MOD WARNING<<<Dismantle multiculturalism?

I agree.

 

Yes, although the Yanks tried differently here in NZ which lead to 'misunderstandings.'

Source:

You simply do not call Māoris the 'n' word and try and throw them out of a bar.

 

Are you sure you want to end multiculturalism?

 

Yes, multiple different definitions though. You're specifically proposing getting rid of something, so you need to be clear on exactly what you want to get rid of to determine how (if!) you could achieve that. As I pointed out, lots of people (I'd argue pretty much everyone) is part of several of the individual groupings you identified in your OP so how could you establish environments where only single ones exist.

I'm not convinced Japan is as homogeneous as we imagine, we're largely ignorant of the variations and diversity in their society. They'd probably have a similar perception of the whole of Europe for example. You've also not even tried to make a connection between the diversity n their society and any kind of measure of their crime rates.

 

It may surprise you but I don't have all the answers. That's why I post this problem for a discussion on a public forum.

What do you mean, there is a statistics and those are the fact - crime rate is very, very low (compared to other countries). Here is some info.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion.../crime-rate-dips-again-in-japan/#.WUzPwifsa-8

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime

 

That's a bit disingenuous. You've clearly presented "multiculturalism" as being a cause for specific problems and proposed "dismantling" it. All credit for making it an open discussion but you still need to clarify your claims and ideas for that discussion to have any meaningful context.

I wasn't questioning the fact Japan has generally lower crime rates than many other countries. I was questioning the presumption that the apparently homogeneous society is a key factor in that and that it is something other countries could emulate retrospectively.

 

But Look at Germany compared to the UK.
Germany have an inferior language, diet and social skills.
If Berlin was like London or New York City, perhaps German culture wouldn't be so dull.

 

Colours in Germany seem to be black, grey, silver, white and if you're lucky, blue.

 

Are you ever going to present any arguments for the pros of 'multiculturalism' or are you just going to continue to b*tch over semantics?

'Multiculturalism' means what it means. It kind of tells itself. If you are still going to pretend as if you are clueless, then the definition is ethnic heterogenity.

High-trust societies have lower crime rates and genereally cultural homogenity is one way of building trust. As noted by Robert Putnam.

 

What is there to clarify, I think homogeneous societies are healthier and coherent. On the contrary, multicultural societies lead to fight for influence, land, food, even population (when some people try just to out breed "the other group" and take a larger piece of the cake). While competition is good in the market and business spheres, it leads to disintegration and the strive to dominate in the social sphere. And then civil war is not far ahead.

 

Would you rather be cotton wool wrapped?
Driven to the mall by your mom when you're 17 in the 'burbs.
Or live city where it all began.

 

Yes, I'd rather live in a commune than in the Tower of Babel.

 

Most Americans do not see what we, Northwestern Europeans see. They have no clue what ethno-culture means because their own country is basically a rootless mishmash of nothings. There is a reason "White Nationalism" (lmao) was born in USA.

 

This reminds me of the lyric
'And sex is used anyway it can be'

 

In the case of Japan, several people have already pointed out the suicide rate, the birth rate far below replacement rate, plus they live on the edge of a lot of tectonic/volcanic/tsunami events. & their population/industry/infrastructure centers are all on the coast, because that's the only place to put them. So nuclear power plants (they went in for those in a big way) are next to hospitals, schools, housing, farms. So Japan is not a good model for the good society, except perhaps in output per worker.

Yah, the US is multicultural & there's constant squabbling over political power - that's the Founding Fathers, who put into place checks & balances so that it's difficult for a single faction to control everything in government. That's the price you pay for a country of strivers, religious, nonconformists, adventurers, people fleeing criminal justice, people deserting the military, people sentenced to transportation for life, & so on. All that overlaid on the Native Peoples, the Spanish, French & Dutch who were already here, & the people who followed.

The US Civil War took a long time to break out, from the ratification of the Constitution. In that time, the South & the North prospered together, the North providing capital, transportation, insurance, ships & crews & outfitting, food crops; the South producing cotton & tobacco & some other cash crops, based on slave labor. The South took the lead in the federal government (the slave counting as 3/5 of a person for census purposes, for allocation of representatives in the House of Representatives). The South went boom & bust several times, until they walked away from their debts & lost control of their own financing. Then they overplayed their hand in government, thinking that they could force another compromise & keep the peace, yet open new territory/states to slavery.

 

I'm not pro-multiculturalism, I'm pro-realism. It's all very well saying "It would be better if we had X" but it's meaningless unless you can define X and establish how (if) we could actually achieve it.

I'm not clueless, I'm trying to get the OP to actually admit what they mean in real words so we can address any counter arguments or potential consequences. If I started on that based on a presumed interpretation of what they mean, they can just dismiss anything I say by claiming I misunderstand.

Fair enough, but we've not had that for decades (arguably centuries) in Europe or the US. Trying to force artificial social change could impact trust and crime-rates too, so again, the key thing is the step from "It'd be nice if..." to the development and implementation of practical policy.

 

It's still not the place of outsiders to change multiculturalism, no matter where they're from.

 

You're right.

This is part of why I think you're doomed. The Americans could have dealt with an 8% minority of Muslims... that's child's play. It threatens to tear the Europeans to shreds. To too large a number of Europeans, a Muslim will never fully be one of them.

You have a hell of a challenge ahead of you, and I don't envy the task.

 

Multiculturalism didn't work out too well for them.

 

So some simple questions ... for those of you railing against multiculturalism, how would you "end" American Citizens who prey to different gods or speak a different language or have a different cultural past than you? How would you force them to assimilate? Can you do it without changing the Constitution?

 

Geronimo & the Apache? They were the finest light cavalry in the World @ the time, I believe. But Multiculturalism had nothing to do with their defeat, nor that of the Native Peoples generally in North America. Principally, the Native societies succumbed to European diseases, to which they'd had no previous exposure. It didn't help that large domestic animals were rare in N. America - that's where many of the European diseases came from originally.

Life in the Southwest (of what became the US) @ the time was difficult - always dependent on water & game & forage. The Spanish & later the Mexicans warred back & forth against the Native People - I think the Natives more than held their own. But against the flood of US traders & trappers & the ceaseless deployment of US military, followed by civilians, the Natives eventually surrendered.

& of course from a genetic POV, all the Natives had to marry outside their own bands or tribes. Otherwise, you'd eventually get genetic flaws & reinforce them by repeated inbreeding. That was the point to the periodic intertribal festivals & meetings, a chance for the youngsters to meet & court outside of their tribe. The successful tribes were careful to note kinship, to know which marriages were preferable, & which would eventually be detrimental to the future of the tribes.

 

I don't want them to assimilate. Every group should keep their own cultures, languages, customs, religions, etc. Forcing assimilation onto them would be wrong, and many would violently resist.

 

The thread IS about dismantling multiculturalism.

 

"European diseases" were one of the things brought with the Europeans to the "multicultural" situation developing in North America, to the detriment of the "Natives" (who weren't actually native). It's similar to how we wiped out diseases like polio, tuberculosis, and other diseases in the Advanced world, yet they are now making a comeback as the 3rd worlders continue to pour in. It's similar to how Ebola was never really a problem outside of Africa, but now we are having Ebola scares on US soil.

There's some real downsides to all this "diversity".

 

Dismantling multiculturalism doesn't automatically mean assimilation. How about separatism? That would be much better in my opinion.