Multiculturalism and inevitability?

[Boleslaw]

Why is it that so much of the discussion of Multiculturalism revolves around the premise of it being inevitable?

We've been flooded with such rhetoric for quite some time now, especially now that Obama has been elected. A latest example of this is Hua Hsu's The End of White America? (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/end-of-whiteness).

The whole point of this seems to be trying shove down everybody's throat that is how the world is going to be, and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop it!

Incredibly dishonest if you ask me, especially since history is full of amazing surprises. I'm reminded of what John Ralston Saul stated in his demolition of Globalist rhetoric, "The End of Globalism" (http://www.cryptogon.com/docs/theendofglobalism.html), that: "Inevitability is the traditional final justification for failing ideologies."

By this line of thought, we can argue that Multiculturalism relies so much on appeals to inevitability because it is indeed a failing ideology - despite whatever temporary victories it may achieve. As the Chinese say, when there's a rise, there's always a fall.

And in many ways you can say that multiculturalism is failing on numerous levels. Even Hua Hsu argues that there's a growing discontentment among white Americans about becoming a minority, and the potential for a ever greater rise in identity politics among them.

Just last night I was watching National Geographic report on the rising membership in hate groups due to rising resentments among whites about immigration and multiculturalism. Of course the "experts" dismissed these resentments because it's all inevitable under the Global economy.

So even if and when America becomes more multiracial, it certainly will not be the peaceful utopia its proponents proclaim it'll be. It's highly possible you'll have a more racially fragmented nation, which would include a smaller but more racially conscious white population.

Are multiculturalists really blind to these possibilities, and if so why? And why use the cheap rhetorical trick of claiming this is inevitable? Seriously people, this is beyond irritating!

[Niccolo and Donkey]

By this line of thought, we can argue that Multiculturalism relies so much on appeals to inevitability because it is indeed a failing ideology - despite whatever temporary victories it may achieve.

This begs the question: is there such a thing as a successful ideology?

Secondly, Canada is a prime example of a society in which multiculturalism isn't failing. Like all state ideologies, it does get buttressed by government, but which ideologies haven't received government support that have worked relatively well?

[Winston]

This begs the question: is there such a thing as a successful ideology?

Secondly, Canada is a prime example of a society in which multiculturalism isn't failing. Like all state ideologies, it does get buttressed by government, but which ideologies haven't received government support that have worked relatively well?
America wasn't failing as visibly when it was only as diverse as Canada is at this time. The ethnic composition is also important. Canada's largest minority group is made up of Asians, with blacks only 2.5% of the population. Look at where multiculturalism has failed most spectacularly and the demographics are very different.
While questions are begging, how do we define failure? I would say that the diversity and equality bureaucracies and 'hate speech' laws are a sign of failure, because a healthy society doesn't need such things. I certainly wouldn't define success as simply plodding along without major incident. I suspect that Canada could be more than it is if it didn't have multiculturalism. (just a hunch)

[Petr]

Even if all races were indeed blended together (which won't happen), new races would inevitably arise.

Even the New World Order will not be able to stand against entropy. Chaos will overwhelm the artificial order.


Petr

[NeoCornelio]

I'm not sure about multiculturalism (I'd have to see a definition of it), but I'm quite sure that the people around me see Globalism as inevitable. I do too. I've seen my country go from a semi-traditional catholic dictatorship to a third-world americlone whorehouse in barely 30 years. With the current technology available the trend will continue, at least for some time. Here people watch television, surf the internet and listen to radio music all the time. There's no spanish culture nowadays. Maybe this is difficult to see from the States, as you have dictated the trends for some time.

When I say 'Globalism is inevitable' I mean that there nothing we can do to stop it in the current statu quo. We are impotent against it, as it is deeply ingrained in our existence. The very fact that an englishman, a croat-canadian, a finn, a polish-american and a spaniard are here in this thread discussing the inevitability of multiculturalism/globalism is kind of ironic and illustrates my point.

Of course there are surprises in History, and I think that Globalism is a thoroughly corrupted ideology that will lead inevitably to the collapse of our society. But it will die by its own hand. Those of us who are against it can do nothing to destroy it, just lie and wait, try to preserve our souls from all harm. The worst thing that can happen to globalists is Globalism.

[Petr]

I've seen my country go from a semi-traditional catholic dictatorship to a third-world americlone whorehouse in barely 30 years.
How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Would you like to tell us more about this process, as we know little about Argentine?

Of course there are surprises in History, and I think that Globalism is a thoroughly corrupted ideology that will lead inevitably to the collapse of our society. But it will die by its own hand. Those of us who are against it can do nothing to destroy it, just lie and wait, try to preserve our souls from all harm. The worst thing that can happen to globalists is Globalism.
I agree, to a certain extent, with these ideas of yours. The New Babylon will certainly fall down some day, and it does truly "contain the seeds of its own destruction".


Petr

[Felix the Cat]

If it was inevitable there would be no need to keep saying it's inevitable.

The more unstable the current arrangements become, the louder and more insistent the cries of "it's inevitable" will become

[NeoCornelio]

If it was inevitable there would be no need to keep saying it's inevitable.

The more unstable the current arrangements become, the louder and more insistent the cries of "it's inevitable" will become

I think that the 'It's inevitable' slogan means something along the lines of this: 'This globalist world is a hellish nightmare, but you know, globalism is inevitable, there are no other alternatives, so let's try to make the most of it'.

[NeoCornelio]

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Would you like to tell us more about this process, as we know little about Argentine?


I agree, to a certain extent, with these ideas of yours. The New Babylon will certainly fall down some day, and it does truly "contain the seeds of its own destruction".


I'm spanish. I was referring to Franco's dictatorship. I understand that the flag on my profile might be a bit misguiding (it's a salvadorian flag :p )

[Starr]

There is almost nothing that is inevitable. Societies go through huge changes that people never would have imagined possible all of the time. Yes, people say it is inevitable because they want you to feel as though any opposition you might have is pointless because you are powerless. And of course people have a tendency to go with the flow, learn to accept even what is unacceptable to them and to "get along" with nearly anything that is thrown at them. They underestimate, though how people react when they no longer feel safe. You are going to see a dramatic difference in white people, I think, when they no longer feel that safety in numbers, when they no longer feel as if they are part of the dominant group, in any way. These are the factors that allowed them to accept so many negative changes in the recent past.

[Captain Marinesko]

Globalism, at least as the Thomas Friedmans of the world present it, is thankfully not inevitable or better said eternal. Let's face it, the problem isn't so much the fact that there is and always will be a global, integrated economy- the problem is how it is constructed and how it is currently affecting populations. In this globalism, we see a handful of rich nations perpetually dominating most of the world. Moreoever, we see that the interest of these nations is to break down any union state into smaller, tinier states, knowing full well that these states cannot possibly maintain an independent foreign policy or a trade policy favorable to its people as opposed to transnational corporations. Recent examples of this are recognizing the independence of Kosova, but you can look back on other events as well such as the break-up of Czechoslovakia, which was wholly unnecesssary(and didn't really have much to do with socialism).

So in other words globalism in some sense is inevitable, but it DOESN'T have to be the way it is now.

Now as for multiculturalism, the problem is that the term is so poorly defined, and often presented as though it were something novel, as if there used to be these homogenous or culturally homogenous nations and then some time in the 60s and onward, evil liberal social engineers started promoting this agenda. True, there was a rise of people talking about this need for "multiculturalism", but this had more to do with identity politics, which have shown themselves to be utter failures in the struggle to correct historical inequalities. They have been far more effective at generating and mobilizing reaction than they have at actually rectifying historical oppression and the inequalities derived from it.

I would like to ask- what countries have or have had a historically homogenous cultural character? You would be hard pressed to find such a country. In fact, when we look at Europe, you will notice that certain nations tend to share cultural attributes with their close neighbors regardless of differences in religion, historical relationship to oneanother, etc. The Caucasus provides a good example of this: Elements of traditional dress and music tend to be almost identical amongst northern and southern Caucasians, Caucasian Turkic populations, and certain Russian Cossack cultures(namely the Terek). These are people speaking languages of different families, sometimes if not often having a long history of conflict, and being of different religion- yet I would be quite confident that the layman would have a difficult time determining who is a Terek Cossack, a Georgian, or a Chechen if they were in traditional dress.
The Balkans provide another example, where groups have cultural influences from the Turks and Greeks, but if you go north up through former Yugoslavia, you see that in Croatia and Slovenia the influence of the Austrians is stronger.

I think the point is that culture is largely due to material factors, and does not spring from nationalities inherently. If it did, we would not see so much in common amongst populations in a certain geographical area. Moreoever, when we think today of Poland or Russia or Germany, we are talking about unified countries in modern times but throughout their history of development they generally did not represent one particular group of people. It is very difficult, for example, to pin point exactly where Russia begins. Technically it begins with the Christianization of Eastern Slavs in 988 C.E., but did Russians begin to act as a cohesive nation-state after this? Absolutely not, different principalities were far more concerned with their own interest, which led them into various alliances with non-Slavic Steppe-dwellers, sometimes against their fellow Slavs.

To look at a nation state and say that it has a particular culture is to really look at an amalgamation of cultures that mixed as the country developed from fedual fiefdoms or from individual smaller nations(as in Italy or Germany) into a single, modern nation state.

Naturally, this concern over multiculturalism tends to occur only when a culture comes into play that is obviously far removed from what is normal in the country in question.

[LuminousVerve]

Now as for multiculturalism, the problem is that the term is so poorly defined...

My understanding is that "multiculturalism" means multiple cultures existing within a particular society, nation or country. The problem is when the cultures compete for "dominance" or where there is "friction" between cultures that are too separate, distinct, opposing and incompatible.

We can see this tension clearly in how Western Nations are being made to adapt to Islamic Culture within Western Nations and European Countries. Intead of the other way around, which would be what is right, fair and logical.

The way multiculturalism is "forced and enforced" today, is oftentimes to the marginalization and detriment of native, indigenous and national cultures. The people of any particular country should not be made to adapt to and adopt the culture of newcomers~non-native, foreigners, immigrants, migrants, settlers, colonizers, refugees, asylum seekers~anyone and everyone who wants to get into THAT country...

I would like to ask- what countries have or have had a historically homogenous cultural character?

The former island chain country of Hawaii. After the Marquesan originating peoples were decimated and absorbed by the more warrior-like Tahitian immigrants, the "Hawaiian Culture" was born and created within Hawaii.

Hawaii is the most isolated island archepalago in the Pacific Oceanic Realm, and throughout this isolated period, the Hawaiian Culture was THE culture throughout the island chain, despite there being separate Kingdoms on various islands.

When Europeans arrived, via Captain Cook, Kamehameha I was able to utilize European technology to take control of the whole island chain, effectively wiping out Hawaiians of rival royalty (ali'i). So the islands were united under one King of one culture, that being Hawaiian. But after years of interchange with primarily Europeans and Americans, Hawaiian Culture evolved and transformed to become a Westernized Polynesian Culture.

The Hawaiian Royalty adopted aspects of European Culture.

Various aspects of Hawaiian Culture were abandoned, like the severe socially restrictive code of conduct, the Kapu System. Hawaiian Religious and Spiritual Traditions were replaced by Christianity, primarily American Protestant. But, this transformed Hawaiian Culture, was STILL a Hawaiian Culture.

It was not until the massive unabated waves of imported immigratns, primarily from Asia, especially Japan, that the Hawaiian Culture became a minority culture in an increasingly multicultural Hawaii.

The end result was that Hawaii is now primarily Asian, in ethnicity, culture, population and dominance. The Japanese achieved over 50% of the Hawaii population by 1920, and by Hawaii Statehood in 1959, they made their move as an ethnic group and came to dominate Hawaii, racially, ethnically, socially, politically and economically.

Naturally, this concern over multiculturalism tends to occur only when a culture comes into play that is obviously far removed from what is normal in the country in question.

Yes.

[New Dawner]

[Niccolo] Secondly, Canada is a prime example of a society in which multiculturalism isn't failing.

you call the prosecution of people for questioning the Holocaust not a failure?

Canada is a country that consciously breeds little nancy pansies who would never be able to revolt even if they ever did have sufficient numbers of citizenry who could no longer stand the tyranny

[New Dawner]

[Integrity] I suspect that Canada could be more than it is if it didn't have multiculturalism. (just a hunch)

No! What about all the "cultural enrichment" from these people with no loyalty to western civilization? They provide us with tasty dishes that we couldn't possibly make for ourselves. Oh wait, Japan does exactly that, has the foreign cullinary delights minus the "cultural enrichment"

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Even if all races were indeed blended together (which won't happen), new races would inevitably arise.
Exactly. That's because both the Creator, and the creatures he created, love differences. A fellow went to great lengths to save just one breed of horse for it's unique look and temperament -- the Nez Perces' Apaloosa. When people come to their senses they'll realize that the loss of any people -- including the European types who are the product of centuries of principled courtship and selection -- is an even worse disaster. Humanity will just go about somehow creating differences again. People fawn over my pug dog just because of it's unique look. How can we appreciate differences in human beings any less.

Even the New World Order will not be able to stand against entropy. Chaos will overwhelm the artificial order.
Yes. Order works better -- and is more stable -- when it is based on deeply valid things, like family ties, natural parental authority, natural communities, and their natural leaders. The New World Order elements, in its power-trip, are inimical to these deeply valid things, so it will finally be like trying to leash a tiger.

[Captain Marinesko]

No! What about all the "cultural enrichment" from these people with no loyalty to western civilization? They provide us with tasty dishes that we couldn't possibly make for ourselves. Oh wait, Japan does exactly that, has the foreign cullinary delights minus the "cultural enrichment"


It also has one of the world's worst birthrates, has a rigid set of social customs, and is internationally known for tolerating the most perverse entertainment. Do you still want to be like Japan?

[New Dawner]

It also has one of the world's worst birthrates

Japan can afford this luxury - they have followed the Rules of Nature and kept their society almost completely homogenous. Over 98% Japanese last I checked, and the vast majority of the remaining percent are Koreans.

has a rigid set of social customs

As is unique to their race. Other races, given the opportunity to be left to their own devices, evolve their own customs that the vast majority are quite happy with, because they are the customs of their people.

and is internationally known for tolerating the most perverse entertainment

I don't know what that is all about, really. Maybe it's in their genes

Do you still want to be like Japan

I never said that. I was showing them as an example of how a country can engage the world without having to get stuck in all it's crap. They have Baseball, Heavy Metal and there's restaraunts that serve all these foreign dishes but are staffed by Japanese. Japan has it's own crap, admittedly, but it's their's, it isnt imported.

Might I add, their streets are clean and their crime rate is exceedingly low. They have the yakuza but the general populace is scarcely ever touched by their presence.

[Captain Marinesko]

Japan can afford this luxury - they have followed the Rules of Nature and kept their society almost completely homogenous. Over 98% Japanese last I checked, and the vast majority of the remaining percent are Koreans.

Actually they cannot afford it, because less births means less people to pay into their social security system and do the jobs necessary to run the country. That is why immigration is on the rise.



As is unique to their race. Other races, given the opportunity to be left to their own devices, evolve their own customs that the vast majority are quite happy with, because they are the customs of their people.

Japanese are not a "race".



I don't know what that is all about, really. Maybe it's in their genes

I'd love to see you prove that.


And as for their own culture- were you not aware that the Chinese had a HUGE amount of influence on Japan, from religion, to language, to the very alphabet they use(Kana alphabets came later IIRC)? Japan had a HUGE amount of outside cultual influence, which they actually embraced not only in that case but also during the Meiji Restoration. They suppressed the nationalist reactionaries with guns. Any other aspect of Japanese homogenity has more to do with the fact that they are an island nation.

[New Dawner]

Actually they cannot afford it, because less births means less people to pay into their social security system and do the jobs necessary to run the country. That is why immigration is on the rise.

But then Japan will adapt - they will either start having more babies, or maybe they shall find innovative solutions - they don't need to have immigrants, they could make robots to do all the shitty work. This is the 21st century, all manner of things are in the works.

Japanese are not a "race".

They've lived in isolation from the mainland long enough to be largely homogenous, genetically speaking. I don't quite know what you mean, really.

I'd love to see you prove that.

It's a theory, nothing more. The Japanese came out of seemingly nowhere with this extremely strange and violent pornography, and Japanese men are known to fondle women they dont even know on the train. I theorise that maybe there is a genetic component to what is probably an interplay of genes and culture.

And as for their own culture- were you not aware that the Chinese had a HUGE amount of influence on Japan, from religion, to language, to the very alphabet they use(Kana alphabets came later IIRC)? Japan had a HUGE amount of outside cultual influence, which they actually embraced not only in that case but also during the Meiji Restoration. They suppressed the nationalist reactionaries with guns. Any other aspect of Japanese homogenity has more to do with the fact that they are an island nation.

I was entirely aware of all this. But that's Good outside influence. Buddhism good. Workers from Africa Bad. Also, that's influence from other asians. People with similar thought processes to themselves. That's family.

[Golobulus]

you call the prosecution of people for questioning the Holocaust not a failure?

Canada is a country that consciously breeds little nancy pansies who would never be able to revolt even if they ever did have sufficient numbers of citizenry who could no longer stand the tyranny
Regardless whether it (multiculturalism) is a "success" or not, the turning of formerly white communities into brown ones and displacement of white people is all the same, and the end result from all of it.