Successful Mulit-Cultural Societies?

[Morgenstern]

When talking with right wingers (no I don't bash their skulls in at first opportunity :rolleyes:) they ask for example of successful multicultural societies as in it's financially powerful, low crime, great education, etc. But it also needs to stay multicultural and cohesive by its own choice (Yugoslavia wouldn't count since it disintegrated when authority was weakened). Also the cultures in the nation have to be different enough to be multicultural so 1900 United States wouldn't count since the immigrants were all Christian Europeans.

So could anyone give some examples to help me with a counter argument in these cases?

[revolution inaction]

Switzerland maybe?

[Rêve Rouge]

Does Singapore count?

* Financially well off. It's considered one of the "Four Asian Tigers".
* Nice mix of ethnic diversity (different ethnic groups, languages, cultures, etc.).
* Low crime rate I'm assuming (you can't even chew gum unless it's for "therapeutic value"). And don't even think about spitting in public.
* Education again, I'm assuming is good.

Although I'm not sure if Singapore would be considered a nation. It's more like a big independent metropolis.

[RedStarOverChina]

The politically correct term would be "multi-national societies". Multi-culturalism means that the government actually sponsors multiple cultures, which is not true in the case of US or Canada or Germany or any of those Western countries professing to adhere to multi-culturalism. (The US does not profess to ahere to multi-culturalism, it is the more honest country here)

The underlining policy in these countries is limited toleration towards other cultures while attempting to absorb them into the mainstream culture in the long run.

[the last donut of the night]

"Multi-culturalism", as we hear it today, is a load of liberal bullshit. As a person of color, I find it patronizing and racist, especially when it's used by rich white liberals who love to go to Whole Foods and get their Guatemalan and African coffee without actually realistically interacting with the Guatemalans and Africans that make that coffee and clean that same supermarket after hours, being paid measly wages by a notoriously anti-union company. It's a term used by imperialist powers as a PR stunt -- sure, like Canada gives a flying fuck about different cultures when in the 1980s there were still Indian "re-education" schools in the Prairies still functioning (and in 2010 Canadian troops march on Kabul). It's used by the rich assholes who go to, let's say, Nicaragua to build maybe a school as their summer project but not even have a glimmer of comprehension of the aforementioned country's history -- the genocide of the Indian population, the vile racism, the shock of capitalism, everything that caused such horrible poverty.

In short, the term "multi-culturalism" is a liberal idea that society is based on mosaically different cultures that never change -- it's not a materialist term, as it completely foregoes class struggle. Furthermore, it turns out that from the multi-culturalist viewpoint, all "foreign" cultures are placed on a different plane than white, middle-class culture: they can be backwards, "primitive", still living in the jungle, or irrational, but that's ok -- as long as they satisfy the white man's idea of the noble savage. And when these cultures change -- either through their own choice or under the yoke of the barbarian capitalism these liberals never mention in their beautiful visions of the world -- these multi-culturalists start blaming the people for their change, because, alas, they don't fit the patronizing and racist liberal image of the world.

Sorry about the rant -- had to be done.

PS: Both Switzerland and Singapore are from "multi-cultural" societies. They are, in fact, very racist societies -- especially Switzerland. After all, it's the country in which a far-right party published these and got massive support for it:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/SwissSheepL_468x635.jpg

http://blackscientist.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/swisspplsparty2004.png

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Then ask them what definition they have on multiculturalism for example whats different enought? Thees right-wingers doesnt seems to know very much first of all cultures arnt static they tend to change and develope and part of that change is that new influences enters the "old" culture and thats why no exisitng culture of today have existed since the begining. And the terrible war that broke out in Yugoslavia when the eastern bloc collapsed wasnt so simpel that it just was a matter of weak authority and 1900 USA had a big immigration of chineese people and african slaves, not all where christian europeans.

[bailey_187]

basicaly, anywhere in the UK that blacks and asians make up a large proportion of the population is called "multicultural"

some posh liberal dickhead at my uni was talking to me once and i said im going Mile End tonight, an area with mostly Asians and he goes "oh its very multicultural there". what he obviously wanted to say "OMG its full of asians". smh

[ed miliband]

I think that ultimately those who profess support for multiculturalism and those who argue that it doesn't work, have the same base view - that people are deeply divided on cultural / ethnic / national / religious grounds, and that these divisions can never be avoided. The multiculturalist will argue that the dominant cultural group in society should 'tolerate' the minority cultural groups, and that the minority cultural groups should 'tolerate' eachother, but when you view society as divided along racial lines isn't it to be expected that racial antagonism will raise its head?

[Acostak3]

The Roman Republic/Empire.

[NecroCommie]

The Ottoman Empire. They say if the Ottoman empire had conquered europe in the beginning of the 16th century, the entire european reneissance would have been useless. Not only that, it was Islamic so it's double trouble for the islamophobic assholes. I addition, the Ottoman sultans varied greatly in authority and leadership capabilities, rendering authority as a minor factor to the long life and prosperity in this multi-national, multi-religious empire of science. The Ottoman empire included both sunni and shi'ite muslims in Mesopotamia, North-Africa, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Arabian peninsula, Anatolia and the Balkans. They also had huge numbers of christian subjects, mostly Orthodox in Greece, Macedon, the yugoslavian countries, Romania, Bulgaria and to lesser extent in Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaidjan).

We have to remember that there has not been any recent examples of peaceful multi-national cultures. This is not because it would be impossible for two nations to co-exist (they have done so myriad times before the 18th century), but because of nationalism itself. It has usually been the nationalists of the two nations that have broken the peace, while simultaneously the progressive elements wanted peace and prosperity. So when confronted by a conservatist, tell to them that the era of national hatred is not because of nations and their differences, but because of nationalist assholes like himself.

[Dimentio]

I think that ultimately those who profess support for multiculturalism and those who argue that it doesn't work, have the same base view - that people are deeply divided on cultural / ethnic / national / religious grounds, and that these divisions can never be avoided. The multiculturalist will argue that the dominant cultural group in society should 'tolerate' the minority cultural groups, and that the minority cultural groups should 'tolerate' eachother, but when you view society as divided along racial lines isn't it to be expected that racial antagonism will raise its head?

Language and values are at the same time obviously a divisive barrier, and while state-sanctioned racism is a 15th century invention, ethnic conflicts have always existed. One example is Alexandria during the Antiquities, when Greek, Egyptian and Jewish communities fought over the control of city funds alleviated to their differing communities.

Multi-national societies tend to be efficient in certain contexts while mono-national societies tend to be efficient in other contexts. What we could see in multi-national societies though is a trend towards less empathy and the smaller a sense of social responsibility, while mono-national societies tend to be generally more tolerant and egalitarian.

The most extensive welfare states have been developed in mono-national societies, such as the Scandinavian countries.

I believe that there probably is a need for people to organise themselves with whom they identify themselves with, which would mean that forming ethnic communities should be allowed, as long as those communities aren't formed with the purpose of waging war against other communities.

[NecroCommie]

Also, China? We have to remember that the Chinese territory holds over 30 different cultural groups who all contributed great support to the unification of China during the Chinese revolution. So, at least initially it had nothing to do with authoritarianism.

[NecroCommie]

Language and values are at the same time obviously a divisive barrier, and while state-sanctioned racism is a 15th century invention, ethnic conflicts have always existed. One example is Alexandria during the Antiquities, when Greek, Egyptian and Jewish communities fought over the control of city funds alleviated to their differing communities.

Multi-national societies tend to be efficient in certain contexts while mono-national societies tend to be efficient in other contexts. What we could see in multi-national societies though is a trend towards less empathy and the smaller a sense of social responsibility, while mono-national societies tend to be generally more tolerant and egalitarian.

The most extensive welfare states have been developed in mono-national societies, such as the Scandinavian countries.

I believe that there probably is a need for people to organise themselves with whom they identify themselves with, which would mean that forming ethnic communities should be allowed, as long as those communities aren't formed with the purpose of waging war against other communities.
We have to remember that the defence for mono-national societies is mostly a circular one.

"We want mono-national society because multi-national societies have had a poor track record of welfare due to mono-national chauvinists like myself."

[timbaly]

When talking with right wingers (no I don't bash their skulls in at first opportunity :rolleyes:) they ask for example of successful multicultural societies as in it's financially powerful, low crime, great education, etc. But it also needs to stay multicultural and cohesive by its own choice (Yugoslavia wouldn't count since it disintegrated when authority was weakened). Also the cultures in the nation have to be different enough to be multicultural so 1900 United States wouldn't count since the immigrants were all Christian Europeans.

So could anyone give some examples to help me with a counter argument in these cases?


In 1900 all the immigrants weren't white Christians. There were a lot of white jews, and mexicans. Over 150,000 Chinese and Japanese people immigrated between 1900 and 1910. Also many of the white Christians weren't protestants and were viewed as very culturally different than the majority protestant groups.

As for successful multi-cultural societies India may fit the criteria. If not it may soon fit your criteria. Belgium would be another, perhaps even the UK. Brazil might make the cut soon, I'm not sure what the crime rates are away from the favelas.

[Dimentio]

We have to remember that the defence for mono-national societies is mostly a circular one.

"We want mono-national society because multi-national societies have had a poor track record of welfare due to mono-national chauvinists like myself."


All successful multi-national societies have generally either imposed one uniform culture on all it's subjects (becoming mono-national after a few generations), been run by an imperial ethnos (Roman, Russian, British, WASP's) or been loose tribal confederacies with a high degree of autonomy.

[RED DAVE]

Try New York City.

RED DAVE

[timbaly]

Try New York City.

RED DAVE


It doesn't have low crime rate (though it is low compared to most American cities) or great education (though it's better than many other large American cities).

[Dimentio]

Try New York City.

RED DAVE

The thing is that there are ethnically based hate groups in New York, not only from the "whites" but also from other communities (Kach for example is a movement which sprung up due to the conflict between the black and Jewish communities).

[ComradeOm]

The Roman Republic/Empire.


The Ottoman EmpireDon't confuse 'conquering loads of peoples' with 'multiculturalism'. If that's possible. Having a multitude of subjects is not the same as treating them as equals or peacefully coexisting in the same society. In both the Roman and Ottoman empires there were definite limits to the rights of the subservient peoples, with Rome in particular being known for stamping out indigenous cultures. You might as well claim that 19th C British society was multicultural because the Empire contained a lot of Indians

The Ottomans are considerably more interesting in this regard given their famed tolerance for other religions, but even this had its limits and is only really progressive in the context of medieval Europe. Non-Muslim communities were largely left alone, aside from a discriminatory tax, but the ruling class remained predominately Turkish and almost uniformly Muslim. So far from being some sort of rational "empire of science", it was a state in which religious labels were more important than ethnic ones


Also the cultures in the nation have to be different enough to be multicultural so 1900 United States wouldn't count since the immigrants were all Christian Europeans.Which is an exceptionally arbitrary distinction. Not only does it drastically reduce the scope of the question (mass immigration and global empires are only really a product of the past two centuries) but there's no reason to simply erase all the historic squabbles that so marked European history*. You can't tell me that New York in 1900 - with its distinctive Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, etc, communities - was not a multicultural city. Similarly, I think you'll find that over the past century 'Christian Europeans' have killed far more fellow 'Christian Europeans' than 'non-Christian Europeans', often in the cause of ethnic strife

*Aside from skin colour of course, which is what I suspect that this all comes down to

[Aesop]

Aren't all societies multi-cultura? unless if we are talking about a isolated hamlet sized communities in the middle of the amazon.

To often i think the revolutionary left falls into the trap of associating multi-culturalism with peeps who happen to have more than tan, in comparison to the 'host' population.

Surely multi-culturalism refers to different cultural variations within a society. The culture of britain in the 1930s was not the same culture as 1830, and i doubt that the culture of 1830 was the same as 1730. Not to mention the regional cultural variations of a yorkshire in comparison to lancashire, we could even go deeper and examine the cultural differences between a working class mand and a 'middle' class man.

For example, i may like ska and punk, while my neighbour may like gospel and classical music. I may enjoy watching football, whilst my neighbour may enjoy horse-riding, i may enjoy eating mexican food while my neighbour may enjoy the likes of fine dining such as foie gras.

[Acostak3]

The most extensive welfare states have been developed in mono-national societies, such as the Scandinavian countries.

I'm not sure how extensive it was, but the first welfare state was a pan-national caliphate. I think this was also a time when Muslims were particularly tolerant of other religions.

[Dimentio]

I'm not sure how extensive it was, but the first welfare state was a pan-national caliphate. I think this was also a time when Muslims were particularly tolerant of other religions.

That is somewhat true, even if the Caliphate quickly fell apart, mostly because of infighting amongst the conquerors.

[the last donut of the night]

I think that ultimately those who profess support for multiculturalism and those who argue that it doesn't work, have the same base view - that people are deeply divided on cultural / ethnic / national / religious grounds, and that these divisions can never be avoided. The multiculturalist will argue that the dominant cultural group in society should 'tolerate' the minority cultural groups, and that the minority cultural groups should 'tolerate' eachother, but when you view society as divided along racial lines isn't it to be expected that racial antagonism will raise its head?

Good point. As a Latino, I don't want to be simply "tolerated", as if I were some kind of stain on white society that is too ugly to talk about but also in the limits of civility and decency, so it'd be too awkward to just get rid of me. That's what tolerance is, and I don't want that. I want liberation from prejudice and racism! And if these liberals stand in my way, by hell you know I won't tolerate any of their bullshit.

[the last donut of the night]

Try New York City.

RED DAVE

But how do we define successful? Sure, New York City is multi-cultural (and by God does it love to sell itself through that phrase), but all these groups (in general, not saying there aren't exceptions, as there are) stick together to their own kind. Furthermore, it's not like racism and hate crimes aren't an uncommon thing in NYC. As a resident, you probably know how much this is true. Also, even if all these groups (to some extent) co-exist, the people up top (ie. the rulers of NYC -- the rich) are white males. Their lackeys -- the NYPD -- are notoriously racist and will gladly serve the vile ambitions of the rich, as Blacks and Latinos suffer under the heel of this self-advertised "multi-culturalism".

[NecroCommie]

All successful multi-national societies have generally either imposed one uniform culture on all it's subjects (becoming mono-national after a few generations), been run by an imperial ethnos (Roman, Russian, British, WASP's) or been loose tribal confederacies with a high degree of autonomy.
Indeed, that is what I meant. Even nationalist chauvinists of the dominant culture are just that. Nationalist chauvinists. The dominant culture has, most of the time, had minorities in support of more progressive societies. Therefore it is not the fact that they are multi-national that drives things awry, but the fact that there is some faction that imposes cultural tensions upon the society.

[NecroCommie]

The Ottomans are considerably more interesting in this regard given their famed tolerance for other religions, but even this had its limits and is only really progressive in the context of medieval Europe. Non-Muslim communities were largely left alone, aside from a discriminatory tax, but the ruling class remained predominately Turkish and almost uniformly Muslim. So far from being some sort of rational "empire of science", it was a state in which religious labels were more important than ethnic ones
Well, ofcourse this has to come down to the reneissance context, I don't claim it is some ideal society as it was.

Still, Ottoman empire is a great example how national identities can be thrown aside at will, even if in this case it was only so that an other identity could take it's place. But then again in order to refute the nationalist world-view that is all we need.

[ZeroNowhere]

Aren't all societies multi-cultura? unless if we are talking about a isolated hamlet sized communities in the middle of the amazon.

To often i think the revolutionary left falls into the trap of associating multi-culturalism with peeps who happen to have more than tan, in comparison to the 'host' population.

Surely multi-culturalism refers to different cultural variations within a society. The culture of britain in the 1930s was not the same culture as 1830, and i doubt that the culture of 1830 was the same as 1730. Not to mention the regional cultural variations of a yorkshire in comparison to lancashire, we could even go deeper and examine the cultural differences between a working class mand and a 'middle' class man.

For example, i may like ska and punk, while my neighbour may like gospel and classical music. I may enjoy watching football, whilst my neighbour may enjoy horse-riding, i may enjoy eating mexican food while my neighbour may enjoy the likes of fine dining such as foie gras.
No, that's irrelevant. Only skin colour constitutes culture.

[Aesop]

No, that's irrelevant. Only skin colour constitutes culture.

Is that sarcasm?

It is a bit difficult to tell on the internet with the type of characters floating about :cool:

[ZeroNowhere]

Is that sarcasm?
Yes.

[NecroCommie]

Could some of our swedish comrades (Yes! I used the word!) enlighten me on exactly how many percents of the swedish populace were immigrants nowadays. I just recall it was something practically insane! At least from this humble finnish perspective. Could Sweden count as multi-national in some regard?

[ComradeOm]

Still, Ottoman empire is a great example how national identities can be thrown aside at will, even if in this case it was only so that an other identity could take it's place. But then again in order to refute the nationalist world-view that is all we need.Its an example from a pre-nationalist period. You could say the exact same about any of the Ottomans' European contemporaries. It was as possible for a Dutch Catholic to obtain high office in Spain as it was for an Albanian Muslim to do the same in the Ottoman Empire

[Outinleftfield]

You could consider Britain under Norman rule to be a multicultural society. Most British people were Saxons. The rulers were Norman.

Not only did it work out over time they turned into one culture.

If there is no animosity between different cultures (on the level of a national or ethnic group) in close proximity people from the two cultures will freely adopt each other's practices, views, language, etc. to the point where they will cease to exist as distinct entities.

Different cultures based on specific activities(art, music, drugs, sports,...) without a fixed membership will always exist, but cultures without a single clear defining trait but rather a loosely defined cluster of traits and values lose their coherency when they mix with others and the distinction between the two is lost from their consciousness.

People who try to enforce monoculturalism are actually responsible for the existance of multiple cultures. When one culture takes an aggressive stance against other cultures this provokes a defensive response and increases their consciousness as a "different culture".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

When talking with right wingers (no I don't bash their skulls in at first opportunity :rolleyes:) they ask for example of successful multicultural societies as in it's financially powerful, low crime, great education, etc. But it also needs to stay multicultural and cohesive by its own choice (Yugoslavia wouldn't count since it disintegrated when authority was weakened). Also the cultures in the nation have to be different enough to be multicultural so 1900 United States wouldn't count since the immigrants were all Christian Europeans.

So could anyone give some examples to help me with a counter argument in these cases?

Fuck a counterargument within terms of the debate framed by them.
These are the situations where it's important to come out in favour of crime, against so-called "education", and for the total destruction of "finance".

[FreeFocus]

I would consider Moorish Spain a successful multicultural society. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all coexisted, and Moorish Spain was one of the most advanced (high arts, writing, architecture) and inclusive societies at the time.

[Dimentio]

You could consider Britain under Norman rule to be a multicultural society. Most British people were Saxons. The rulers were Norman.

Not only did it work out over time they turned into one culture.

If there is no animosity between different cultures (on the level of a national or ethnic group) in close proximity people from the two cultures will freely adopt each other's practices, views, language, etc. to the point where they will cease to exist as distinct entities.

Different cultures based on specific activities(art, music, drugs, sports,...) without a fixed membership will always exist, but cultures without a single clear defining trait but rather a loosely defined cluster of traits and values lose their coherency when they mix with others and the distinction between the two is lost from their consciousness.

People who try to enforce monoculturalism are actually responsible for the existance of multiple cultures. When one culture takes an aggressive stance against other cultures this provokes a defensive response and increases their consciousness as a "different culture".

Bad example.

The Normans were the generic "evil medieval knights" taking the land of free Saxon and Celtic peasants and turning them into landless people.

England would have been much better had Harold won.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Could some of our swedish comrades (Yes! I used the word!) enlighten me on exactly how many percents of the swedish populace were immigrants nowadays. I just recall it was something practically insane! At least from this humble finnish perspective. Could Sweden count as multi-national in some regard?


According to SCB, our national berou for statistics, this year around 15% of our population where born in an other country the biggest of theese groups where born in Finland (170000 persones) and Iraq (121000 persones), but the way they count immigrants tend to also include people who are born in Sweden that have immigrant parents and in that case the numbers are 19%.

http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____305657.aspx

[NecroCommie]

According to SCB, our national berou for statistics, this year around 15% of our population where born in an other country the biggest of theese groups where born in Finland (170000 persones) and Iraq (121000 persones), but the way they count immigrants tend to also include people who are born in Sweden that have immigrant parents and in that case the numbers are 19%.

http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____305657.aspx

OK, so "only" one fifth of the populace. Hardly a multi-national society, unless we limit the sample to... say, Stockholm.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

OK, so "only" one fifth of the populace. Hardly a multi-national society, unless we limit the sample to... say, Stockholm.

I think Malmö would be better, but yeah Stockholm can absolutly be considered as multi-national.

[timbaly]

But how do we define successful? Sure, New York City is multi-cultural (and by God does it love to sell itself through that phrase), but all these groups (in general, not saying there aren't exceptions, as there are) stick together to their own kind. Furthermore, it's not like racism and hate crimes aren't an uncommon thing in NYC. As a resident, you probably know how much this is true. Also, even if all these groups (to some extent) co-exist, the people up top (ie. the rulers of NYC -- the rich) are white males. Their lackeys -- the NYPD -- are notoriously racist and will gladly serve the vile ambitions of the rich, as Blacks and Latinos suffer under the heel of this self-advertised "multi-culturalism".


It's true that most of the immigrant groups stay to themselves. Only a few neighborhoods in the city are genuinely multi-cultural in an ethnic sense. Many people live in census tracts where over 75% of their neighbors are the same race. Of course this doesn't mean there isn't diversity. In a lot of areas many people will be of the same racial group but from different countries. For example there may be many Romanians, Poles, and Serbs in an Eastern European neighborhood.

Here is a map based on the US Census Bureau estimates from 2005-2009 that can show you geographic diversity. You can see how racially segregated the city is and you can also see the rest of the country.

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer


As for the hate crimes, it's hard to say if they are frequent here. The NYPD does not release statistics on hate crime. The New York Times actually sued them last week to force them to release this data and some other data too. The NYPD only releases weekly crime stats for major felonies like murder, grand larceny and rape.

[timbaly]

OK, so "only" one fifth of the populace. Hardly a multi-national society, unless we limit the sample to... say, Stockholm.


Also, many of the foreign born residents are from Western Europe. Of course these people have different cultures but they aren't the typical immigrants. Amongst the largest groups of foriegn born residents are the danes, the british, the germans, he norwegians and of course the finnish.

I also found this quiz. It may interest you. The source for the answers is the scb site that Tavarisch_Mike posted.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/fluffmoln/swedish_foreignborn_pop (http://www.sporcle.com/games/fluffmoln/swedish_foreignborn_pop)


The quiz indicates that only about 875,000 foreign born residents are accounted for in when dealing with the top 20 countries of origin.