Jump to content

Talk:Multiculturalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tydoni (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 18 May 2011 (→‎misplaced paragraph in United Kingdom section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

this whole article is a diatribe

The whole article has a decidedly anti-mc tone. Supporters of the idea of multiculturalism should also be mentioned. The discussion of individual countries is by and large a summary of right wing parties' positions of those countries. While these positions exist and should be discussed, they should be counterbalanced by some voices from other parts of the political spectrum.

I am not too sure whether the section on Islam needs to be that long. One can mention the problem that Islam poses for multicultural societies, but this should not get undue weight. There is really more to Multiculturalism than the position of Islam in Europe. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...agreed this has a decidedly negative tone and focus bias.07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Keepwithfacts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwithfacts (talkcontribs)

Did you not read the title of the article? CRITICISM of multiculturalism. Do I need to explain more? There is already an entire page for multiculturalism. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???? Which talk page are you trying to post on? This *IS* the multiculturalism page.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The support section is absolutely woeful. It could do with support from Kymlicka, Kukathas, Parekh or Waldron to name a few. Spectre at the Feast (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Especially in the bit about the US, there is a fairly negative tone. Drummerdg (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't notice the negative tone in the US section, but I did notice that there wasn't much discussion of the origins of modern (post WW2) multiculturalism; so I added some material in the US and Support for MC sections that fill in some of those gaps. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism and Culture demise.

Article should better reflect that, Multiculturalism is the single most dangerous issue to any society. Historically, no country survived multiculturalism – today USA and many European countries struggle because of multiculturalism. Eventually, restrictions in the form of law are imposed on all cultures in order to coexist within single country. No one is really happy, it stifles creativity, creates animosity and eventually violent or non-violent (but deceptive) struggle for power begins. One has to remember that culture includes many aspects of live, not just the way some people cook. Culture includes religion, value of elderly, value of females, boundaries of behavior etc. and provides for stability in the region or country. Culture never changes (just appearances) unless the person is unaware of his/her roots (impossible if you are of different race, and major differences in culture are along racial lines: African, Asian, Middle-Eastern, European, South-American) No region should include more than 1% of any major culture or the world will stop being multicultural - USA is perfect example of multicultural blunder. Multiculturalism is like forced mutation - when you don't notice it (1%) is not an issue, when you notice it is bound to evoke emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.55.76 (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting argument. Bear in mind, however, that this is not a general discussion forum on the subject of multiculturalism (see WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM). Is there any sourced content (per WP:V and WP:NOR) that you suggest should be added to the article? Gabbe (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: what sources are being used here? Moreover, which definition of multiculturalism is being discussed here? It sounds to me like politically conservative B.S. Christianity, for instance, has thrived by becoming multicultural: in its medieval heyday, it combined five different strands of culture: Judaic, Greek, Roman, Celtic and Germanic. And now we see it thriving in Africa and Asia. Argument can also be made that the USA thrived under multiculturalism (see Crevecoeur). But I wonder which definition is being addressed here because, for better or for worse, the USA has in fact always been multicultural, from the time the first Africans were brought over as well as from the time the first treaties between colonies from different European countries were made. And as long as racism exists in the USA, then we have to acknowledge that people CREATE cultural division amongst themselves--blacks, Asians, Latinas/os aren't allowed to assimilate, therefore racism perpetuates a multicultural society. So I'd really like to see what "sources" are being mentioned by the above poster. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: "No region should include more than 1% of any major culture or the world will stop being multicultural - USA is perfect example of multicultural blunder." This sentence doesn't even make sense--it argues both FOR and AGAINST multiculturalism. And how does any region include no more of than 1% of any major culture?? That's not even possible, unless you have 101 different cultures in your region. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That first guy is spot on, and his views are being echoed in alot of western nations recently. If you want a source search the EDL. Also, this article is very pro-multiculturalism, it's like an advert for it and even the criticisms of it are poorly worded.124.181.71.136 (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term multiculturalism

The article, as it now stands, begins with an inaccurate statement, namely: "Multiculturalism has a number of different meanings". A more correct beginning would be "The word "multiculturalism" has a number of different meanings". But even that isn't a good way to start an article. Per WP:UMD, the purpose of this article should be to explain what multiculturalism is, not what the word "multiculturalism" means. I've tried to highlight this problem with the current lead in this edit.

I believe the lead would be much improved if we didn't attempt to cover all the possible different meanings of the word "multiculturalism". We should just focus on one meaning (such as, "the existence of several cultures within a society", which is what the rest of the article is primarily about) and say what that entails. Gabbe (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given lack of discussion here, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the lead. Gabbe (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition section—mostly white folks?

Are there any non-white people claiming that multiculturalism is a bad thing? I know the main article mentions Dinesh D'Souza, but I have to wonder how much the opposition to multiculturalism—at least in Western countries—is a "white" thing. We need either to find minority voices expressing concern over multiculturalism, or we need to include critics from countries outside Western culture—say, from the "Eastern" (what a horrible name) countries mentioned in the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about ethnic minorities in Western countries, then you would start by looking for them among the few nonwhite conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin. I think the inclusion of the so-called Eastern countries in this article is improper synthesis, because "multiculturalism" as a slogan and ideology (which is a Western thing) is different from simply having and respecting a diversity of cultures in a country. Quigley (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition may be found in non white governments like with nations in China, India, the Middle East and Africa. In such cases they clearly do not embrace multicultural policy. Inside western nations multicultural policy may be said to be opposed by such communities as the Australian Aboriginal Community and Torres Straight Islanders. But in many cases those same peoples abroad and within may be sen to also embrace Multiculturalism by accepting aid packages or programs designed to help ethnically diverse peoples. In some cases it looks like multicultural support is dependent on money. Yet there are also places where ethnically diverse peoples meet in the spirit of multiculturalism and that has nothing to do with money. I don't think it is a white only thing, but I can see that that perception could be formed. DDB (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also within Western Nations are the Muslim groups opposed to multiculturalism who [believe that Western democracies should be replaced by Islamic states]. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I'm pro-multiculturalism, but for this article to be fair, we need to include as much variety in the anti-crowd as possible. Of course, quoting a Chinese government official against MC issues in China is like quoting a white American against MC issues in the USA; the idea of minorities speaking out against MC is more useful--e.g., Malkin or American Muslims. So it's not so much about the color of the speaker as it is about the minority status of the speaker. We need more anti-MC minority voices in this article.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Cameron supports assimilation?

The linked article does not support the assertion that David Cameron supports assimilation to a mono-cultural society. It says that he thought that we should question whether certain organisations (and cultures?) supported universal human rights, even for those of other beliefs, and not support organisations that didn't. This seems to imply to me that organisations and cultures who do support human rights should be supported, or at least that he was not opposed to them. I see no evidence that he wants some sort of assimilation especially of, Jews, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Hindus, and Buddhists and all groups who are prepared to accept the rights of others. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given lack of discussion here, I've removed the statement in question. Gabbe (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning and Origin

It is a widely expressed view in Australia that Al Grassby is the father of multiculturalism. That description means that Multiculturalism is a political tool in origin It would be good to know the etymology of the word and its application from within the article. It is used in Australia circa 1973. The article suggests a 1993 usage date which would be a world wide (and US Bill Clinton) thingy. There is talk of Canadian origins which would suggest it was a political tool of a left wing government there from the early '90s.

The word multiculture seems to be a misnomer in application to a person or people. A person is of one culture, although taking any of many ranges within that culture of expression. But cultural diversity is a wonderful thing worth celebrating if that is what is meant. But it comes back to the word and its origins, is it a political tool of the left to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with the prevalent view of the left? Or, is it an inexact description of a widely held desire for many peoples to peacefully coexist? I feel that the article would benefit from covering the issue without taking a political stance .. DDB (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced paragraph in United Kingdom section

The second paragraph in the United Kingdom section (which is nonetheless fairly well written and contains useful information) is out of place and likely should be merged with the general information on Europe and/or a new section: "In the Western English-speaking countries..."DRead (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Q Chris (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec City immigrants

Why is a picture of people immigrating to a Canadian city listed under Australia? Quebec City is currently a Canadian city and it also a Canadian city at the time of the picture.(confederation in Canada was in 1867 picture is circa 1911) either the caption is wrong or the image needs to be moved. Tydoni (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]