Talk:Multiculturalism/Archive 1

Archive1 sub-page for Multiculturalism

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

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)

---

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.

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, 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)

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.

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.

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, filipino, 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

multiculturism is good

==Singapore hello llalal It seems to me (a student in Singapore) that the government here places great importance on multiculturalism and racial harmony, to the point of organising "Inter-racial walks" and "Inter-racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs)" after a few Jemaah Islamiah members were arrested by the authorities. There are Racial Harmony Days every year, festivals associated with the dominant cultures in Singapore are celebrated in schools and in grassroots organisations. I cannot think of another country where multiculturalism is such a fundamental consideration in national policy. --Maycontainpeanuts

I think we need to make the distinction between the laissez faire multiculturalism of the US, Canada, and Australia, which for the most part is a policy of a-culturalism (i.e. not promoteing any official culture), vs. the "multiculturalism" of a country like Singapore which is equivalent to old-style Canadian bi-culturalism. -- stewacide 09:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. -- Mathieugp 14:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, any idea how they be distinguished in the article? Is there a term for the "multiculturalism" of countries like Singapore, China, UK, Belgium, etc? Pluralistic nationalism maybe? In other words what is the generalized (non-number-specific) term for what the article describes in the origin section as biculturalism? -- stewacide 17:02, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Canadian style is "laissez-faire". The government has some fairly well-documented (if not exactly concrete) policy on what it defines as "Multiculturalism". It seems, from this American perspecitve, that the Canadian government is distinctly involved in people's identity. Or at least, attempts to be.--Jonashart 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note whether we are speaking about multiracialism or multiculturalism, Singapore is multiracial NOT multicultural. What we see in popular discussions is multiracialism that has not been able to develop and progress towards multiculturalism and thus leading to cross-cultural tensions and mutual-aggravation.

Ottoman Empire

Is something is not existed in that article? As i know, Ottomans were a great example for multiculturalism. --Anon

As the Armenians discovered in WW1.... --Peter O'Connell

The Ottomans used the "millet" system.--Nectar 03:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't judge the Ottomans by the behaviour of the regime during the last few Sultans; and the Armenians, long one of the most privileged of the Sultanate's "multicultures", made the bad mistake of getting uppity in the 1890s; until then they ranked with the Jews, Bulgars, Greeks, Albanians and others who were in fact often more trusted by the state than Moslems/Turks (and this includes Greeks, especially Phanariots, after the Greek War of Independence). Because of the 19th Century Armenian revolt, feelings against Armenians mounted within the public and military; note that although the Armenian Massacre happened during the last days of the Sultanate, it was much more an expression of Turkish nationalism than of Ottoman state policy. As for Ottoman state policy, if it weren't for the Sultans and the millet system, the Greeks, Romanians, Bulgars, Jews and countless others would not have been protected and relatively flourished as they did under Ottoman rule; the Sultans in fact made sure (according to Mansell's Constantinople: History of the World's Desire and another book Lords of the Horizons whose author I can't remember) that their conquered provinces and cities had mixed, multicultural populations, and like the Romans in times past forcibly settled these cities with compositions that reflected the Empire; and of course each community had the right/obligation to govern its own flock according to their own customs religious hierarchies. Constantinople in its day was easily a great multicultural city, as were of course Alexandria and other imperial centres (other than Mecca and Medina, which were off-limits to non-Moslems as still today). The Ottomans were multiculturally-oriented; the Moslems, especially the Janissary element, were hostile to religious and cultural multiculturalism; even though in the case of the Janissaries many of them were of Balkan background (Janissary is from yeni seri - new enlistement - and there were all ex-Christian children taken and raised as fanatical Muslims; there's nothing more fanatical than a convert, as the old saying goes). Point remains that an Ottoman palace/administration where the Grand Viziers were rarely Turks, Serbo-Croat was the language of the palace, Greek the language of business, Armenian and Ladino cultures in charge of the banking (Ladino was the dialect of Spanish of the Sephardic Jews who had been welcomed into the Empire when driven out by Ferdinand and Isabella; something like what Yiddish is to German), Greeks and Slavs in charge of the civil service, and so on. The page overleaf seems to only address multiculturalism in European-style societies and states; it strikes me that Malaysia and Singapore have official multiculturalism of a sort, China theoretically does, India practically, i.e. in a practical sense, does. Historically this was also the post-Metternich "Austrian idea" although it never worked in practice (since Czechs, Croats and others never quite got the clout/stature of the German and Magyar elements in imperial life). Strikes me there should be a List/section of Historically multicultural cities and states. Another that comes to mind is Norman Sicily, and also Moslem Spain.....Skookum1 16:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A section on historical multiculturalism would be most interesting. Lest we assume that in times past, there did not exist state sponsored initiatives, the laws of Islam make specific note of what we would consider 'multicultural' siutations and how they are to be handled. While perhaps not what we might consider proper today, systems did (do) exisit. Muslim Spain and Norman Sicily are great examples (often overlooked) of 'pre-modern' societies coping with the realities of globalization. And of course, the great urban centers of history have almost always been 'multicultural', and people have had to figure out how to cope with that reality, without simply resorting to violence.

Differntiating among the various deinfitions of multiculturalism seems necessary. Many of us have been discussing modern policies created to deal with the reality that most places in the world are home to more than one kind of person. However, Skookum's point is most valid: there are other forms of multiculturalism--historical, philisophical, a state of being, etc. Thus, the article should be clear about which form is being defined at any one time.--Jonashart 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Criticism

I agree that this article seems very biased and presents a very one-sided point of view, but (forgive me if I've missed it) I'd really like to see some positive points about multiculturalism. Perhaps taking from the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

---

I have a problem with the section on American critique of multiculturalism. The critiques have only been taken from the extremes, ie Pat Buchanan. Consider objections from a universalist/cosmopolitan view that does not oppose multiculturalism because it somehow hurts the purity of the United States, but rather because it subdivides the essential category of humanity.

Is multiculturalism an ideology?

Some words should be shed on the question whether multiculturalism is a mere fact of life or rather an ideology like marxism and libertarianism.

In Canada, it is Federal policy. The point is a good one, however. Canada declared itself "multicultual" in the midst of some social unrest regarding the social and economic statuses of several different groups (French Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Italian Candians, etc.). By the time a federal policy was put into place, Canada had been "multicultural" for the better part of 300 years. Such a policy/declaration certainly had/has political motivation and leanings that should not be overlooked. One should ask: "What motivates a government to declare it's country 'multicultural'"? Begin to answer that question, and a very interesting history unfolds.--Jonashart 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A good example of the denial of multiculturalism would be the African slaves who were brought to the U.S. and not allowed to continue with their culture under punishment of death or torture. Slaves were to forget their ancestry and culture if they were to survive in the new world. That does not mean that multiculturalism did not exist in the U.S. during slavery, it simply means that racists tried to stop it from growing or being seen publicly.

Multiculturalism is only an ideology to racists and dictators. Even "nation states" who fit closely to the concept of "ideal" have a multitude of cultures and it is only people who would hope to deny other cultures recognition or rights that would have an ideology that prohibits multi culturalism. Speaking the same language and making laws that encourage assimilation or culltural norms does not reduce or eliminate multiculturalism, because it will always be in people's home's even if they are forced to or willingly behave a certain way or follow norms in public. The definitions below include one from wikipedia that says it is a "policy", rather than an ideology or fact of life. Pco 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, multiculturalism exists within families, churches, schools, etc. throughout the U.S. Many families consist of parents and grandparents from different cultures and most people do not consider themselves to be "American" in that it consists of a culture of hamburgers, chrisianity and christmas, but have many traditions from their families cultures that they carry on, generation after generation. As an italian-american with german and english ancestors, I have never felt a cultural affinity with things that are "American". Many U.S. Latino families share the culture of christianity and christmas, yet we do not think of them as being part of the typical "American" culture. Is that because they prefer tacos to hamburgers? Pco 17:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Multicultural on the Web:

• The creative interchange of numerous ethnic and racial subcultures. usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oal/gloss.htm

• strongly influenced by or having prominent characteristics of several cultural groups or peoples www3.newberry.org/k12maps/glossary/

• A person who is multicultural has the ability to function effectively and appropriately and can select appropriate behaviors, values and attitudes of other cultures. www.gecdf.com/diversity/glossary.html

• reflecting the fluid social and cultural nature of Australian society particularly in relation to issues of identity, politics, time and place. www.nexus.asn.au/specproj/ccmm/CCMM_what%20is%20it2.htm

• of or relating to or including several cultures; "a multicultural event" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

• Multiculturalism is a policy, that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicultural

Pco 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't multiculturalism a policy more than it is an ideology? Driller thriller 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

The article seems to have ignored multiculturalism in Asia altogether and seems to concentrates on English speaking world (with the exception of the Dutch). __earth ^(Talk) 15:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) It also seems to have ignored Africa and Latin America. I was surprised that in the discussions of Canada, the United States and Australia, there seemed to be no mention of indigenous peoples and cultures. The Soviet Union and its successor states, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Balkans might have been mentioned since they all experience conflicts based on cultural differences. Do these conflicts not affect thought on multiculturalism in the regions discussed? UNESCO's cultural programs and the cultural treaties it supports might also have merited mention. 4 Sept 2006.

Islam complicates the issue

Paul: this is a good add. However, I suggest two things: 1) This needs citation. How people think, feel, and behave as stated fact is shakey ground. I know there's plenty written on this stuff, citing it would be a big plus; 2) Much of the section is written in past tense. The issues you raise continue, so you could 'present tense' most of it. Don't want to edit it w/o giving you the heads up. I like it!--Jonashart 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I was going to include attributions in the Netherlands section, all of these points surfaced in the debate there.Paul111 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think they apply to the American section, great. I just get nervous when I read "people feel" or "many believe" w/o substantiation. Even though you're right, evidence never hurts.--Jonashart 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the Dutch sources. They are reactions in Europe, the section says that "Islam did not dominate the multiculturalism issue to the same extent" in the United States, (However, that seems to have changed in the last few years, because of the increasing perception of Islam as the 'opposite of western culture').Paul111 13:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that perception is out there, for both "sides". Check out Fred Halliday's "Islam and the Myth of Confrontation". A great read on this stuff.--Jonashart 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

disputed tag

Many interesting fact were added bij Paul111, but he has also introduced a strong bias in favor of multiculturalism. Additionally, he abuses this article to rage against monoculturalism and nationalism. But really, is a multicultural society intrinsically and morally better than a monocultural society? This is a tendentious premisse that does not belong in an encyclopdia. The subsection 'Reaction against multiculturalism in Europe' is far from neutral. Moreover, 'the islam doesn't only complicate the issue' as Paul111 states it, but is no less than the trigger of the shifting European views on cultural identity. This shift, by the way, is certainly no "return of explicit nationalism as a political force". Nationalism as we know it from the Thirties of the previous century is dead and buried in Western Europe, but the article makes it seem like the Nazis are marching in again. By the way, what happened to Bassam Tibi's Leitkultur? It has been removed completely. Is it because it is to nationalistic for Paul111? --Che4ever 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am an opponent of multiculturalism, and I deleted content that had no other purpose than to say that it was wonderful. The 'monoculturalism' decribed in the article is largely the version that followed multiculturalism in Europe, a recent development. The term 'post-multiculturalism' is a possible alternative, but vague. In any case, the media are adopting the term 'monoculturalism' as the descriptive term for what is happening.

Nationalism is an indisputable component of the reaction in Europe against multiculturalism. Emphasis on national cultural identity is itself nationalism. What is more, ethnic national identities also revived. So 'nationalism' in Europe is not dead, far from it, and it is the correct descriptive term for some of the reactions to multiculturalism, and for the promotion of a common national identity. The article also distinguishes the non-nationalist opposition, such as that of the liberal-feminists. What you seem to be saying is that only Nazis are nationalists, and that is intenable.

The typical 'reactions to multiculturalism' of the 1990s are given at least one source in the Netherlands section.

I revised the article on Leitkultur, because it had nothing on the Leitkultur debate in Germany - which has almost nothing to do with Bassam Tibi any more. The article does indeed need two sections on Germany: one on official multiculturalism from the 1980's, and one on the reaction to it from the late 1990's. (The Leitkultur debate is, more or less, the multiculturalism debate in Germany). Paul111 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub section on German reactions added, so Leitkultur is back in the article. Incidentally, the wrong tag seems to be used, the tag is for disputed accuracy but bias is claimed - i.e. NPOV tag intended?Paul111 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By his own admission Paul11 opposes multiculturalism and is therefore racist/supremacist. So why do we need his input on a non-biased description of the realities/truths that describe what multiculturalism actually is. His posts are better relegated to a section on "Critics of Multiculturalism", but instead he has taken it upon himself to delete anything he does not like. He is turning this into a discussion of why it should be abolished, and why we should all be zionists, rather than stating the facts. Sorry Paulo it is too late to make the U.S. a white zionist nation-state. Pco 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Get real, opposing multiculturalism isn't racist- unless you count the BLACK Bishop of York as racist? Fool.

Such comments are actually part of the problem, Pco. Accusing others of racism or supremacism because they are expressing dissenting views is intellectual fascism at worse, a trip to the dark ages at best. Supremacism is the idea that one race is superior to another, while racism is the idea that races should not mingle, without necessarily implying a hierarchisation of races. Questionning (not denying or assaulting) multiculturalsim is, on the contrary, a question of how citizens of different cultures relate to civil society or state identity. If Paulo was racist, he sure as hell wouldn't have quoted the Arcbishop of York's comments. Is a multicultural society complicated to manage and organize, yes, that is a fact. Can a more homogenous society be a solution? Why not? Can it be debated? Sure! Everything that is factually based and does not promote hate should be debated. Debate is one of the legacies of the same Enlightenment that created the ideas of multiculturalism and liberalism. To deny respectful debate in the name of multiculturalism is frivolous nonsense and intellectual fallacy.Zlorfik 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

After the NPOV tag was added, and since there was no reply to my question above at 'disputed tag', I removed the accuracy-dispute tag, and left the neutrality-dispute tag. That is apparently what is in dispute, for both users - the neutrality.Paul111 10:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) On examination, it seems that the present article is biased against multiculturalism. In total 19 authors of books and articles are named, including two politicians, Pat Buchanan and Pim Fortuyn. All 19 are opponents of multiculturalism. Quotes of their criticism take up 40% of the article. Quoting critique is necessary, to provide the context for the current debates and policy reversals in Europe. However, for balance the article needs to quote at least one early advocate of multiculturalism (in Canada or the USA), and at least one recent response to the wave of criticism (from the UK, for instance). Any suggestions?Paul111 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I agree completely. There is a blatant bias against multiculturalism in this article. Brad_2 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also agree that balance is required. Despite my additions to the discussion section that are leaning to the 'con' side, I wouldn't want the article to become truely unbalanced. However, I will try to re-read it from top to bottom and get a good sense of where things stand currently.--Jonashart 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed Ken Wilber (non-notable as a critic of multiculturalism), and the one short sentence on Reginald Bibby, and also this vague and confusing sentence: "Literature by prominent minority women authors such as Toni Morrison and Maxine Hong Kingston can be both critiques of the traditional majority and minority cultures, as well as articulate exponents of a multicultural vision."Paul111 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I have a lot of problems with the neutrality of the section below (how can you quote a guy who says "we all have the same religion" as a good example of "melting pot" in the U.S.) . Immigration was a feature of the U.S. ever since it was discovered and that continued after the U.S. Gov was formed, so why start with the 19th century? What immigrants would return? My revision included the statue of liberty which is the symbol for the melting pot principal, but it was deleted. (see last revision by PCO) Pco 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) SOrry I had not intended to put a comment on the wrong page, but that does not require my entire post to be deleted. I think the section should just be called "U.S." rather than "melting pot" and then bring up the "melting pot" as a metaphor for the multiculturalism that has been part of U.S. history since the beginning. Pco 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the existing post:

The Melting Pot (USA)

In the United States, continuous mass immigration had been a feature of economy and society since the first half of the 19th century. There was no fiction that the immigrants would return: immigration was seen as a permanent choice for a new country. The absorption of the stream of immigrants became, in itself, a prominent feature of the national mythos, along with the expansion westwards. The central metaphor is the idea of the Melting Pot - where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. The Melting Pot implied that each individual immigrant, and each group of immigrants, assimilated into American society at their own pace, improving their income and social status on the way. It reflected and influenced official policy: although language courses were offered, they were rarely compulsory. As a result, several immigrant communities maintained a non-English language for generations. The nature of American national identity, with its emphasis on symbolic patriotism, allegiance, national values and a national mythos, facilitated the assimilation of immigrants. The Melting Pot attitude did not require a detailed knowledge of American history, acquisition of a complex cultural heritage, or accent-free English. It allowed interest in the culture of the country of origin, and family ties with that country. In practice, the original culture disappeared within two generations. An Americanized (and often stereotypical) version of the original nation's cuisine, and its holidays, survived.

The Melting Pot concept has been criticized, as an idealized version of the assimilation process. One common criticism is that it apparently did not apply to English-speaking, US-born black people, who stayed at the bottom of the social ladder from the American Civil War on. Another criticism is that the Melting Pot model described the assimilation of immigrants from Europe, rather than the assimilation of any immigrant. The growth in the use of the Spanish language - the model implies it would decline - has led to calls for state-enforced language policy similar to those in Europe. More recently, some have argued that "the Melting Pot" leads to an erosion of groups individual heritage and have argued that the USA is better described as "a tossed salad", with each group intermingling with all, but maintaining their separate identity.

Note that the Melting Pot tradition co-exists with a belief in national unity, dating from the American founding fathers:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."

(John Jay, First American Supreme Court Chief Justice).

---

The "Melting Pot" is not so much a symbol of multiculturalism, but of assimilation, a similar but altogether different concept. When a group of people moves from their different culture to the USA, they change some or many of their ways to fit the new "American" lifestyle.

By this well recognised definition, I fail to see how the quote contradicts the concept of the Melting Pot. It is true the USA has cultural groups; however they are all united under one vision, proof of their Assimilation on some level.

Now, if this were an article on Canada with that quote attached, there would be some problems. Canadian immigrants retain their own cultural practices, creating a truly Multicultural "Mosaic", rather than an Assimilatory "Melting Pot"

68.145.210.24 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Create Groups for Multiculturism Supporters/critics?

I think we should create groups of people that support (someone like Tom Friedman) or people like Pat Buchanan do are not in favor of the practice. While it of course would be subjective, we could at least get started with some of the more outspoken supporters and critics to help shape the people that are shapping the term.--Saintlink 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.32.196.4 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Malaysia section

I've added an Asian country in effort to make the article more global in its worldview. __earth ^(Talk) 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether Malaysia does indeed have a multicultural policy comparable to the term as used in the US, Canada, and Europe. Some of the policy items listed are apparently attempts to create a syncretic national identity, and that is something different. If the term multiculturalism is retroactively applied to communalism and responses to communalism, then it would include more societies and governments, but that would be an anachronism. The question was raised (see above, on Systemic bias) about the geographical bias of this article, but in this case some selectiveness is accurate. Multiculturalism was largely an issue for western developed nation-states with high immigration, and originally only the Anglophone states among those. Its abandonment is also an issue for those states. The fact that a state has different ethnic and cultural groups, and that its governments policies address this, does not necessarily make those policies 'multicultural'.Paul111 11:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See also the sections on Singapore and the Ottoman Empire, above. Paul111 10:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

I edited the tone of the Malaysia section, in places like an advertorial: "policies... encouraged unity among all ethnics group in Malaysia"; "created a tolerant multicultural society"; "Malaysia's liberal belief in multiculturalism".Paul111 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Multicultural or multiculturalism

Is the article is about multiculturalism or policies on multiculturalism? __earth ^(Talk) 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Multicultural-ism means policies, and ideology. 'Multicultural' is a descriptive term, which could be applied to thousands of human societies over thousands of years. The details do not belong in this article, because that is not the usage of 'multiculturalism' in the English language. (It would also become a pointless list of societies and states, with little else in common). Wikipedia guidelines say articles should not contradict themseleves. This article now says in one section that multiculturalism originated in 1970's Canada, and in another that it dates from 1957 in Malaysia. This needs resolution, and it seems a definition problem. Are you saying that Malaysia had multiculturalist policies, or are you primarily saying it had multiple cultures?Paul111 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to produce a citation for that. Future editors might think such definition as original research. __earth ^(Talk) 12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about both? Because in the characteristic listed in the typical policies of multiculturalism section describes Malaysia. About 5/6 of it is practiced in Malaysia. And I'm sure the policies were practiced in Malaysia before Canada did. In fact, Malaysia is definitely not the first. I do think the Austrian and the Swiss did it earlier. Their sanction of several languages looks like a characteristic of multiculturalism. Even Andalusia is another example though that isn't exactly in modern times. __earth ^(Talk) 01:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On comparison, the Malaysia policies don't look like western multiculturalism. On the basis of what is described here and at other articles on Malaysia, Malaysian policy is nationalist and monoculturalist. The underlying reason seems to be that the Malay majority has never accepted the presence of non-Malays, and that they seek te return to a homogenous society. That sounds familiar, since many European nation-states had similar majority attitudes, and still do. The scope of this article does not include multilingualism on its own, or consociationalism. In summary, Malaysian policy does not belong in this article. Nevertheless, I suggest retaining the Malaysia section, rewritten as a non-western comparison for cultural policies in a multi-ethnic state.Paul111 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?=

The onus is on those who claim that Malaysia has multiculturalist policies, to indicate what makes them comparable to 'multiculturalism' in Canada or the Netherlands. The claim that multicultural-ism is in fact a synonym for multicultural, which is apparently the position of user __earth, is untenable (and I doubt if any source could be found for that position). User __earth should clarify the issue, and say if he wants this article expanded to cover any society where multiple cultures are present. If only Malaysia is the issue, then a source should be provided, for the claim that it has multiculturalist policies since 1957.Paul111 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about your interpretation of multiculturalism? That should be referenced too. And see an article at the economist [1]. Also, Malaysia and Capitalist Modernisation: Plural and Multicultural Models by Steve Fenton. Also, see Guardian on how the author uses multiculturalism [2] __earth ^(Talk) 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the interpretation of multiculturalism which is at issue, but the usage. Multi-ethnic societies are a reality, there is no doubt of that. But the existence of these (non-western) societies has no part in the western controversy on multiculturalism. Those concerned in that debate are, for the most part, totally uninterested in Malaysian society. You may find that offensive, and it does illustrate their lack of global perspective, but it is the way things are. Perhaps a separate article on modern non-western multi-ethnic societies is an option.Paul111 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, is this page about multiculturalism on general or multiculturalism controversy in Europe? If it's the latter, it should be moved at Multiculturalism in Europe because multiculturalism here should discuss multiculturalism on general. __earth ^(Talk) 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is about multicultural-ism in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, EU member states and candidate members, and possibly Japan and South Africa. It is not about multicultural societies, because as pointed out already, thousands of existing and historical societies were, and are, multicultural. This article can not cover them all, and to do so would deny the specifics of multiculturalism as an ideology. I asked you to state your position on this, so please do so, then it can be put to a vote if necessary.Paul111 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue was raised before, tho not as specifically. I think __earth has a relevant point: is this article about the BIG M "Multiculturalism" as policy, or little "multiculturalism" as a phenomenon, which may encompass policy? Per the intro definition, it appears to focus on BIG M policy. While that is completely legit, unless there's a disambiguation being made, perhaps the article title should be more reflective of the specific nature of that usage (example Multiculturalism_(Policy). Paul111's suggestion of a separate article re: multicultural societies is a great idea.--Jonashart 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A better name for the phenomenon in question is multiculturality, the phenomenon of there being several cultures in one country. 'Multicultural societies' is confusing because it can mean for instance modern Canada or the Ottoman Empire, and because supporters of multicultural-ism see it as the ideal end result of multicultural-ist policy. For example they would say "The UK needs more multicultural polices to make it into a truly multicultural society". In fact the UK has always had several cultural and linguistic groups, since it came into existence, but that's not what the multiculturalists mean, and it's not what the British National Party mean either, when they denounce them.Paul111 20:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. Certainly worth further consideration. So, is your take the 'Multiculturalism' should stand, as-is as the title?--Jonashart 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Correcting English

Kitrus reverted copy-edits to this section. Presumably the target was the substantive edits, but the English needed improvement - 'fuel economics growth of the region', 'frequent intellectual spars', 'during the same time', and 'reflect the society readiness' - and such copy-edits should not be reverted.Paul111 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavoj Zizek

Unsigned comment below is by Jonesbaron23. Please sign your comments, use a header if it is a new theme, and don't put them at the top of the page.Paul111 10:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should include reference to the Lacanian-Marxist critique of multiculturalism, found principally in the many books of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek and formulated from a standpoint that is entirely distinct from the pseudo-leftist critique of multiculturalism common in the American university (including academic feminists). In particular, Zizek calls into question the naive, pre-modern, pre-Weberian, pre-Levi-Straussian notions of culture on which multiculturalism (at least its American version) rests, as well as the politically reactionary element of "identity politics."

Citations

The proper way to cite book titles is to underline them, not to italicize or place quotation marks around the titles. The article did both of these things--which is silly.

---

To the person that wrote the comment above: If you are so well versed in citation rules then you would know that there happen to be several different rules depending on what 'style' the author wrote with. There are three major styles in professional writing (APA style, MLA style and Chicago style). I write in APA style and in APA titles of book ARE put in italics (though not put in quotations). However, according to the Online Writing Lab at Purdue University, there is also an ASA style, used by the American Sociology Association, which does use quotation marks around book titles.

I suggest taking a look at the Online Writing Lab at Purdue University before you make 'silly' comments. [3]

citation: ASA Style information retrieved from [4] on December 2, 2006.

---

Julie

Martin

Netherlands

Enjoyed the article just some comments on the criticisms on multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status.

From the 1970s, multiculturalism was a consensus ideology in The Netherlands among the 'political class', and determined official policy. The principle was expressed in the phrase "Integratie met behoud van eigen taal en cultuur", that is, social integration while retaining the language and culture of the immigrant groups. Immigrants were treated as members of a monolithic cultural bloc, on the basis of nationality - their religion only became an issue in the 1990s. These communities were addressed by the Dutch government, in what it considered to be their own languages - Arabic for Moroccan immigrants, even though many of them did not speak it. Opposition to the consensus was politically marginal. The anti-immigration Centrumpartij had occasional electoral successes, but its leader Hans Janmaat was ostracised, and fined for his strident opposition to multiculturalism.

However rom the late 1990s multiculturalism came under sustained intellectual attack in Western Europe, again largely, but not exclusively, from the political right. The period saw the rise of anti-immigrant populism in Europe, which was uniformly, and often fanatically, hostile to multiculturalism. The debate became increasingly polarised, and increasingly associated with Islam and terrorism. The multiculturalism issue merged with the immigration policy issue.

Some have claimed that in the 1950s, the Netherlands was generally a mono-ethnic and monocultural society: it was not monolingual, but almost everyone could speak standard Dutch. Its inhabitants shared a classic national identity, with a national mythos emphasising the Dutch Golden Age, and national heroes such as Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. This is not true because the Netherlands also consisted of overseas teritories such as Suriname and Indonesia in which she created multicultural societies with the aim of exploiting them economically. The ‘national’ mythos of heroes such as Michiel de Ruyter where not shared by large parts of the population living in both Indonesia and Suriname. These ‘national heroes’ where often nothing more than slave trafficers and pirates and the Dutch Golden Age was the period in which the the port city of Amsterdam was the European capital of slavery, also helping to manage the slave trade of neighbouring nations and with up to 10,000 slaving vessels associated with the port. In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book 'The Philosophy of Human Rights. Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-western culture and values.

The truth is that the rule of law and human rights are not typical nor original parts of Dutch culture nor western culture. Torture (Like in Abu Gharib by Americans), economic and enviromental exploitation and degradation unfortunatly are. Human rights originated from ancient Mesopotamia and the dutch where in colonial times nothing but renowned for committing the most cruel atrocities against human rights (Hollanse bok). The rule of law and the adherence to human rights are not typical to western culture just as they fail to be in other culture’s.

Paul Cliteur also claims that human rights are the product of the Enlightenment. Other more reliable sources report that appalled by the barbarism of the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

According to Njalsson, multiculturalism is particular to a western urban environment and cannot survive as an ideology outside it.

Fortunately Multiculturalism exsists in non western societies like Suriname and guarantee’s the survival of at least a sence of social harmony in that country. The mosque and synagogue besides each other in Keizerstraat, Paramaribo, Suriname

Scheffer approvingly quoted the sociologist J.A.A. van Doorn, that the presence of immigrants in the Netherlands had "put the clock back" by 100 or 150 years. The high immigration rate, and the lack of 'integration' threatened society, and must be stopped.

If the presence of immigrants put holland back 150 years it still has another 150 to go; right where it should have been had it not explioted slaves for 300 years. The truth is that immigration was invited by the dutch in the 1950 and 1960 and accelerated in the 1970s when the dutch needed migrant labour to sustain their then slaveless economy.

In 2002, the legal scholar Afshin Ellian - a refugee from Iran - advocated a monocultural ‘Rechtsstaat’ in the Netherlands. A liberal democracy cannot be multicultural, he argued, because multiculturalism is an ideology and a democracy has no official ideology. Also, according to Ellian, a democracy must be monolingual. The Dutch language is the language of the constitution, and therefore it must be the only public language - all others must be limited to the private sphere.

Allthough I would agree that it is to the benefit of immigrants to learn to effectivly communicate in the language of the constitution I must stongly object to fact that it has to be the only language and that a democracy has no oficial ideology. The word ‘Rechtsstaat’ means constitutional state which means that the whole idea of a democracy derives its ligitimacy from the submission of state authority to fundamental rights enshrined in a constitution embodying the dominant ideology.

Ellian also complained that the Netherlands had legalised the "feudal system of the Islamic Empire". Democracy and the rule of law could only be restored by abolishing multiculturalism.

The Islamic feudal system like in the ottoman empire was characterised by absent land ownership and by excessive taxation and exploitation. However it examplified the abandonement of the ‘spoils system’ predominant from the time of the Prophet Muhammad and regulated by his successor, Caliph Omar.

‘Know that whenever you seize anything as a spoil, to God belongs a fifth thereof and to his Apostle ....’

In the Prophet Muhammad's time, that fifth of the booty of conquest was to be portioned out to members of his family and also to the needy. But as the booty more often passed to the leaders who succeeded Muhammad, this system indeed seems to have set the patterns for an unequal distribution of wealth ever present in Dutch society. But unfortunately for the slaves and indentured immigrants in Dutch colonies these patterns had been adopted long before the immigration of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the 1960 and 1970’s and can therefore not be blamed on immigration. Democracy and the rule of law can better be restored with measures guaranteeing an involved and informed participation in the public sphere supported by a constitution. This should be accompanied by a restoration of social justice and a fair distribution of wealth as suggested by the Prophet (blessings be upon him)

00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)83.147.128.197

The lack of a national identity in the Netherlands is largely due to the Second World War. It is a social stigma in the Netherlands for example, to wear the Dutch flag on one's jacket, people rather wear orange, in reference to the Dutch monarchy. This needs some expanding and mentioning in the Netherlands section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitch12440 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Is multiculturalism a Good Thing?

The comments on Malaysia by user __earth seem to indicate a misunderstanding of the historical background. Apparently, he is trying to claim that Malaysia invented multiculturalism, or at least 'had it before the West'. That assumes that multiculturalism is a Good Thing, a Great Invention, like printing or the telephone. But in reality, it is a bitterly disputed political ideology, which is hated and despised by millions of people, and which is being rapidly abandoned in western Europe. I hope that will clarify why this article should not include claims to have 'invented multiculturalism', or false historical attributions of 'multiculturalism' to non-modern societies - see anachronism.Paul111 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say Malaysia invented multiculturalism. Neither did I say it's a good thing. I'm just saying it exists. In fact, like I've mentioned, Austria and Switzerland probably did it earlier than Malaysia. I'm just saying Malaysian society became multicultural before independence and right after independence, it practices multicultural policies like different education system for different ethnic groups. __earth ^(Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See above (Malaysia section) for the question of whether Malaysia has multiculturalist policies. Most large states prior to the 19th century were 'multicultural', but that is not what this article is about. The comment about not trying to 'claim' it for others is intended to keep the article focussed on what is generally understood by 'multiculturalism' in English. That doesn't include Swiss language policies, although they may serve as a model.Paul111 12:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like some countries called in the article multicultural are in fact two-, or, maximum three-cultural. Like Malaysia, Swiss and so on. And these 2-3 cultures must not be too different. And each must live in one's own skin. Or else this country crashes like USSR, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Empire or Yugoslavia. It seems like states are crushing then they become too "multicultural". The "melting pot" policy hardly seems multicultural. It is rather a policy to meld some nations into one. So if state declares that it want to become multicultural, it expresses wish to split as history shows. That what is called multiculturalism now, IMHO, is just a policy to get maximum of cheap labor force, with'nt any thought about that what will happen some time later. Only ideology I can see in it is greed. I like this article--Igor "the Otter" 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Foremost Essay on Mutliculturalism- Charles Taylor

Firstly, one may either italisize OR underline works; furthermore if a piece of writing cannot stand on its own then it is put in quotes. As an English teacher might say, "If it has a spine underline," and if not, use quotes. I would just like to refer people to Charles Taylor, a Canadian man who wrote a critical essay on multicultralism. His work brings up many current issues of multiculturalism and talks about the value of collective over individual rights. His work may be considered essential reading on this topic. 142.179.124.211 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider this a foremost essay, but a religiously biased essay on multiculturalism. Ref: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9304/oakes.html

Pco 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to US Melting Pot by Pco

User Pco posted several signed comments into the text of this section. After notification that this was inappropriate, several comments were "reposted" in the section. They are obviously personal views, but Wikipedia is not a forum, and they did not improve the previous version. Reverted.Paul111 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxism and racism

This section now contradicts itself, so I moved it here pending a rewrite by the editors concerned.Paul111 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-racists of a Marxist theoretical perspective view white supremacy as an internalized form of imperialism— that is, exploitation of other races for the accumulation of capital in the homeland. When racism is thus analysed as a problem of political economy, the logical response is to tear down its structural foundations—that is, imperialism. Multiculturalism stands in the way of such agenda, because it implies that the grounds for racism in society are not economic, but cultural or ideological. This is irrelevant, however, since actual multiculturalism, or the criticism thereof, deals with cultural and not racial identity.

India

I am doing research on Indian History and it is painfully sad to note that India - mother of all multiculturalism sinces ages does not have a mention on this page. For example so many cultures living together in India -

Punjabi, Gujarati, Hindi, Bihari, Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya, Goan, Bengali, Tamil, Telgu, Kannada, Malyalam

and a couple of dozen more. Each of those have different belief, language, fooding, clothes, festivals etc. And yet we do not find it adequate to mention it on this page. zombie_neal 16:22, 05 February 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above (and archived) on Malaysia and the Ottoman Empire.Paul111 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the name of page needs to changed to something like "Multiculturalism in Western Countries". You cannot define a phenomenon on your terms. Multicultarism is a general term which applies to all socities equally. I see only two options here

1) Either include eartern societies and their view on this page. 2) Or change the name of page to reflect aptly what it contains. The basic problem with us in west is that we think we are the whole world, which we are not. Wake up people. zombie_neal 14:34, 06 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia

I would like to point out that there were people from all around the British Empire arriving in Australia before 1800 and that it is only true that the majority of people were detained in England for instance there were people from the American and former American colonies--Squall1991 13:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A question about the 'proposed referendum' by Robert Menzies in 1967 - please provide a reference that states that there was a referendum this year concerning the abolition of the White Australia Policy. As far as I'm aware, the WAP was not removed in so public a way. The referendum referred to was the one that gave the Commonwealth of Australia the power to make laws for indigenous (Aboriginal) Australians. Eyedubya 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ryt

reet

Intellectual critique

I plan on adding the following to the "Intellectual critique" section of the article. It is about professor Stanley Fish's critique of multiculturalism. Seeing as how this is a disputed article, I thought that I would write about it here in the discussion page before placing it in the main article, so as to give people time to review it. Here is the article that I will be citing: http://www.reason.com/news/show/27743.html and the most important portion of Fish's work is the following:

"The politics of difference is what I mean by strong multiculturalism. It is strong because it values difference in and for itself rather than as a manifestation of something more basically constitutive. Whereas the boutique multiculturalist will accord a superficial respect to cultures other than his own, a respect he will withdraw when he finds the practices of a culture irrational or inhumane, a strong multiculturalist will want to accord a deep respect to all cultures at their core, for he believes that each has the right to form its own identity and nourish its own sense of what is rational and humane. For the strong multiculturalist the first principle is not rationality or some other supracultural universal, but tolerance.
But the trouble with stipulating tolerance as your first principle is that you cannot possibly be faithful to it because sooner or later the culture whose core values you are tolerating will reveal itself to be intolerant at that same core; that is, the distinctiveness that marks it as unique and self-defining will resist the appeal of moderation or incorporation into a larger whole. Confronted with a demand that it surrender its viewpoint or enlarge it to include the practices of its natural enemies--other religions, other races, other genders, other classes--a beleaguered culture will fight back with everything from discriminatory legislation to violence.
At this point the strong multiculturalist faces a dilemma: either he stretches his toleration so that it extends to the intolerance residing at the heart of a culture he would honor, in which case tolerance is no longer his guiding principle, or he condemns the core intolerance of that culture (recoiling in horror when Khomeini calls for the death of Rushdie), in which case he is no longer according it respect at the point where its distinctiveness is most obviously at stake. Typically, the strong multiculturalist will grab the second handle of this dilemma (usually in the name of some supracultural universal now seen to have been hiding up his sleeve from the beginning) and thereby reveal himself not to be a strong multiculturalist at all. Indeed it turns out that strong multiculturalism is not a distinct position but a somewhat deeper instance of the shallow category of boutique multiculturalism."

_selfworm_ ^{( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_} 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes on arranging the article anew

Given the current structure:

   * 1 Before multiculturalism
         o 1.1 The monocultural nation-state Ideal (Europe)
         o 1.2 The Melting Pot Ideal (USA)
         o 1.3 Ethnic selection (Australia)
   * 2 Adoption as policy
         o 2.1 Origins in Canada
         o 2.2 Australia
         o 2.3 Sweden
         o 2.4 United States
         o 2.5 United Kingdom
         o 2.6 Malaysia
   * 3 Multiculturalism as introductory to monoculturalism
   * 4 Developing opposition to multiculturalism
         o 4.1 United States
         o 4.2 Canada
         o 4.3 Australia
         o 4.4 The Netherlands
               + 4.4.1 Intellectual critique
               + 4.4.2 Political reaction
         o 4.5 United Kingdom
         o 4.6 Germany
         o 4.7 France
   * 5 Islam, Europe and multiculturalism
   * 6 Post-multiculturalism in Europe
         o 6.1 Polarisation
   * 7 References
   * 8 See also
   * 9 Further reading
   * 10 External links

I think the whole article needs some rewording to become compact and concise. Some points get restated throughout the page and the reader quickly looses interest. Also the intro is very long, it can be shortened to a reasonable paragraph and the rest of the text can be merged under another title in the body. That's it for now. Someone who is more proficient than me may want to step in and give a hand. Dimror 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecton

An IP address keeps trying to add a rant to the page, maybe it should be semi-protected. 1Z 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected it, as it was a content dispute between several users and would not be just blocking just a side without encouraging discussion. -- ReyBrujo 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Amount of Moslems

To be honest, seeing as i live in the US, why everybody seems to think that England is multicultural. I've been doing some research on stuff like this because i wanna pad in europe. So i was reading about each country like Germany, Britain, France etc. And to tell you the truth we guys love you Brits -scots with your bagpipes etc. which is great and the welsh with daffodils and snowdon. But, especialy we love you English with your fantastic accent and your polite personalities compared to us in your face americans. I know that you english are sat there thinking we'rnt like that but you are on the whole apart from drunken louts. Everybody in the world respects you and admires you guys. I mean personally i'm black and i visited Britain last month and i was shocked after all dis propaganda on multiculturalism in England, how white and christian it was. I went around the country from London, which is bound to have more black people and asians but nothing compared to New York and you think that Britain is a "ghetto" you don't know wat da word means. And i love your villages with village shops and churches. Even the towns have old historic buildings and i'm a bit sick with the US at the moment. So i was wondering whether someone could actually be proud of their fantastic country and tell me how nice it is and all the ins and outs please xxx. As i say, Britain is one of the most white places i ever been especially compared to France, they are VERY multicultural, so you got nuttin to worry about England. You lucky guys. We got loadsa problems. So i want someone to change this article and other cultural articles to do with Britain, not to say multicultural. 2.7% Jesus Christ thats practically nothing. Bye xx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.243.118 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

What is the point of multiculturalism?

Obviously, it's just an elaborate exercise in proving that the host country isn't racist because, when you think about it, there's no other benefit to it. It never seems to occur to those who extol the 'virtues' of multiculturalism that the world is in fact multicultural; multicultural in a far more meaningful way than, say, Britain is. China, having one of the richest heritages on the planet, provides an excellent example. London's Chinatown might ostensibly illustrate multiculturalism, but Chinatown is, of course, a superficial approximation of genuine Chinese culture - a tourists'-eye-view of China. The source of real Chinese culture is and will always be China, due to the fairly obvious fact that real, meaningful culture is a product of history and geography, not expedient political ideology. The only exception might be the USA, which was apparently founded on the 'melting-pot ideal' with a constitutional separation of Church and State. If China, however, decided to (clearly hypothetically) become multicultural in a misguided attempt at modernisation, genuine Chinese culture would inevitably become marginalised by the imported cultural novelties. Eventually, all we (the world) would have left of real Chinese culture would be Chinatown, i.e, the superficial facades of a bygone age and an affront to real heritage. Not only would this be a global tragedy, it would actually hamper the world's cultural diversity. I mean, obviously, no tourist visits any particular country 'for the multiculturalism'.

How can you be so sure?Eyedubya (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead-in sentance is very clunky but essentially answers the question you pose in the section title:

Multiculturalism is an ideology (a group of related ideas) advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural and religious groups, with equal status.

Multiculturalism is not tied to a 'home country' or 'host country' or 'race' or 'gender'. It is the recognition that there are many cultures in this world (and also many sub-cultures within local areas) and that no culture is inherently either 'better' or 'less special' than any other culture or sub-culture. I can't entirely follow what you are trying to argue in the body of your comments, but I think you are approaching the concept of 'multiculturalism' from a limited point of view.207.69.137.8 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that there being many diverse cultures in the world being a good thing was precisely the point being advocated; if every country became multicultural, we'd end up with no real culture at all. Even the assumption that "... no culture is inherently either 'better' or 'less special' than any other culture or sub-culture" isn't going to get us anywhere; we all appreciate cultural diversity, but no thinking person could disagree that a modern, libertarian culture is inherently 'better' than, to use an admittedly rather extreme example, that of certain African tribes citing tradition and culture to legitimate female genital mutilation. Multiculturalism is a threat to culture, and it makes the world safe for extremism.

The above comments are a good example of a strong POV. Many of us have them. However, let's confine remarks on this page to discussion of the article and verifiable edits to it. Sunray 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Which really means: endorse the party POV or you will be exiled. The undeniable truth is multiculturalism IS monoculturalism. By bolting another uber-ideology above the religions and traditional values of the host nation, multiculturalism becomes as intricately bound to ideology and dogma as any religion or tradition it attempts to supplant. Multiculturalism was NOT the dominant ideology during the rise of the USA. In fact, the holy words "diversity" and "tolerance" were not spoken until after WW2. Isn't it odd that the decline (and eventual fall) of the USA began with the adoption of the multiculturalist ideology?

I know ... these statements are blasphemous as they stand in the face of contemporary accepted dogma. Every time has it's Martin Luther and being in the minority does not make one wrong. Tolerance = good. Multiculturalism = just another culture, but this culture has no God, no religion and hasn't been debugged by hundreds or thousands of generations

The problem is that political elites seem to (perhaps deliberately) misunderstand multiculturalism as being an effort to foster some sort of rainbow-colored global culture, whereby unsavoury national and cultural divisions are purged from everyone's heritages and Independence Day, for example, becomes Fireworks Night. It's utopianism, not multiculturalism.

Please take this conversation elsewhere. This talk page is not for the general discussion of the article subject, but rather for discussion of potential improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. Natalie 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The cupidity of comments like the following always staggers me when I see it; disingenuous, or baldly denialist:

China, having one of the richest heritages on the planet, provides an excellent example. London's Chinatown might ostensibly illustrate multiculturalism, but Chinatown is, of course, a superficial approximation of genuine Chinese culture - a tourists'-eye-view of China. The source of real Chinese culture is and will always be China, due to the fairly obvious fact that real, meaningful culture is a product of history and geography, not expedient political ideology.

That last line somehow skips over the fact of the Cultural Revolution and its sister eras, or the anti-Qing ideologies of the Taiping and Boxer Rebellions, dunnit? Beijing's "Europe Street" is a travesty, even a mockery, of the multiculturalism found in places like London; sharing with ethnocultural enclaves there only the rubric of official mandate (and no actual life of its own; Europe Street is only meant to look like whiteman-space, it's not actually meant to be populated by them, nor are they invited to live in it. But even that's not quite my point: China had hundreds of non-Han, non-Sino-Tibetan languages, now all long extinct/extinguished or assimilated, or even recently extinguished (Manchurian, for a very pointed instance); or on their way to assimilation, which somehow is a good thing in China, but a bad thing in Western Countries, where it's some kind of a big no-no, right up there with cultural appropriation. China's absorption of Tibetan and Uighur ethnicity would be more convincing if it were about something more than simply transplating Han language and populations and culture into Tibetan and Uighur territories, and some reciprocal adoption of Tibetan and Uighur cultures into mainstream Chinese. This is not the case. The very foundation of the allegedly 6000-year old civilization can really only be put down to something like 2150 B.P., to the First Qin Emperor and his wilfull destruction of Xia and Zhang dynasty records, and records of other peoples and kingdoms other than his own official one. Yes, China is a product of its history, so is everywhere else, INCLUDING BRITAIN. That someone feels the need to negatively adjudge Britain while giving China a free ride, even a paint-up as some kind of paradigm of multicultural perfection when it's more the opposite, a cultural Borg Empire, is too typical of the twisted thinking and re-rationalizations around these days. China does not allow foreign enclaves within itself, not on the scale its trade agenda demands in its trade partners (as in calling Dubliners and Romans racist for blocking new Chinatown creations when you look at the potemkin village/front of Europe Street....); and modern Chinese revanchism is built on kicking out the European banks from Shanghai's Bund and the closure of the special economic zones; if comparable enclaves to British Columbia's Golden Village or the various new suburban Chinatows in Toronto or the US were built in China and Chinese culture discredited and shoved aside for the advancement of non-Chinese culture.....well, we all know what that would be called. Maybe it'll come to that, one day, and China will inherit a population of in-migrants from its decaying/bloating empire in the way Britain, France and the US/Canada have done, and then the Chinese will be faced with genuine multiculturalism. Not the official pretense of it, plus a lot of finger-pointing at other countries about how they're not as multicultural as China. Tell that to the Manchurians and Tibetans and Uighurs and Mongolians and Hmong and Hui; simply because somebody is stuck with being inside China doesn't mean they want to be, or should be considered Chinese. It's different with Britain, where even Britishness has been redefined according to the new agenda; and worse in Canada, where the old sense of what it was to be Canadian is now dismissed and derogated and some new paradigm put forward, failure to live up to which classes one as a barbarian of some kind. What's the point of multiculturalism? To justify immigration policies designed to import labour and capital to be able to pay for the pension plans/public services and other costs of running a country based on middle-class security and "sound investments". The pretense is of some kind of noble principle; the reality is economic expediency, i.e. saving bucks and making more bucks. No nobility or higher morality wanted/required, except in the press kit.Skookum1 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those last few sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.248.153 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Started a section on Eastern societies

I have added an entry on India. Please add stuff for China, Indonesia, Singapore etc.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request to archive discussion

I would like to start a major overhaul of the article, but before I do, I think it would help to archive the old discussions which have all been inactive for some time.

But, I dont get how the archiving process works am asking someone who knows how to do so to leave a cleaner slate for comments and concerns that will inevitably come about due to any major changes. Thank you.207.69.137.8 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

both cultural and ethnic diversity

Lead in sentance claims multiculturalism is "BOTH cultural and ethnic diversity" - anyone have a source for that? Why must it be BOTH?TheRedPenOfDoom 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Legsilation

"enforcement of different codes of law on members of each ethnic group (e.g. Malaysia enforces Shar'ia law, but only for a particular ethnic group)"

I think it's a hot topic in Europe. I think a lot of otherwise tolerant people wouldn't support this. So please add some source. --Zslevi (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Multicultural education

I was about to enter a section on Multicultural education when I noticed this article's length. Would anyone like to start a new article on that topic? • Freechild'sup? 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense. Sunray (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only if both sides, multiculturalism and culturism, can be represented. Someone redirected the culturist site to multiculturalism and just wiped the culturist site off the face of wikipedia. This is biased and rude. www.pressjohn.com 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) pressjohn@hotmail.com

Presumably it was redirected for a reason, but if you want to re-create the page and remove the redirection, please do so. It would of course be good to outline your reasons why you want to do that. --Gilgongo (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:May 13 aftermath.jpg

Image:May 13 aftermath.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Length and breaking the article into sub-articles

Someone has objected to the length of this article.

Does it make sense for this article to be simply a high level overview of Multiculturalism as an official policy and multiculturalism as 'cultures living together' - with links to other articles like Multiculturalism in Asia, Multiculturalism in Canada etc.

How would the division of the specific new articles be determined?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. We could work out the sub-articles here. Sunray (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A Germanic-Protestant thing?

One thing that I think it’s curious is that Multiculturalism nowadays is strong specially in Germanic-Protestant countries like USA, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Netherlands.

Multiculturalism is much less talked about and much less implemented in Latin-Catholic regions like Latin Europe and Latin America, where generally just one language is accepted as national language (maybe Spain is the exception, but anyway). The general tendency in Latin-Catholic countries are the melting pot based in a common officail language, holidays and laws for all the people, native or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.174.139 (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should be mentionned, but only after the article is cleaned up a bit. Vloxul (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism in Latin influenced countries are totally ignored

Despite having ethnic and racial diversity that far surpasses that of the Anglo influenced countries. This article posts no information about multiculturalism in Spanish/Portugese influenced societies. This is info-cism...

Then provide some reliable sources with information to correct the bias. Your contributions would be welcome!TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

article of concern

would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies? I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion. More important, I think others need to comment on it. I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Law of Hamburgers?

I'm no multicultural expert, but under Ethnic selection (Australia) the following is probably wrong:

"Proposals to limit the law of hamburgers by nationality were intended to maintain the cultural and political identity of the colonies as part of the British Empire." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasJCyrus (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A piece of vandalism that was previously missed. Thanks for pointing it out!TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Someone seems to have added citation notices here with a zeal of which most other sections were apparently unworthy. Either a hippy from the UK's making a truculent protest or the rest of the article needs some serious scrutiny.

I fail to see the logic behind multiple placements within the same sentence, however in those sentences citation is needed. Vloxul (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to find sources, since muliculturalism in the United Kingdom and wider Europe (such as Spain, Italy and France) is regarded all round as an epic failed (outside one of two potsmoking college students). - Gennarous (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I agree that this article would be a lot more focused and cohesive if it were broken up into multiple articles focusing either on one dimension of multiculturalism or multiple dimensions country by country. Also, one thing that I found odd is that the discussion focused so heavily on immigrants while failing to address the impact of colonialism and slavery. The presence of "native" peoples who have been disnfranchised and people who are or were enslaved in a nation further complicates this issue of multi-culturalism. For those whose culture has been repressed, destroyed, denied, and distorted the preservation and reclamation of a cultural heritage is much more than just "identity politics". Also, discussions, policies, critiques, etc... of multi-culturalism must also be understood in relationship to power, oftentimes it is the dominant culture possessed by a specific group that wants to assert itself as the national culture, so that "monoculturalism" can be oppresive. I think that without some attempt to address these issues a discussion on multi-culturalism is bound to be skewed.Lbuffin (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good point -- in the USA, Blacks, Indians and Chicanos are not immigrants, but they're central to the modern study of multiculturalism.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a very good point. I've edited the opening two lines of the lead recently to remove this bias. The article definitely needs re-structuring to make it more rounded, comprehensive and theoretically informed. Eyedubya (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro section / lead

WRT to the requests for sources: if you type 'multicultural' or 'multiculturalism' into WP, it ends up on this page. The lead therefore has the job of making the distinction between the two words before getting into the issues around the ideology/philosophy etc. Its important for an article on this topic that this distinction between de facto and de jure is made, given that there are those who see the latter as being responsible for the former, when in fact, far more societies are the former regardless of state policy on immigration. I can't see the point of asking for sources for the statement that some countries are demographically multicultural, since the evidence is so obviously to be found in statistics for any given nation. Eyedubya (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to find a way to improve the lead. - perhaps we need a disambiguation page for two different articles: one for the policy and one for the de facto/descriptive usage. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an idea, though the one on 'multicultural' is probably going to be extremely short. Its the relationship between the two that is important for understanding the issues involved, so even with separate articles there would be some common content.Eyedubya (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cohortocracy

Cohortocracy arises as a term to describe what is happening in a number of societies, generally by well meaning liberal politicians, commentators and/or social scientists. They talk of dealing with communities or apparent groupings as needing to be reconciled through "multi-culturalism". This then gives rise to the situation where instead of societies being "represented by" their governing institutions, their governing institutions can be "representative of" them. One of the simplest of these is the representation of gender, there are 50% of each gender in the society, so their representatives should also be 50:50. Not that this is at all to be argued against, or is not laudable. The problem with this is that it can become absurd, the level at which representation can occur is naturally limited by the total number of representatives, so in a governing body which has for instance 100 members, any characteristic which is less than 1% in the population cannot be primarily represented. It may be that one of the hundred representatives will have that unrepresented characteristic also, this then leads to another situation where particular candidates become more "valuable" in representational currency, by representing more or less constituencies, and/or characteristics. There may well be practical and eminently just methods of implementing such a system, BUT... it must be noted that this will be a society where its governance will only be a mirror of the society, dangerously illusory. The reflected led by the reflection.... reflect on it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glissade (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has a wide range of different nationalties. Walking through the streets of London you can discover many shops from various nationalities. Therefore you can assume that the UK is changing. Immigration led to a growth, both economically and socially. The Indian restaurant and Pakistani newsagency or shop corner have become integral parts of British life. Although these are steps towards equality some people want to hold on to their Britishness. As they do not define themselves as a multi-national society they do not want any immigration because they think that it will destroy the British identity. Nevertheless, integration took place. More and more shops from different nationalities are opening in the UK. Immigration has helped enrich the cultural life. But nevertheless there are still cultural clashes leading to attacks on the grounds of racism against other ethnic groups. Therefore many immigrants fear racial attacks. All in all there exists diversity and tolerance, but also prejudices.

Acceptance and integration

There have been improvements towards equality and intergration:

- there are now some Black and Asian MPs - the ethnic minorities have wider representation in local government - the annual Notting Hill Carnival, held in August, attracts 2 million visitors each year

Although all of these factors are steps towards equality, there is still a long way to go. Clearly a lot more work is needed to promote understanding between the races.149.225.80.38 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything that relates to the actual content of the article? If not WP not a discussion forum and I will be removing this comment per WP:TPG-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article deals with the multiculturalism in Great Britain. All my facts do have a connection to the content of the article because I wanted to give information about the situation in Britain today. Furthermore it is necessary to know about racial attacks, but also about acceptance and integration. Therefore I am of the opinion that the original article needed some background information about multiethnicity in GB.89.51.21.234 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.51.21.234 (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Just so you know, Wikipedia is not a blog or a place to post your personal essays. Content to be added to a Wikipedia article must be supported by material published by a reliable source. For more information on writing material for Wikipedia articles, please read: How to write a great article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

I have been reverting edits by 65.94.xx.xx as they seem POV to me. (Note one of edit comments in the history). What do people think? I say French Canadian is better for an international audience.Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This may have already achieved a stability on its own, but the article can identify both terms and briefly indicate how they are similar/different. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

India's caste system

I removed the following information from the article becasue while it is sourced, the sources not appear to be addressing "multiculturalism" themselves and therefore the inclusion of this data in the article about "multiculturalism" would appear to be a violation of WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

removed from India section

Indian society is divided into several thousands of caste and sub-caste. Dalits, often called an untouchable, or an outcaste, were commonly banned and segregated from full participation in Hindu social life. Some activists consider that the caste system is a form of racial discrimination. The participants of the United Nations Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in March 2001, condemned discrimination due to the caste system, and tried to pass a resolution declaring that caste as a basis for the segregation and oppression of peoples in terms of their descent and occupation is a form of apartheid. However, no formal resolution was passed to that effect.

Well, the discrimination part is perhaps not relevant here but the Dalits definitely have a distinctive culture within India. One example would be their epic [5], about which most other Indians are not even aware. I dont know exactly how I want to add this in there though. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism is not the same thing as cultural diversity

Multiculturalism should not be presented as de facto state of things in which there are more cultural diversity. Driving multiculturalist politics can actually decrease the number of cultures. If you make two or more cultures to mix each other, after some time there is only one culture left. One of them has assimilated the other, or both have been assimilated to one new mixed culture. If every group of the world is mixed with every other group, the number of cultures decreases to very few. This would follow multiculturalism, but it would be a disaster to cultural diversity of the world. 193.65.112.51 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is to dicuss how to improve the article, not a forum. If you have suggestions for improving the article, please feel free to make them otherwise this will be removed from the page per the talk page guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to change the way multiculturalism is presented in the article. As I explained, multiculturalism is not the same thing as cultural diversity. (multiculturalism can actually lead to decrease of cultural diversity) Cultural diversity is a de facto state of things, multiculturalism is ideology. Due to my poor skills in English I am unable to fix the article by myself, so I commented it here. 193.65.112.51 (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me make a few things clear

India is by far the most diverse nation on this plant (I can give and have already provided a host of references for this), the 'diversity' (mainly a dominant Anglo-Saxon materialistic culture with superficial imports from abroad) found in America and England is trivial. How many languages in totally different scripts from totally different language families are spoken in America ? How many different religions have world heritage sites in America ? How many different races are endemic to America ? Can you really compare 'black' culture (which is a fine culture) to the complexity of Islamic culture in India ? This is not to say that there are not bad things about Indian society (caste system, treatment of women), but to highlight trivial differences brought in by migrants who migrated mainly for economic reasons (and at great cost to their home country) over a far more diverse culture is nothing more than arrogance. So the section on eastern nations should come first.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather arrogant to assume that all 'anglo' cultures are the same. If you took the time to study the dietary, linguistic and political history of the celtic nations and brittish isles etc, you'd quickly see a huge variety in cultures and basic societal assumptions. The difference is that they have been in contact and some form of union for generations, unlike India which has only recently congealed into a nation. Come back to this page in 200 years time and see if the differences in India (which i'm not disputing, BTW) still remain. 130.56.32.2 (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Federation

How can this article be so long without mentioning the Russian Federation?

Numerous dozens of autonomous minority regions of Russia enjoy education, government services, and more in their own language *AND* grant the same rights to a lesser or sometimes equal degree to what are sometimes surprisingly small minority groups.

The Bashkir Republic of Russia (Republic in this case is like State in US or Province in Canada) has, among others:

100+ Chuvash language schools

174 Mari language schools + 40 Mari language kindergartens

Tatar is used not only in many schools, but also in some high schools and post-secondary educational institutions

48 Udmurt language schools + 17 Udmurt language kindergartens

And to give you a sense of scale and degree of accommodation, there are only 24 thousand Udmurts in the Bashkir Republic. North America is full of cities with larger ethnic minorities than that, who enjoy no state sponsored schools or any other dispensation, short of the occasional NGO's services.

Most of my info is from here: http://eng.bashkortostan450.ru/

--198.103.167.20 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Selection?

Australia's multi-cultural policy is closer to that of Canda's than any other nation, with the possible exception of the USA. Having a section titled 'Ethnic Selection' is misleading at best. The section needs to be re-worked to focus on the multi-cultural policy stance implemented from 1973 onwards and re-labelled in a more meaningful and less deceptive manner. 121.79.19.4 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a total sham designed to portray Australia as a country with a racist migration policy - part of it's history, for sure, but nowdays it's a world leader and other countries - EU and Asian - model their migration system on the Australian experience. 130.56.32.2 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Equitable???

This caught my eye and it's a bit shockingly POV:

Some countries have official, or de jure policies of multiculturalism aimed at recognizing, celebrating and maintaining the different cultures or cultural identities within that society to promote social cohesion. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, with no one culture predominating.

EQUITABLE?? I'm sorry, but in practice such policies are inherently discirminatory towards people not defined as "visible minorities" and/or of the wrong gender or race/ethnicity/origin/religion. i.e. inherently not equitable for members of the so-called "dominant" group; - the "dominant group" as defined by either ideologues ore by resentful groups. I don't buy that this language is NPOV, it's definitely not. "extending equitable status" is only meaningful when race distinctions ARE DONE AWAY WITH - NOT when they are enshrined in law, and NOT when the policies treat ANY group inequitably. What happens is that some cultures DO predominate, or enjoy privileges not allowed other groups. for instance, at various universities and other orgs/corps in Canada, hiring priorities are extended to "(status) aboriginal people, visible minorities, and women (in that order)" (that's a near-quote from SFU's site); translation "white males need not apply". Interestingly, both whites and males are in the minority among SFU staff and in the SFU student body (and totally absent from some faculties); but neither are considered minorities or in need of equitable treatment. The posturing and pretension of pro-multiculturalism forces irritates me no end - it's bigotry dressed up in the cloth of righteousness, and for all its high moral values it has created more evils than it has fixed.....multiculturalism winds up restricting free speech, discriminating against individuals because of hte group they are defined as belong to, and worse....it's just another "-ism" that's gotten far out of control, and thinks it has The One Truth behind it while based in artifice adn resentment, 'not' reason or fairness...."equitable" my ass......Skookum1 (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)