Multiculturalism or Melting Pot Discussion- Merged

[Journeyman]

If Americans are "cool, factual, decisive planners," Syria gives credence to the tinfoil hat brigade's contention that Obama isn't really American.

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[Edward Campbell]

If Americans are "cool, factual, decisive planners," Syria gives credence to the tinfoil hat brigade's contention that Obama isn't really American.

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

I think the Americans are culturally all those good things; I think their political system is so badly screwed up that they cannot (will not?) elect leaders who are, in any meaningful way, like them.

 

[ArmyRick]

That chart makes me think of a Myers-Briggs personality dimensions on a society scale rather individual.

 

[pbi]

A dot chart "explains" every culture in the world? Really?

 

[Edward Campbell]

A dot chart "explains" every culture in the world? Really?

The book on which it is based, When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures explains how he devised his "model." But it's not really about culture, per se, it is about current attitudes and mores in the upper middle class/business wold in each of 60+ countries.

 

[pbi]

Landry never ceases to shoot himself in the face, as loudly and publicly as possible. Remember his classic comment, on the night of the failed Referendum, that the Nationalist's loss was due to "money and the ethnic vote". IIRC, he seemed to be somewhat under the influence when he spoke.

Put some of the silly things that he says in perspective:

Multiculturalism will lead to more and more problems, like in Great Britain. In Holland, in Germany, same thing. Angela Merkel came out against this doctrine a while ago. Immigrants themselves are the first victims of multiculturalism," he said.

First of all, trying to draw direct parallels or make predictions based on events in societies with different cultures, histories and pressures is going out on pretty shaky logical ground. Just because something happened a certain way in any one of those countries does not mean it will happen here, or in the US, or anywhere else.

Second, Landry might ask himself where the rights and status of francophone Canadians might be today if our national policies over the last 50 years had not encouraged the idea that there is not just one "master" culture, and that other cultures can co-exist peacefully and equally, given the reasonable compromises necessary in any civil society.

Third, I believe very strongly that this comment reveals the ugly, exclusivist and nativist face of Quebec nationalism. If we follow this reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, Quebec is really just a place for the pure of tongue and culture, isn't it? Dress, speak and live the way we want, or get out. It's sad but true that extreme nationalism, especially when based on a particular culture or ethnicity, often shares the bed with racism and "culturism".

"In the U.S., you never see a police officer with a turban. There are things worth regulating and I hope it gets done (here).

Completely irrelevant cherry picking. The US continues to struggle with serious racial and cultural issues: they are scarcely in any position to tell Canada what do, or not, in this department. Canada already has areas of significant cultural differences from the US. I might remind Landry that in the US you will never see a state with bilingualism laws. And you will never, EVER, see a state with laws relegating English to a second status on signage.

The rule is, when you change country, you change country. They can't expect to find everything here that they had in their country of origin. Integration is a powerful signal that they need to adjust to a new nation.

He is playing with fire here. If  Canada had consistently followed this logic, when New France "changed countries" after the Conquest, there would be no Quebec society as it exists today. As a majority anglophone nation, we would force all immigrants from la Francophonie to speak English.

When Landry and people like him say "integration", they don't mean that people should make those reasonable compromises that allow us to live peacefully and productively together while still pursuing our faith and our heritage as Scots, Irish, Ukrainians, Poles, Portuguese, Canadiens, Kenyans, Libyans or Hondurans.  Obviously, we don't accept dangerous, oppressive, violent or criminal cultural practices (and many cultures have brought them at different times). But, IMHO, what Landry and his gang are saying is "you will be like us, or there is no place for you."

How short their memories are.

 

[myself.only]

If you've ever just looked at the Middle East and in frustration at the never-ending cycle of Isreali-Palestinian violence wondered "why the heck can't they just co-exist?" then you're already looking at the problem with the Melting Pot approach.
Everyone wants it to be their pot and the other poor sod is the one who has to melt.

 

[pbi]

If you've ever just looked at the Middle East and in frustration at the never-ending cycle of Isreali-Palestinian violence wondered "why the heck can't they just coexist?" then you're already looking at the problem with the Melting Pot approach.
Everyone wants it to be their pot and the other poor sod is the one who has to melt.

Mostly true, and the more shrill, entrenched and "besieged" the nationalist group is, the more they want everyone else to melt completely. This completely ignores the argument that there are very few cultures of any significance today that are not themselves the product of mixing and adaptation. Take the "Anglo-Saxon" culture: the English have successfully absorbed Roman, Norse and Norman cultures, all of whom, by the way, arrived as "hostile outsiders". Cultures are constantly blending, mixing and adapting.

That said, I still believe that there is nothing wrong with requiring immigrants to conform to reasonable requirements so that we can all live together in a productive and generally peaceful way. Although I'm not a huge fan of this Tory government, they did make an effort in that direction with their guide book to immigrants on what is and is not accepted in Canada, and what reasonable adaptations they should be expected to make.

f you want people to truly be loyal to something, they must first genuinely feel a sense of belonging. You can't beat or threaten a "sense of belonging" into people. It comes naturally and gradually if people feel that they are accepted. If people are pilloried, or marginalized for being different, how does that sense of belonging develop? This, to me, is one of the basic problems underlying the Marois government's approach, which is to me little more than a thinly veiled appeal to the nastier aspects of Quebec nationalism.

 

[myself.only]

pbi I was going to quote and comment on the finer points of your post but really I'd be endorsing line for line, so..

:goodpost:

 

[GR66]

Landry never ceases to shoot himself in the face, as loudly and publicly as possible. Remember his classic comment, on the night of the failed Referendum, that the Nationalist's loss was due to "money and the ethnic vote". IIRC, he seemed to be somewhat under the influence when he spoke.

That comment was made by Jacques Parizeau, then Premier of Quebec not Landry.

 

[pbi]

That comment was made by Jacques Parizeau, then Premier of Quebec not Landry.

Doh! Right you are. I stand corrected!

 

[Crow_Master]

I think the near-victory in the 1995 Referendum in Québec was a great blow to the idea that multiple cultures can co-exist.

 

[Crow_Master]

Good luck forming a Canadian identity and culture when Anglophones only make 57% of the population (the rest are immigrants, Natives, and Francophones) and when you have a country 10 times more populated than you on your southern borders.

 

[Infantryman2b]

What most Canadians dont see is how elementry school look now in cities like Toronto where I live.  In 20-40 years this country will have an ethnic minority majority. Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous, but when these people start to influence our everday traditions and values such as Christmas, the lines been crossed. A country is a country because of culture. Without culture, it creates division and division creates, problems. In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous.

I see what you did there

 

[The Bread Guy]

In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.

In some cases it appears we do need foreign workers to work in coffee shops in gold mining towns or pick fruits and vegetables we eat.

 

[George Wallace]

One neat thing about cultures; they evolve.

 

[Infantryman2b]

I see what you did there

, cultures evolve but when people come from there lands and try to force us to accommodate them at the expense of our own traditions and values theres something wrong. If you dont like our country please be my guest and get out.  :2c:

 

[myself.only]

I cannot fathom people who insist that the country they immigrate to transform into this mythical version of the place that exists only in their mind (and perhaps some party's policy documents)... the [whatever] Republic of Canada.
I'm totally respectful of people that say: oh, you celebrate X.. no thanks, leave me out.
But it's ridiculous when they say: oh, you celebrate X... well, that's gotta stop.

After all, isn't the underlying concept of multiculturalism that multiple cultures co-exist?  It isn't supposed to give license to legally compel aculturalism.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm totally respectful of people that say: oh, you celebrate X.. no thanks, leave me out.
But it's ridiculous when they say: oh, you celebrate X... well, that's gotta stop.

As am I for the most part. But there are some cultural imports best left on the boat; barbaric mutilation of females or use of domestic violence (even to the point of homicide) to "control" members of the family, or selective abortion are three which come to mind right away. Attempting to force your views on others isn't just confined to nativists either; how about trying to get the school board to get girls having their period sit at the back of the class, or denying a paying passenger transport because they have a service dog?

After all, isn't the underlying concept of multiculturalism that multiple cultures co-exist?  It isn't supposed to give license to legally compel aculturalism.

Well, actually no. Multiculturalism is an offshoot of a philosophy known as "relativism", and specifically removes the ability to make judgments of the values of one thing over another. It is also fatally flawed when not everyone practices it; both nativist and immigrants can be cultural chauvinists. What is dangerous about relativism is followers are effectively disarmed against the arguments and actions of chauvinists.