What are the tangible benefits of multiculturalism?

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Being a foodie, I believe that the food alone is worth the multiculturalism. I'm talking authentic cuisine. For instance, I'd rather go to a locally owned Italian restaurant that is owned and operated by real Italian immigrants than to go eat the slop they pass off as Italian food at places like Olive Garden.

Certainly, there are a plethora of other reasons; likely as varied as the people who live in the multicultural communities.

I'd say arts in general make multiculturalism great. Food preparation is just another form of art in my opinion.

wimminz.

err I mean, beautiful cultural exchange.

a reply to: crayzeed

You're talking about systematic violent genocide and eradication...most of which was through military occupation. As far as I'm aware that isn't currently going on in the west and has almost no chance of happening anytime soon, despite the paranoid ramblings of morons who curtain twitch their way into a frenzy because their neighbour speaks a different language.

How does that have anything to do with current forms of multiculturalism where people simply move to another country?

a reply to: MagnaCarta2015
If enough people from a foreign culture enters a country of a different culture and only practices their own culture (that IS what you are seeing now) then sooner or later it will not be multicultural but the culture of the foreigner.
There was no systematic genocide or violence in Tibet or Japan, they were just overwhelmed by more people from a different culture. There was no genocide or violence in Diego Garcia, they were just forcibly removed to Maritius where they live a miserable existence.
The violence and genocide happened only to the Native Americans.

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminalThe multi culture has provided a huge variety in one place that comes to me, right off the top of my head. Food, there are so many different cultural foods that we all eat now. 50 years ago it was not so much. So thanks to multi multiculturalism for bring out so many nice foods to eat.

a reply to: TonyS

I'd say that was a failure of your corporate culture.

Teikiatsu works at a multi-national, and they do quite well despite having employees from all over the world at the work place.

There are cultural differences and foibles to be sure, but the overall corporate culture keeps them all more or less in line and on the same page.

And I think that's how it needs to be in any country. You need one overriding dominant culture to keep all the rest in line for a multi-culti to work. The others don't need to sacrifice their cultures, but they do need to acknowledge that the dominant culture sets the rules by which overall society works.

Growing up in Canada, multiculturalism is all around us in our everyday lives.

My two best friends all through school: One was from Ghana, the other was from Israel.

We were the three musketeers... you couldn't separate us with a crowbar. Our different skintones, religious beliefs, and cultural backgrounds didn't matter one iota.

I'm grateful for being surrounded by all walks of life and experiencing all the wonderous flavours of each person I've learned from through my various journeys along the way.

It has made me who I am today... and I quite like who I am.

The kid I had with the late Misses is mixed.

The new Miss has been born approximately the same distance (around 6500 miles) from my birthplace as the late Misses only on the other side of the globe.

Without multiculturalism my life wouldn't be as it is today.

Most folks that embrace multiculturalism live in gated communities.

Multiculturalism can have tangible benefits in terms of peaceable trading partners and even a broader alliance as long as there is a common enemy or a common underlying culture (like a religious ideology) uniting them.

Multuculturism is a way for people to get money and power that they didn't earn.

If you have a job opening for 10 spots, you cannot hire the 10 best people. You have to hire the 10 people that fits in all of the categories that you are not supposed to judge people by.

the more people are exposed to other cultures the the harder it is to demonize an entire groupe of people because generaly speaking, at their core all people are simmilar. for the most part we all want a home, to feed ourselves and a safe place to raise our children, for example. there is common ground there to build apon. the only reason i can think of why not to be exposed to as much culture as possible is that politicaly its easier to control your peasants if you can convince them that they need to unite against a boogyman. its easier to fabricate your boogyman from peoples your peasants havnt had enough first and contact with to learn for themselves about the afore meantioned common ground.

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Yes, Australia's case is similar to both north and south America. Native people still exist, of course, but they have become the minority, and their culture has been superseded by Western culture.

When I talk about a nation like Australia, I mean how it is today. We cannot change the past. The fact remains that Australian civilisation was built by Europeans. Historically, when one people invade another territory, either the invader's culture eventually gets absorbed into the existing culture, or the native culture loses out and is either absorbed into the new culture, or annihilated.

Multiculturalism as it is today is a modern concept. I am aware of course, that there have been empires spanning continents, like the great Roman Empire. This empire encompassed many people of differing ethnic traditions, but they were generally united under the banner of the Roman Empire. These days, integration is not encouraged. People are encouraged to continue the ideologies, religions, traditions, and laws of their native society, even when their community is based in a foreign culture.

I am not saying that an immigrant from a very different cultural background should immediately abandon his culture, but rather that he should adapt his way of life so that it is compatible with the society in which he now lives. Many Muslim people do this - all Muslims are expected to follow Shariah, but many Imams will look at the bits of the Qoran which say things like "stone adulteresses to death" and think "well, that was how they did things hundreds of years ago, but now that we are living in a Western society in modern times, these outdated practices should be abandoned, and our religion should evolve with time".

Unfortunately progressive thinking can cause rifts in Muslim communities, as many believe that the Qoran should never be altered, and its interpretation should never change. Some Muslims find themselves born in Western countries, yet raised with strict adherence to fundamental Islam. Who do they choose? The Western society in which they live, and have little if anything in common with, or the faith of their families and ancestors?

I have gone on a tangent from indigenous people, but I hope you see my point. The segregation of specific communities causes a crisis amongst its constituents. More needs to be done in order to further involve them in the mainstream society, both on their part, and on the part of the Westerners. Too often it's seen as the fault of Westerners, when in reality, the immigrants and their descendants need to work at it too.

It is no good to simply say "multiculturalism is good" without questioning it. In reality it can be extremely divisive. This is what we need to change.

People have been moving around this rock of ours ever since "dawn of man" either because of climate changes,natural disasters,wars,poverty etc.. Cultures have risen and fallen,empires too. I guess it's the nature of our species. Nothing really you can do about it. We are all multicultural in one way or another.

Okay, I've read through all the replies and seen some interesting responses!

But no-one has said the obvious, so allow me to play the devil's advocate.

The benefit of allowing multiple cultures to immigrate to the West is altruism - if a country is able to provide safe refuge for refugees and those escaping poverty, should they not share their wealth?

As the world becomes increasingly globalised with the advent of technology, will not having a multicultural society allow for better understanding and relationships with foreign societies?

I don't personally agree with those points, I'm just mentioning them, devil's advocate etc etc.

In Australia, during the earlier part of the 20th Century, lots of people were complaining about all the Italians moving in. At first, the Italians were a fairly tight knit group, but over the course of a few generations, they have integrated (someone mentioned that "assimilation" is a better term - English is not my first language so any advice on which terms and language to use is welcome). They still retain their culture, but they are very welcoming of non-Italians and happy to associate with everyone else. But will people from Muslim societies have the same success?

I focus on Muslims because of the unchanging nature of their faith, and because they're the hot topic of the day, although I do recognise that there are several different sects of Islam and Muslims are comprised of a range of nationalities.

People keep mentioning food. Please stop it! It doesn't take a whole community of immigrants to open a restaurant. There is an Australian restaurant in Moscow (at least there was, not sure if it's still there), but there are not many Aussies in Moscow. And it is so trivial. Will you die if you can't get Thai take away? Will you truly suffer if you can't have Portuguese chicken? (although probably yes, Portuguese chicken is delicious).

So far nobody has given a solid reason for multiculturalism.

When I was living in Sydney, I tried to get a job. It was not long before I was offered a job by my Chinese housemate, working at a Chinese restaurant for $10 an hour, cash in hand. This was an illegal job. The minimum wage in Australia is something like $22 an hour. I turned it down, thinking I could easily find a better job, with people who speak English, for at least the legal minimum wage. I was dead wrong. The market was flooded by Eastern immigrants networking together in cash in hand tax free far below minimum wage jobs. Bosses thought, well why pay someone $22 an hour when I can just pay someone $10, and off the books at that? In the end, I had to link up with the small Russian community there, because I had to.

So you get this situation where even if immigrants want to assimilate/integrate (I am not sure which word is best but I hope you know what I mean), they cannot, in order to get by they have to network with insular communities sharing their ethnicity and/or religion.

Some people have also mentioned, that it is primarily Western societies whose governments encourage significant ethnic enclaves who do not share Western values. It proves divisive. In Adelaide I and some of my Aussie friends were treated with some first class racism, at the hands of some young Sudanese men, whose families had come to Australia as refugees, and happily went around abusing Australians (they assumed I was Australian because I'm white), despite them being the country who had provided them with a safe haven.

So, still I pose the question: why do Western societies need these insular communities united by ethnicity and/or religion, and remain separate from Western culture?

Why is it considered so wrong to question it? And why do people always mention food? Can they really think of no other benefit?

One more thing to add: I read something interesting today by Homan -

Oppression commonly comes with some justification, a rationale for characterizing current practices as good and proper. As a result, oppression censors examination and punishes those who question. Oppression quells exploring any alternative. By manipulating and limiting discussion itself, those who oppress can block any other alternative from clear view.

Many critics of multiculturalism get attacked. Proponents will say "oh but not all immigrants don't assimilate". This is true, but the ones who assimilate are irrelevant. I am talking about the communities who essentially isolate themselves, and even go so far as to condemn Western society, whilst living amongst it and reaping its benefits.

I think world diversity is great, but if I want to experience a Muslim society, I will go to a Muslim country. If I want to experience Chinese society, I will go to China.

One of my favourite places in the world is Norway - it's so beautiful, I encourage everyone to go check it out someday. I hope to go for a holiday there again someday, and I when I go, I want to see Norwegian culture. Not Turkish, not Afghani, not Japanese, not Russian, not Australian - Norwegian.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
It seems to me that multiculturalism means
A wider choice of ethnic restaurants and clothing shops in exchange for a poorer education for your kids, less familiartity with your neighbours, a loss in sense of community and social cohesion.

Oh, you can also add more and harsher anti terror and anti fraud laws, photo ID cards, loss of freedom of expression, more crimes you can be charged with...

There should be one culture, the native one and all those coming to share in it should uphold the values that attracted them here rather than trying to destroy them.

I agree. You should adopt the culture of the country you live in.

People will say that the US is a melting pot and should be open to all. The issue is that WAS true,but is not so much now. Over the past 200 years we did melt together from a number of different cultures. Now we are an American culture and if people move here they need to adapt to that culture. One of the thing we have is that we are tolerant to different ideas, BUT that does not mean that you get to push your ideas on to all of us. It means that what you practice in your home and or local community is up to you. That local community could even be expanded to a state IF the people of that state wanted it that way.

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal

You do have some responsibility to help, yes, but there comes a point where you have to balance the needs of your populace against the refugees.

In the case of the current outflows from the Middle East and North Africa, will they assimilate? Are they interested in bowing to the overall dominate culture that keeps our nations cohesive despite the many other cultural influences that have come in over the years? Some will, no doubt. But there are significant populations who will not and will use this influx to try to subvert our nations and culture to their own ends.

You also have to look at how many you can responsibly help before you start to economically impact your own country in a negative fashion. Many of those who become refugees are not the wealthiest to begin with. They will need substantial aid, perhaps for the rest of their lives, if you bring them to your country. They represent long-term commitment. What if the size of your current welfare state and how much more can it handle without beginning to represent an onerous burden on your middle class who feel the strain the most? How much is too much to ask them to shoulder over their own poor?

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal

Your devils advocate is pretty spot on to the way I think, as far as assimilate versus integrate... as far as Americans go Assimilate is considered a better word, to me they are the same word... its just integrate has a bad rep from the civil rights era I guess.
Thanks for the tip about Norway, me and the wife are trying to figure out where to go for our next vacation while living in Germany... we were considering Lofoten Islands Norway.

To everyone that keeps mentioning food... in the early '80s I might have had to drive into Tampa to find it, but we had restaurants from all over the world already...-multiculturalism didnt cause it, it was already here.

Personally I prefer the American culture... I am enjoying my time in Europe, but I cant wait to go home.

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal

should they not share their wealth?

Playing Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate....

Why is a nation sharing wealth with anybody/everybody the altruistic thing to do? Wouldn't the truly altruistic thing to do be to guide those poorer nations on how to become prosperous? Give a man a fish versus teach a man to fish and all that...?