ethnic tension is rampant, the more proof for such statements, the better. Living an hour south of the border, I'd be a bit concerned if I overheard one of my co-workers say something to the effect of "Well, Montreal is in terrible shape because of the Arabs (or whomever)..." That kind of unsupported, ambiguous statement does little good, even if just meant to inform. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to the subject, but I think we can be better about how we affect the general discourse. I don't mean to sound three kinds of PC, but language affects ideas, ideas affect action, etc, etc. These things are chatted about by people who don't really pay close attention to the details, and are happy to parrot any little tidbit they pickup. This topic is no different from a thousand others in that way. However, I pay attention to this one.--Jonashart 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was more laying out the reality of the fact that immigration is mostly directed at the three major cities and why; not so much trying to provide proof that it was a strain on these cities in an evidentiary way except for the increased demands on infrastructure, including educational services and civic/governmental services (i.e. language, special cultural needs, and so on). The rest is uncitable and highly subjective; but it's a common subjective perspective of old-stock Canadians (of any colour/race/background); that's citable, i.e. that subjective attitude/perception, but actual cause-effect studies that can be cited to demonstrate that increased multiculturalism places a strain on the cities may be harder to cite; partly because it's "un-Canadian" to ask such questions and Canadian reporters/politicians/academics (but not bloggers) "just don't go there". The usual line from the reporters/politicians/academics is that multiculturalism and increased immigration "improves" their cities, and they have all kinds of stats they use to demonstrate that; largely to do with economic/capital growth and economic advantage, and all kinds of flumpf about "diversity"Skookum1 17:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm familiar with the "don't ask, don't tell/don't look behind the Great Oz's curtain" attitude to which you refer. Again, slippery slope down an overtly polical discussion that is best avoided here. Lots of interesting qualitative vs. quantitative topics to kick around as well.--Jonashart 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep your head low and your mouth shut, huh? Yeah, I know...but I've gotten tired of having to do that so speak my mind on a regular basis, even in Wiki as too often there's really bad history/moralizing all over the place in various articles. I'll send you some WikiTalk links later, plus some of my ravings on www.thetyee.ca, which is a local online magazine/blogging space where I shoot my mouth off full steam. I'm tired of being the forelock-tugging Canadian meekly dishing out what the political/academic establishment has decided is good for us; see Talk:Canadian identity, for instance.Skookum1 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite that bad. But, as a Yank, there's only so much I can/should say. My understanding of these things comes as a foreign observer. One need tread carefully when discussing such idealized entities such as the Canadian Cultural Mosaic and Multiculturalism. And rightly so, as I'd hope people would be respectful (even if critical) of the Melting Pot, for instance.--Jonashart 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know about being a Yank disqualifying you from commenting on us; after all, people with freshly-minted Canadian passports (legitimate or otherwise) do it all the time, as do landed immigrants - telling us who we're supposed to be, what it's supposed to mean to be Canadian, what's wrong with Canadians ("don't like hard work", "untrustworthy" and other similarly flattering comments), and more. That's all a spin off of the government/CBC propaganda machine, which has an image/identity it's created that it wants us all to buy into; and a handy way to do that is to indoctrinate all the new arrivals, such that their voices will eventually drown out the older identities in the country; the comment on a young Chinese-Canadian businessman-turned-politico-from-Calgary to Gloria Macarenko on the CBC's flubbery two Canada Days ago resonates harshly in this light: "We've almost eradicated the old British Columbian identity/culture...we're just waiting for the holdouts to die off". Yeah, tolerance and appreciation of diverse cultures, huh? Especially not our own, apparently; that was in fact the first time I EVER heard on CBC that there had ever been a British Columbian culture...And as for the Melting Pot thing, a lot of Canadians (including more-integrated "multicultural" ones) look south and they see a place where a Martian-American is much more likely to feel American and identify with the United States, vs a Martian-Canadian whose primary loyalties and identity are still connected with Mars, and often still hold a passport for same; and insist on living Martian-style and showing no regard for the non-Martians around them...The Mosaic sucks, and as noted above somewhere harks back to the divisive forces which tore apart multicultural states in the past (Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, Rome, the Ummayad Caliphate and others). Trudeau's noxious line that "English Canada doesn't have a culture, I'm going to give it one" is redolent of the anti-attitude towards old-stock Canada; it's as if we didn't exist; yet my First Nations friends comment, upon hearing that, that "yeah, we were told we didn't have a culture, either....".Skookum1 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're describing a reality never envisioned by the original champions of the idea (isn't that always the way tho?). If you have a culture in which specific ehtnicities have numeric, political, and economic superiority, and you introduce a system by which other cultures can occupy the same land, maintain a separate identity, and for foreseeable generations, account for fewer people, doesn't that seem adventageous to those already in power? What you're descibing sounds like it's backfiring...--Jonashart 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A few weeks ago a government blab-release announced, as a good thing, that over 50% of the country would be Chinese in twenty years. This in context: the Chinese-Canadian associations and politicos are demanding "more balanced immigration", meaning more Chinese immigration. Yet if you read Talk:Chinese Canadian you'll find that 30-50% of those already here do not speak English, and don't want to; that's up to 500,000 people at current levels. To me, "balanced immigration" should mean more Latin Americans, Europeans, Middle Easteners etc, but that's not what it means in newspeak-multicuturalthink, apparently. That such bits of news are presented without question and without much discussion is part of the political formula of this country, and of its media; those who control advertising spending, i.e. big companies who have a stake in increased trade with China etc, "don't want any trouble"Skookum1 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that multiculturalism as it is practiced/proselytized in Canada is not a moral or cultural agenda; it's purely a political and economic one, dressed up in high-sounding talk and in denial of the troubles it creates/is bound to create, given the record of human history, that is.Skookum1 19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the investment is too large at this point to turn back (or, any other direction)...--Jonashart 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; the slippery slope has turned into an avalanche; those with a vested interest in the continuation of current "diversification" policies are either the corporate types profiting from it, or the multicultural communities who want to entrench the agenda further; and they're now a HUGE chunk of voters...which was part of the original political agenda. I don't know if you caught the anti-anglo prejudice implicit in Trudeau; he's a Quebecker, and like all of them consideres the so-called Rest of Canada to have been a monolithic Anglo-Saxon mass; in other words, multiculturalism itself was born in prejudice. And that can have only one outcome: entrenched prejudices, no less institutionalized ones.Skookum1 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From that perspective, you could see such action as a 're-upping' of the early federal laws separating the Anglos and Francos (see: Upper and Lower Canada). This acts as a modernized version, as the B&B Commision wasn't initially concerned with anyone outside those groups. More food for thought.--Jonashart 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

More pointedly: a political fiat by a French-Canadian intellectual with a pronounced revanchist/nationalist background who was out to weaken the power of "English Canada" (which was a myth; there was far less unity between the English-speaking provinces, or between their varying cultures/identities, than there was in the rift between Quebec and Ontario). Take away someone's identity, and you take away their power. Needless to say, although Montreal is very multiethnic, it's not francophone society/identity that's been hit hardest by the multiculturalism policy; in fact, it's been enhanced, partly because les maudits anglos have become so fractured, and even their self-identification as "Canadian" has been redefined by the new policy (to mean anyone with a a Cdn passport, or who incants the health-care/humanitarianist/middle-path new national image); Trudeau achieved his ends, all under the premise that English Canadians (so-called) needed to become civilized, relative to his own enlightened oh-so-cool tribe (if only they weren't so arrogant/bitchy, they'd be cool; but like most people who think they're cool, they're really not). Basic point is that multiculturalism was inflicted on a fractured country so as to weaken its more powerful cultural group systematically; and it's worked. Other people here might try to dismiss my view/report here as simple right-wing babble, but I'm not a right-winger; I'm only calling it as I see it; and in the case of Trudeau, I don't think the leopard ever really changed his spots from his youthful ideological zeal; he just learned to play the game, and he took full advantage once he came in possession of the PMO, with its near-monarchical powers and absolute "watch me" attitude built in (which is what Harper is using, despite having promised to reform the system). As noted previously, all the high-sounding talk about multiculturalism is a shill for the real reason behind the policy: immigrants are needed to keep the economy going by bringing in more capital (not skills) and keep demand on housing starts up; and also to shore up the pension plan, which is part of that cradle-to-the-grave thing that we aspire to, but don't manage as well as, say, the Scandinavian countries (which have also allowed themselves to become wracked by the demands of multiculturalist immigrants/policies; Holland seems to be reversing that policy of course). I'm going away for the weekend - if I can meet my ride in time - so you may not hear back from me for a number of days.Skookum1 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of political name-calling, when it comes to arguing against something like federal Multiculturalism, is unfortunate. Right vs. Left is just a reductionist view of the world. Being told how you should think, and to think otherwise is wrong is always a bad thing, no matter what side it's coming from. Because one finds fault with something like this particular federal policy shouldn't be equated to not likeing foreigners...but often is. This is the way the word turns.--Jonashart 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Deal is, people who don't like multiculturalism (generally) have no problem with anyone who makes an effort to integrate, who doesn't work on "living apart" and asserting a foreign culture, without learning or knowing anything about the other cultures here - except in ways that help their own cause - such as when the Chinese politicos made a big show of rapprochement with First Nations people "because we both suffered at the hands of the whites"; it was all puff-n-stuff, a dragon dance and some photo-ops, and nothing since; and all too often you hear the newcomers, of any species, asserting their right to cultural colonialism because it's what "we" did to the Indians etc; two wrongs making a right, as noted before. But again, I come from a town where the East Indian mayor, the Japanese coroner, the Chinese grocer (and the Japanese grocer) got along with everyone else as locals; there was no effort to assert an outside culture, because the town already had its own. The effort in multiculturalism was built on the premise, as cited from P.E.T., that we didn't have a culture; that was his ignorance, and it plays to the ignorance of the immigrants; and they sop up everything the feds feed them about the way the country supposedly used to be; they can all cite the Komagata Maru and the Anti-Oriental Riots and the Head Tax, but ask them about Richard McBride or Amor de Cosmos or James Douglas and they might know something about their relationship with visible minorities; and whatever that is, it's probably a cartoon/comic-book pastiche of what the situation/personality really was about; but only as it pertained to their group, or what a bunch of bastards Anglo-Saxon Canada was. Opposing multiculturalism, as any CBC pundit will tell you - inflict on you - is "un-Canadian", which is even worse than being "right-wing". We don't have a McCarthy Committee as yet, but we might as well given the freeze-out of conflicting points of view in public policy and public debate; except in blogworld, but there you DO get the rabid right-wingers (and rabid left-wingers) hogging the space and being the loudest, each advancing their own ideas of what they think it's about to be Canadian. F**K that - I'm ME. John Lennon's line "imagine if there were no countries" always comes to mind; even better if "imagine if there were no ethnicities". That's how we used to be, with the ancient animosities and obsessive cultural costumes and customs left behind, in the effort to build a new country; that new country has now been trashed, and those of us born in it pushed aside by the "new vision of Canada" form which there is apparently no escape. Except, perhaps, emigration - but to where? Skookum1 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We'd take you, but only if you stop quoting Lennon! I'd prefer Ozzy's blatent rip-off, "Dreamer" (he's an admitted giant fan of the Lennon and the MopTops). Alot of what you describe seems like federally sponsored self-loathing. Several groups have their reasons for promoting Multiculturalism, but with very, very different goals in mind. In fact it looks a bit like a hegemonic free-for-all: "the identity of Canada is up for grabs, good luck!". Ok, that's a bit cynical, but it's odd that the identity(s) of a nation can never truely be established, if that means being "unfair" to newcomers. As an American, I find some irony in this. The running joke re: culture and ethnicty is that the US doesn't have any. Of course, thats because it's wide open, and it's supposed to mean something different for all. However, our gov't isn't as quite involved in dictating that process. Seems like Canadian culture will head the same direction, but for vastly different reasons.--Jonashart 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge monoculturalism

The monoculturalism article is only a stub, and since the term was invented as the 'opposite of multiculturalism' its context is here. Of course the monocultural ideal existed before the neologism, but it would have been called 'national unity' or something similar.Paul111 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Gunnar Njalsson

No source was given for this work, and there is online evidcne that it exists, as already noted above. This is apparently a hoax by someone posting their own views.Paul111 10:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polarisation: comment by User:Skookum1

This comment by User:Skookum1 on the Polarisation section, was moved to the talk page, comments should not be placed in the article text.Paul111 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

needs counterbalanced view re: Muslim and other cultural/religiously-flavoured immigrant attitudes hostile to the host society; otherwise ALL of this section is POV, simply by its one-sided critical context against "monoculturalism" - which is a POV term in my view (comment by User:Skookum1)

Instead of being smug/disingenuous, why don't you address the issue? The outright hostility of, for example (and example only) British and Dutch Muslims against traditional British and Dutch culture and society is a major componnent of the multicultural debates in those countries; sure, moderate Muslims are not hostile to the rest of those societiesk, nor intent on turning them into Islamic states; but there are large factions who are. Similarly, there are Chinese in Canada who, despite citizenship, see no reason to learn English (see Talk:Canadian Chinese, and read the whole discussion) and feel that Chinese culture is superior to tht of others, so why adapt or, as the usual denigratin runs, "assimilate". "Integrate" is much mroe the idea in Canada, and elsewhere; but the rhetoric against "assimilation" and "dominant culture" and all that is so much easier to slag around isn't it? That you've also taken my inline comment out of context by not also citing the paragraph it was in referece to is a clear indication to me of your POV agenda.....Skookum1 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence for Muslim hostility to 'traditional culture' in the sense of roast beef or clogs. Islamist hostility is directed at the Western world, at the USA, at liberal-democratic systems, among others. It is the cultural nationalists who assert that a return to traditional identity is in some way a response to Islamists. That is notable and it should be included in the article. In fact it is remarkable, that so many people in western Europe think that the government can 'cure' young Muslim radicals, by enforcing this kind of traditional identity.Paul111 10:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. Many Muslims ARE hostile to the national identity of their host country as they suppose it as part of the Western Kulturkreis. Many Muslim youths are opposed to the French, English or Dutch as well as Westerners in general.

More importantly, it is tendentious to say that European governments have turned to reenforcing a kind of traditional identity. As opposed to earlier, more multicultural governments, they merely emphasize the importance of language proficiency. This is not nationalism in the strictest sense, i.e. the idea that one's own culture is superior to others', as Paul111 seems to believe. It is rather the result of common sense making its reappearance in the European minds, as no immigrant will be able to become a succesful member of a society without sufficient skills of the pertaining language.

There is no evidence that traditional culture of European countries plays any role in hostility among Muslim minorities. (That is what was claimed). Some European governments are indeed re-asserting traditional identity, the Netherlands naturalisation ceremony in The Hague includes folk-dances in tradtional costume. Examples of policy are listed, and they go far beyond language proficiency. Nationalism is an ideology, and not equivalent to simple cultural chauvinism.Paul111 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Added sources for hostility among Muslims in Britain, where the polarisation is a major issue, see the Daily Telegraph reference.Paul111 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to multiculturalism in Canada: inline comments

These comments seem to belong on the talk page, and not as hidden text in the article itself.Paul111 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In 1971, when official multiculturalism was introduced by the federal government, separatism was a fringe movement in Quebec, with less than a tenth of the population supporting the idea of being an independent country. The next few years saw the growth of separatist sentiment and the election of a provincial government committed to independence.

In the 1995 independence election on separation from Canada, the advocates of Quebec independence lost by only a small margin.

You've misread the edit history - neither of those statements had to do with me; and if there were in-line comments )where the bracketed "cooment by xx" are, not quoted here) :made by me I certainly don't recall them (Quebec vs Canada politics bores me)). I can't even find these statements in the article, so you must have already removed them; why, I can't tell, because they don't seem POV. My back's been out this last week so not much sitting; but I was preparing to lay into you on this obsessions with "monoculturalism" (which is etymologically bad to start with, but also deliberately pejorative, IMO) and the general pro-multiculturalism bias of the article. As if, in fact, it were "superior" to other ways of life/culture just as its ideology slags "monoculturalism" or nationalism (or whatever) for. Self-criticism is in the eye of the beholder, and fashionable post-moderni ideologies are not, frankly, very good at it.Skookum1 18:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the attribition to Skookum1. I only moved them here because someone might complain, if they were simply deleted. For the use of the term monoculturalism, see the item 'disputed tag' above.Paul111 10:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Bolt behind multiculturalism?

I removed this confusing passage in the Australia sub-section The government had to accept that the assimilation had failed, as a result, the multiculturalism policy was brought in during the 1970's The paragraph implied that a right-wing columnist (Andrew Bolt) had campaigned for assimilation and as a result a 1970's government had introduced multiculturalism. That can't be right, especially as he was still a schoolboy at the time.Paul111 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophobia

Saying that Fortuyn's followers were often xenophobic is very POV and probably incorrect considering his open homosexuality. I'll change it to "occasionly". --Onias 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does monoculturalism redirect here?

--Greasysteve13 10:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That article was a stub, and usage is typically in contrast to multiculturalism. A redirect can be undone - but first there should be an article on monoculturalism itself, and not just a stub saying it is the opposite of multiculturalism.Paul111 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)