The Problem with Multiculturalism

[Canadian Blue]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...ticle544443.ece

Interesting article, any thoughts?

[mikedavid00]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...ticle544443.ece

Interesting article, any thoughts?

So basically he's saying that terrorism is not politically motivated.

lol..

[Canadian Blue]

Alright, any thoughts from people are can come up with a more coherent response.

[M.Dancer]

Alright, any thoughts from people are can come up with a more coherent response.

Hold on...I meant to read it earlier and forgot......

.....that's not to imply I can in any way shape or form come up with a coherent response.....

[M.Dancer]

Okay..

Couple of thoughts.

One is I find that the concept of multiculturalism means dfiferent things to different people. The writers says that:

because the idea that we should aspire to a common identity and a set of values has been eroded in the name of multiculturalism.

That's not my take on multicult at all. Perhaps I'm wrong but I have believed that multiculturalism finds the coomon values we have and elevates them and allows the others to join the majority confident that there are cultural values we share. We don't exclude folks because their holidays fall on different days but welcome them and they us.

For them, terror was an end in itself, not a means to an end. In this post-ideological age, few believe in political ends or have a vision of political change. Few actually believe in anything or can articulate what they believe in political terms.

To be honest it sounds like they have more affinity for the nihilistic sex pistols than anything else. Maybe they are more British than they realize.

[Brain Candy]

"That's not my take on multicult at all. Perhaps I'm wrong but I have believed that multiculturalism finds the coomon values we have and elevates them and allows the others to join the majority confident that there are cultural values we share"

Which according to the way people in the west act is Burger King, Sex, TV and...money?

Edited December 12, 2007 by Brain Candy

[AngusThermopyle]

Which according to the way people in the west act is Burger King, Sex, TV and...money?

Thats a rather large generalization. I don't think you can be serious, maybe you meant to say "many in the west". What you just said would be akin to me saying all Muslims are terrorists.

Personally I agree with the author, I've found the cult of multicult does indeed fragment a population, not draw it together. As for the my take thing, well thats a nice idylic dream, but in the end is just that, a dream. I'm afraid there is little practical room in reality for dreams.

All in all I found it to be an insightfull article that raised some very valid points.

[Brain Candy]

Thats a rather large generalization. I don't think you can be serious, maybe you meant to say "many in the west". What you just said would be akin to me saying all Muslims are terrorists.

But my generalisation is more true; their are more morons in the west then their are muslims that are terrorist.

The average canadians tv watching habits. Assuming the case has not gotten any better and maybe worse because of youtube and the like, what kind of morons spends literally a day a week in front of a screen when he/she could literally be doing anything else and be more productive?

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brain Candy

[AngusThermopyle]

Interesting stats. Could it be that poorer people watch more TV than wealthier because they cant afford more productive entertainment activities? Also interesting is the fact that News and Current Affairs shows were watched at a higher rate?

Still, these stats in no way justify the general statement made about the west. As I said, that statement was akin to one generalizing all Muslims, or Jews, or any other collective group. It contained assertions that were more malicious than factual.

[Brain Candy]

Interesting stats. Could it be that poorer people watch more TV than wealthier because they cant afford more productive entertainment activities? Also interesting is the fact that News and Current Affairs shows were watched at a higher rate?

Still, these stats in no way justify the general statement made about the west. As I said, that statement was akin to one generalizing all Muslims, or Jews, or any other collective group. It contained assertions that were more malicious than factual.

Books dont cost that much, neither does classical music, learning to cook, fishing, socializing, exercise, etc. Also most IMPORTANT news in a week could be summed up in a single 1-2 hour broadcast.

It's not malicious, it's a comment on the variety of things that people waste their time doing these days that help make them feel depressed and unthoughtful. But what do multicultural societies in the share that a single culture in a nation would not, besides the occational race riot thrown by people who feel they are oppressed by the majority?

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brain Candy

[August1991]

"That's not my take on multicult at all. Perhaps I'm wrong but I have believed that multiculturalism finds the coomon values we have and elevates them and allows the others to join the majority confident that there are cultural values we share"

Which according to the way people in the west act is Burger King, Sex, TV and...money?

Uh, no. That's not what multiculturalism at its origin was all about.

From link in OP:

For an earlier generation of Muslims their religion was not so strong that it prevented them from identifying with Britain. Today many young British Muslims identify more with Islam than Britain primarily because there no longer seems much that is compelling about being British.

This is a variation on the Mark Steyn critique of multiculturalism.

In modern western society, the individual is free to choose. If multiculturalism has a principle, it must be the principle of individual freedom. It is uncivilized not to respect this principle.

But my generalisation is more true; their are more morons in the west then their are muslims that are terrorist.

What gives you the right to judge people by their TV watching habits? IME, people are very smart when the issue concerns a matter of relevance to them.

Have you ever watched a couple discuss the purchase of a house? Have you ever sat in on a job interview?

A person's TV habits tell you very little of importance about the person because most people watch TV to relax. Its not critical in their life.

Edited December 13, 2007 by August1991

[Brain Candy]

You have the right to waste("relax") an entire day a week in front of the idiot box, but personally i dont find tv relaxing as much as a bombardment of information and shocking and vaguely erotic images that leave you feeling drowsy. You have a right to eat greasy food with little to no nutritional value and have multiple sex partners too, but they are all bad ideas because they are detrimental to your mental and physical health though they temporally help you escape the real world. Any practical economist will tell you the opportunity cost in these matters is to great to consider them.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brain Candy

[AngusThermopyle]

Books dont cost that much, neither does classical music, learning to cook, fishing, socializing, exercise, etc. Also most IMPORTANT news in a week could be summed up in a single 1-2 hour broadcast.

Wow! It's obvious from this comment alone that you don't have a clue what it means to be poor. Yes, books are expensive, Fishing requires a rod and reel plus tackle plus license, what do you suggest the poor listen to classical music on? Where will they obtain this classical music, just hum it all day? Sure, learning to cook costs nothing as well. All these things are fully accesible to someone who doesn't even have $10.00 to spare.

There are many who live a bare subsitance existance. I know many who are middle class or even well off, I also know many who barely have enough to get by on. You appear to be some one who likes to make generalizations and assumptions based on no true substance. You should lower yourself to the level of these "Morons", try volunteering tio help a womans shelter in some capacity. When you see a single mom trying to raise three kids it might give you more understanding of what poor is.

[marcinmoka]

I found this article decent, but slightly at odds with itself.

And partly because the idea that we should aspire to a common identity and a set of values has been eroded in the name of multiculturalism.

Followed by :

That old racist notion of identity has thankfully crumbled

Alors? The old system explicitly promoted exclusion on racial grounds. And the new system which followed in its wake implicitly promotes exclusion by simply diluting the requisites for 'belonging' [the lowest common denominator(s), i.e living within a specified boundary]. All this is fine and dandy, but what does the author suggest replaces these two 'flawed concepts'? Creating a sense of national identity from scratch is much easier said than done.

-------

My real issue with this article is that it focuses on terrorism from the micro perspective. While yes, the 7/7 bombers may of had personal resentment with Britain and the western ideals in general, it ignores the bigger picture, that at its root, terrorism still is, and will be political. Those responsible for financing these pawns and funding the training camps and radical Wahabbist schools are doing so not out of "anger" and "frustration" at not fitting in, but purely for political reasons and a fear of loosing the power and influence they enjoy, or in certain cases, seek to gain.

[Brain Candy]

Wow! It's obvious from this comment alone that you don't have a clue what it means to be poor.

If your talking that poor then why do they have a tv in the first place? If they allready had it why dont they sell it?

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brain Candy

[August1991]

You have the right to waste("relax") an entire day a week in front of the idiot box, but personally i dont find tv relaxing as much as a bombardment of information and shocking and vaguely erotic images that leave you feeling drowsy. You have a right to eat greasy food with little to no nutritional value and have multiple sex partners too, but they are all bad ideas because they are detrimental to your mental and physical health though they temporally help you escape the real world. Any practical economist will tell you the opportunity cost in these matters is to great to consider them.

Any economist will tell you that individuals are rational and they view the opportunity cost according to their own preferences. You, for example, seem to disagree with the choices others make.

Rather than argue with you that their preferences are different from yours, I suggest that you consider the idea of rational behaviour. IOW, don't be so moralistic: maybe there's reason to their supposed madness.

The US, after all, is a successful society. Individuals around the world want to go and live there and raise their children in such a place. Indeed, if they try to sneak into Canada, it's often (despite what MD thinks) because they view Canada as a good way to get into the US. I don't see people trying to sneak into China or Cuba, and certainly not for their children.

Edited December 13, 2007 by August1991

[Brain Candy]

I didnt mean to imply that im talking about any group specifically here, plenty of smart but totally selfindulgent people who walk around with PHDs.

Im not a moralist but i tend to see things as either constructive or deconstructive. The method to their madness might be this modern version of individualism (which you claim to oppose is uncivilised) that is apparently everyone indulging in their primary and selfish urges as opposed to what is best for the whole, or even themselves!

[August1991]

Im not a moralist but i tend to see things as either constructive or deconstructive.

Cute quote.

The method to their madness might be this modern version of individualism (which you claim to oppose is uncivilised) that is apparently everyone indulging in their primary and selfish urges as opposed to what is best for the whole, or even themselves!

Adam Smith noticed two centuries or so ago that, under certain conditions, individuals indulging selfish urges lead to the best for the whole.

Famously, Smith wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages.

I suggest that you go back and see what the conditions are. Hint: John Nash made them a little more explicit recently.

----

With that stated, I must refer to my favourite quote of Smith referring to life and "man":

"In civilised society, he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2

In modern life, we depend on the help of millions around the world. (To pick one example, when you drive your car, how many thousands of people -designers, workers, sellers and, of course, pedestrians- made sure that the car would stop when you pressed on the brake pedal?) And yet, during your entire life, you'll probably invite at most no more than a few hundred people into your home.

Adam Smith understood that idea over 200 years ago. Imagine.

Edited December 13, 2007 by August1991

[Brain Candy]

Yes i know what Adam Smith thought but he failed to take into account that what people believe is to be in their own self interest can be manipulated through state policy. For Nazis it was enforcing in everyone that they are above the rest of the world and must make more breeding room for their people. For Commies it was enforcing that everyone except the elites are equal and should work collectively and impose this thought process on the rest of the world. For our world it seems to enforces that everyone is individuals, their should not be a cultural basis for society and whatever makes the most money (usually that which appeals to the most basic instincts) and doesn't offend is good. Some people have recently added from the Nazi and Commie doctrines that we must spread this thought process around the world.

"If you except the ascetic ideal, man, the animal man had no meaning. His existence on earth contained no end; "What is the purpose of man at all?" was a question without an answer; the will for man and the world was lacking; behind every great human destiny rang as a refrain a still greater "All is vanity!" The ascetic ideal simply means this: that something was lacking , that a tremendous void encircled man—he did not know how to justify himself, to explain himself, to affirm himself, he suffered from the problem of his own meaning. "-Nietzsche's The Geneology of Morals

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brain Candy