Talk:Multiculturalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Multiculturalism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Older discussions are at Talk:Multiculturalism/archive1

Contents 1 Singapore 2 Ottoman Empire 3 Another Criticism 4 Is multiculturalism an ideology? 5 Systemic bias? 6 Islam complicates the issue 7 disputed tag 8 Neutrality dispute 9 Create Groups for Multiculturism Supporters/critics? 10 Malaysia section 10.1 Multicultural or multiculturalism 10.1.1 Citation needed? 10.2 Correcting English 11 Slavoj Zizek 12 Citations 13 Netherlands 14 Is multiculturalism a Good Thing? 15 Foremost Essay on Mutliculturalism- Charles Taylor 16 Edits to US Melting Pot by Pco 17 Marxism and racism 18 India 19 Australia 20 ryt 21 Intellectual critique

[edit] Singapore

Perhaps this article could include something about Singapore. It seems to me (a student in Singapore) that the government here places great importance on multiculturalism and racial harmony, to the point of organising "Inter-racial walks" and "Inter-racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs)" after a few Jemaah Islamiah members were arrested by the authorities. There are Racial Harmony Days every year, festivals associated with the dominant cultures in Singapore are celebrated in schools and in grassroots organisations. I cannot think of another country where multiculturalism is such a fundamental consideration in national policy. --Maycontainpeanuts

I think we need to make the distinction between the laissez faire multiculturalism of the US, Canada, and Australia, which for the most part is a policy of a-culturalism (i.e. not promoteing any official culture), vs. the "multiculturalism" of a country like Singapore which is equivalent to old-style Canadian bi-culturalism. -- stewacide 09:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. -- Mathieugp 14:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, any idea how they be distinguished in the article? Is there a term for the "multiculturalism" of countries like Singapore, China, UK, Belgium, etc? Pluralistic nationalism maybe? In other words what is the generalized (non-number-specific) term for what the article describes in the origin section as biculturalism? -- stewacide 17:02, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Canadian style is "laissez-faire". The government has some fairly well-documented (if not exactly concrete) policy on what it defines as "Multiculturalism". It seems, from this American perspecitve, that the Canadian government is distinctly involved in people's identity. Or at least, attempts to be.--Jonashart 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note whether we are speaking about multiracialism or multiculturalism, Singapore is multiracial NOT multicultural. What we see in popular discussions is multiracialism that has not been able to develop and progress towards multiculturalism and thus leading to cross-cultural tensions and mutual-aggravation.

[edit] Ottoman Empire

Is something is not existed in that article? As i know, Ottomans were a great example for multiculturalism. --Anon

As the Armenians discovered in WW1.... --Peter O'Connell

The Ottomans used the "millet" system.--Nectar 03:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't judge the Ottomans by the behaviour of the regime during the last few Sultans; and the Armenians, long one of the most privileged of the Sultanate's "multicultures", made the bad mistake of getting uppity in the 1890s; until then they ranked with the Jews, Bulgars, Greeks, Albanians and others who were in fact often more trusted by the state than Moslems/Turks (and this includes Greeks, especially Phanariots, after the Greek War of Independence). Because of the 19th Century Armenian revolt, feelings against Armenians mounted within the public and military; note that although the Armenian Massacre happened during the last days of the Sultanate, it was much more an expression of Turkish nationalism than of Ottoman state policy. As for Ottoman state policy, if it weren't for the Sultans and the millet system, the Greeks, Romanians, Bulgars, Jews and countless others would not have been protected and relatively flourished as they did under Ottoman rule; the Sultans in fact made sure (according to Mansell's Constantinople: History of the World's Desire and another book Lords of the Horizons whose author I can't remember) that their conquered provinces and cities had mixed, multicultural populations, and like the Romans in times past forcibly settled these cities with compositions that reflected the Empire; and of course each community had the right/obligation to govern its own flock according to their own customs religious hierarchies. Constantinople in its day was easily a great multicultural city, as were of course Alexandria and other imperial centres (other than Mecca and Medina, which were off-limits to non-Moslems as still today). The Ottomans were multiculturally-oriented; the Moslems, especially the Janissary element, were hostile to religious and cultural multiculturalism; even though in the case of the Janissaries many of them were of Balkan background (Janissary is from yeni seri - new enlistement - and there were all ex-Christian children taken and raised as fanatical Muslims; there's nothing more fanatical than a convert, as the old saying goes). Point remains that an Ottoman palace/administration where the Grand Viziers were rarely Turks, Serbo-Croat was the language of the palace, Greek the language of business, Armenian and Ladino cultures in charge of the banking (Ladino was the dialect of Spanish of the Sephardic Jews who had been welcomed into the Empire when driven out by Ferdinand and Isabella; something like what Yiddish is to German), Greeks and Slavs in charge of the civil service, and so on. The page overleaf seems to only address multiculturalism in European-style societies and states; it strikes me that Malaysia and Singapore have official multiculturalism of a sort, China theoretically does, India practically, i.e. in a practical sense, does. Historically this was also the post-Metternich "Austrian idea" although it never worked in practice (since Czechs, Croats and others never quite got the clout/stature of the German and Magyar elements in imperial life). Strikes me there should be a List/section of Historically multicultural cities and states. Another that comes to mind is Norman Sicily, and also Moslem Spain.....Skookum1 16:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A section on historical multiculturalism would be most interesting. Lest we assume that in times past, there did not exist state sponsored initiatives, the laws of Islam make specific note of what we would consider 'multicultural' siutations and how they are to be handled. While perhaps not what we might consider proper today, systems did (do) exisit. Muslim Spain and Norman Sicily are great examples (often overlooked) of 'pre-modern' societies coping with the realities of globalization. And of course, the great urban centers of history have almost always been 'multicultural', and people have had to figure out how to cope with that reality, without simply resorting to violence.

Differntiating among the various deinfitions of multiculturalism seems necessary. Many of us have been discussing modern policies created to deal with the reality that most places in the world are home to more than one kind of person. However, Skookum's point is most valid: there are other forms of multiculturalism--historical, philisophical, a state of being, etc. Thus, the article should be clear about which form is being defined at any one time.--Jonashart 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Criticism

I agree that this article seems very biased and presents a very one-sided point of view, but (forgive me if I've missed it) I'd really like to see some positive points about multiculturalism. Perhaps taking from the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

---

I have a problem with the section on American critique of multiculturalism. The critiques have only been taken from the extremes, ie Pat Buchanan. Consider objections from a universalist/cosmopolitan view that does not oppose multiculturalism because it somehow hurts the purity of the United States, but rather because it subdivides the essential category of humanity.

[edit] Is multiculturalism an ideology?

Some words should be shed on the question whether multiculturalism is a mere fact of life or rather an ideology like marxism and libertarianism.

In Canada, it is Federal policy. The point is a good one, however. Canada declared itself "multicultual" in the midst of some social unrest regarding the social and economic statuses of several different groups (French Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Italian Candians, etc.). By the time a federal policy was put into place, Canada had been "multicultural" for the better part of 300 years. Such a policy/declaration certainly had/has political motivation and leanings that should not be overlooked. One should ask: "What motivates a government to declare it's country 'multicultural'"? Begin to answer that question, and a very interesting history unfolds.--Jonashart 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A good example of the denial of multiculturalism would be the African slaves who were brought to the U.S. and not allowed to continue with their culture under punishment of death or torture. Slaves were to forget their ancestry and culture if they were to survive in the new world. That does not mean that multiculturalism did not exist in the U.S. during slavery, it simply means that racists tried to stop it from growing or being seen publicly.

Multiculturalism is only an ideology to racists and dictators. Even "nation states" who fit closely to the concept of "ideal" have a multitude of cultures and it is only people who would hope to deny other cultures recognition or rights that would have an ideology that prohibits multi culturalism. Speaking the same language and making laws that encourage assimilation or culltural norms does not reduce or eliminate multiculturalism, because it will always be in people's home's even if they are forced to or willingly behave a certain way or follow norms in public. The definitions below include one from wikipedia that says it is a "policy", rather than an ideology or fact of life. Pco 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, multiculturalism exists within families, churches, schools, etc. throughout the U.S. Many families consist of parents and grandparents from different cultures and most people do not consider themselves to be "American" in that it consists of a culture of hamburgers, chrisianity and christmas, but have many traditions from their families cultures that they carry on, generation after generation. As an italian-american with german and english ancestors, I have never felt a cultural affinity with things that are "American". Many U.S. Latino families share the culture of christianity and christmas, yet we do not think of them as being part of the typical "American" culture. Is that because they prefer tacos to hamburgers? Pco 17:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Multicultural on the Web:

   * The creative interchange of numerous ethnic and racial subcultures.
     usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oal/gloss.htm

   * strongly influenced by or having prominent characteristics of several cultural groups or peoples
     www3.newberry.org/k12maps/glossary/

   * A person who is multicultural has the ability to function effectively and appropriately and can select appropriate behaviors, values and attitudes of other cultures.
     www.gecdf.com/diversity/glossary.html

   * reflecting the fluid social and cultural nature of Australian society particularly in relation to issues of identity, politics, time and place.
     www.nexus.asn.au/specproj/ccmm/CCMM_what%20is%20it2.htm

   * of or relating to or including several cultures; "a multicultural event"
     wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

   * Multiculturalism is a policy, that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries.
     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicultural

Pco 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't multiculturalism a policy more than it is an ideology? Driller thriller 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias?

The article seems to have ignored multiculturalism in Asia altogether and seems to concentrates on English speaking world (with the exception of the Dutch). __earth ^(Talk) 15:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) It also seems to have ignored Africa and Latin America. I was surprised that in the discussions of Canada, the United States and Australia, there seemed to be no mention of indigenous peoples and cultures. The Soviet Union and its successor states, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Balkans might have been mentioned since they all experience conflicts based on cultural differences. Do these conflicts not affect thought on multiculturalism in the regions discussed? UNESCO's cultural programs and the cultural treaties it supports might also have merited mention. 4 Sept 2006.

[edit] Islam complicates the issue

Paul: this is a good add. However, I suggest two things: 1) This needs citation. How people think, feel, and behave as stated fact is shakey ground. I know there's plenty written on this stuff, citing it would be a big plus; 2) Much of the section is written in past tense. The issues you raise continue, so you could 'present tense' most of it. Don't want to edit it w/o giving you the heads up. I like it!--Jonashart 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I was going to include attributions in the Netherlands section, all of these points surfaced in the debate there.Paul111 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think they apply to the American section, great. I just get nervous when I read "people feel" or "many believe" w/o substantiation. Even though you're right, evidence never hurts.--Jonashart 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the Dutch sources. They are reactions in Europe, the section says that "Islam did not dominate the multiculturalism issue to the same extent" in the United States, (However, that seems to have changed in the last few years, because of the increasing perception of Islam as the 'opposite of western culture').Paul111 13:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that perception is out there, for both "sides". Check out Fred Halliday's "Islam and the Myth of Confrontation". A great read on this stuff.--Jonashart 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disputed tag

Many interesting fact were added bij Paul111, but he has also introduced a strong bias in favor of multiculturalism. Additionally, he abuses this article to rage against monoculturalism and nationalism. But really, is a multicultural society intrinsically and morally better than a monocultural society? This is a tendentious premisse that does not belong in an encyclopdia. The subsection 'Reaction against multiculturalism in Europe' is far from neutral. Moreover, 'the islam doesn't only complicate the issue' as Paul111 states it, but is no less than the trigger of the shifting European views on cultural identity. This shift, by the way, is certainly no "return of explicit nationalism as a political force". Nationalism as we know it from the Thirties of the previous century is dead and buried in Western Europe, but the article makes it seem like the Nazis are marching in again. By the way, what happened to Bassam Tibi's Leitkultur? It has been removed completely. Is it because it is to nationalistic for Paul111? --Che4ever 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am an opponent of multiculturalism, and I deleted content that had no other purpose than to say that it was wonderful. The 'monoculturalism' decribed in the article is largely the version that followed multiculturalism in Europe, a recent development. The term 'post-multiculturalism' is a possible alternative, but vague. In any case, the media are adopting the term 'monoculturalism' as the descriptive term for what is happening.

Nationalism is an indisputable component of the reaction in Europe against multiculturalism. Emphasis on national cultural identity is itself nationalism. What is more, ethnic national identities also revived. So 'nationalism' in Europe is not dead, far from it, and it is the correct descriptive term for some of the reactions to multiculturalism, and for the promotion of a common national identity. The article also distinguishes the non-nationalist opposition, such as that of the liberal-feminists. What you seem to be saying is that only Nazis are nationalists, and that is intenable.

The typical 'reactions to multiculturalism' of the 1990s are given at least one source in the Netherlands section.

I revised the article on Leitkultur, because it had nothing on the Leitkultur debate in Germany - which has almost nothing to do with Bassam Tibi any more. The article does indeed need two sections on Germany: one on official multiculturalism from the 1980's, and one on the reaction to it from the late 1990's. (The Leitkultur debate is, more or less, the multiculturalism debate in Germany). Paul111 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub section on German reactions added, so Leitkultur is back in the article. Incidentally, the wrong tag seems to be used, the tag is for disputed accuracy but bias is claimed - i.e. NPOV tag intended?Paul111 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By his own admission Paul11 opposes multiculturalism and is therefore racist/supremacist. So why do we need his input on a non-biased description of the realities/truths that describe what multiculturalism actually is. His posts are better relegated to a section on "Critics of Multiculturalism", but instead he has taken it upon himself to delete anything he does not like. He is turning this into a discussion of why it should be abolished, and why we should all be zionists, rather than stating the facts. Sorry Paulo it is too late to make the U.S. a white zionist nation-state. Pco 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Such comments are actually part of the problem, Pco. Accusing others of racism or supremacism because they are expressing dissenting views is intellectual fascism at worse, a trip to the dark ages at best. Supremacism is the idea that one race is superior to another, while racism is the idea that races should not mingle, without necessarily implying a hierarchisation of races. Questionning (not denying or assaulting) multiculturalsim is, on the contrary, a question of how citizens of different cultures relate to civil society or state identity. If Paulo was racist, he sure as hell wouldn't have quoted the Arcbishop of York's comments. Is a multicultural society complicated to manage and organize, yes, that is a fact. Can a more homogenous society be a solution? Why not? Can it be debated? Sure! Everything that is factually based and does not promote hate should be debated. Debate is one of the legacies of the same Enlightenment that created the ideas of multiculturalism and liberalism. To deny respectful debate in the name of multiculturalism is frivolous nonsense and intellectual fallacy.Zlorfik 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

After the NPOV tag was added, and since there was no reply to my question above at 'disputed tag', I removed the accuracy-dispute tag, and left the neutrality-dispute tag. That is apparently what is in dispute, for both users - the neutrality.Paul111 10:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) On examination, it seems that the present article is biased against multiculturalism. In total 19 authors of books and articles are named, including two politicians, Pat Buchanan and Pim Fortuyn. All 19 are opponents of multiculturalism. Quotes of their criticism take up 40% of the article. Quoting critique is necessary, to provide the context for the current debates and policy reversals in Europe. However, for balance the article needs to quote at least one early advocate of multiculturalism (in Canada or the USA), and at least one recent response to the wave of criticism (from the UK, for instance). Any suggestions?Paul111 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I agree completely. There is a blatant bias against multiculturalism in this article. Brad_2 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also agree that balance is required. Despite my additions to the discussion section that are leaning to the 'con' side, I wouldn't want the article to become truely unbalanced. However, I will try to re-read it from top to bottom and get a good sense of where things stand currently.--Jonashart 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed Ken Wilber (non-notable as a critic of multiculturalism), and the one short sentence on Reginald Bibby, and also this vague and confusing sentence: "Literature by prominent minority women authors such as Toni Morrison and Maxine Hong Kingston can be both critiques of the traditional majority and minority cultures, as well as articulate exponents of a multicultural vision."Paul111 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I have a lot of problems with the neutrality of the section below (how can you quote a guy who says "we all have the same religion" as a good example of "melting pot" in the U.S.) . Immigration was a feature of the U.S. ever since it was discovered and that continued after the U.S. Gov was formed, so why start with the 19th century? What immigrants would return? My revision included the statue of liberty which is the symbol for the melting pot principal, but it was deleted. (see last revision by PCO) Pco 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) SOrry I had not intended to put a comment on the wrong page, but that does not require my entire post to be deleted. I think the section should just be called "U.S." rather than "melting pot" and then bring up the "melting pot" as a metaphor for the multiculturalism that has been part of U.S. history since the beginning. Pco 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the existing post:

The Melting Pot (USA)

In the United States, continuous mass immigration had been a feature of economy and society since the first half of the 19th century. There was no fiction that the immigrants would return: immigration was seen as a permanent choice for a new country. The absorption of the stream of immigrants became, in itself, a prominent feature of the national mythos, along with the expansion westwards. The central metaphor is the idea of the Melting Pot - where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. The Melting Pot implied that each individual immigrant, and each group of immigrants, assimilated into American society at their own pace, improving their income and social status on the way. It reflected and influenced official policy: although language courses were offered, they were rarely compulsory. As a result, several immigrant communities maintained a non-English language for generations. The nature of American national identity, with its emphasis on symbolic patriotism, allegiance, national values and a national mythos, facilitated the assimilation of immigrants. The Melting Pot attitude did not require a detailed knowledge of American history, acquisition of a complex cultural heritage, or accent-free English. It allowed interest in the culture of the country of origin, and family ties with that country. In practice, the original culture disappeared within two generations. An Americanized (and often stereotypical) version of the original nation's cuisine, and its holidays, survived.

The Melting Pot concept has been criticized, as an idealized version of the assimilation process. One common criticism is that it apparently did not apply to English-speaking, US-born black people, who stayed at the bottom of the social ladder from the American Civil War on. Another criticism is that the Melting Pot model described the assimilation of immigrants from Europe, rather than the assimilation of any immigrant. The growth in the use of the Spanish language - the model implies it would decline - has led to calls for state-enforced language policy similar to those in Europe. More recently, some have argued that "the Melting Pot" leads to an erosion of groups individual heritage and have argued that the USA is better described as "a tossed salad", with each group intermingling with all, but maintaining their separate identity.

Note that the Melting Pot tradition co-exists with a belief in national unity, dating from the American founding fathers:

   "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." (John Jay, First American Supreme Court Chief Justice).

---

The "Melting Pot" is not so much a symbol of multiculturalism, but of assimilation, a similar but altogether different concept. When a group of people moves from their different culture to the USA, they change some or many of their ways to fit the new "American" lifestyle.

By this well recognised definition, I fail to see how the quote contradicts the concept of the Melting Pot. It is true the USA has cultural groups; however they are all united under one vision, proof of their Assimilation on some level.

Now, if this were an article on Canada with that quote attached, there would be some problems. Canadian immigrants retain their own cultural practices, creating a truly Multicultural "Mosaic", rather than an Assimilatory "Melting Pot"

68.145.210.24 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Create Groups for Multiculturism Supporters/critics?

I think we should create groups of people that support (someone like Tom Friedman) or people like Pat Buchanan do are not in favor of the practice. While it of course would be subjective, we could at least get started with some of the more outspoken supporters and critics to help shape the people that are shapping the term.--Saintlink 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.32.196.4 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Malaysia section

I've added an Asian country in effort to make the article more global in its worldview. __earth ^(Talk) 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether Malaysia does indeed have a multicultural policy comparable to the term as used in the US, Canada, and Europe. Some of the policy items listed are apparently attempts to create a syncretic national identity, and that is something different. If the term multiculturalism is retroactively applied to communalism and responses to communalism, then it would include more societies and governments, but that would be an anachronism. The question was raised (see above, on Systemic bias) about the geographical bias of this article, but in this case some selectiveness is accurate. Multiculturalism was largely an issue for western developed nation-states with high immigration, and originally only the Anglophone states among those. Its abandonment is also an issue for those states. The fact that a state has different ethnic and cultural groups, and that its governments policies address this, does not necessarily make those policies 'multicultural'.Paul111 11:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See also the sections on Singapore and the Ottoman Empire, above. Paul111 10:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

I edited the tone of the Malaysia section, in places like an advertorial: "policies... encouraged unity among all ethnics group in Malaysia"; "created a tolerant multicultural society"; "Malaysia's liberal belief in multiculturalism".Paul111 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multicultural or multiculturalism

Is the article is about multiculturalism or policies on multiculturalism? __earth ^(Talk) 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Multicultural-ism means policies, and ideology. 'Multicultural' is a descriptive term, which could be applied to thousands of human societies over thousands of years. The details do not belong in this article, because that is not the usage of 'multiculturalism' in the English language. (It would also become a pointless list of societies and states, with little else in common). Wikipedia guidelines say articles should not contradict themseleves. This article now says in one section that multiculturalism originated in 1970's Canada, and in another that it dates from 1957 in Malaysia. This needs resolution, and it seems a definition problem. Are you saying that Malaysia had multiculturalist policies, or are you primarily saying it had multiple cultures?Paul111 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to produce a citation for that. Future editors might think such definition as original research. __earth ^(Talk) 12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about both? Because in the characteristic listed in the typical policies of multiculturalism section describes Malaysia. About 5/6 of it is practiced in Malaysia. And I'm sure the policies were practiced in Malaysia before Canada did. In fact, Malaysia is definitely not the first. I do think the Austrian and the Swiss did it earlier. Their sanction of several languages looks like a characteristic of multiculturalism. Even Andalusia is another example though that isn't exactly in modern times. __earth ^(Talk) 01:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On comparison, the Malaysia policies don't look like western multiculturalism. On the basis of what is described here and at other articles on Malaysia, Malaysian policy is nationalist and monoculturalist. The underlying reason seems to be that the Malay majority has never accepted the presence of non-Malays, and that they seek te return to a homogenous society. That sounds familiar, since many European nation-states had similar majority attitudes, and still do. The scope of this article does not include multilingualism on its own, or consociationalism. In summary, Malaysian policy does not belong in this article. Nevertheless, I suggest retaining the Malaysia section, rewritten as a non-western comparison for cultural policies in a multi-ethnic state.Paul111 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed?

The onus is on those who claim that Malaysia has multiculturalist policies, to indicate what makes them comparable to 'multiculturalism' in Canada or the Netherlands. The claim that multicultural-ism is in fact a synonym for multicultural, which is apparently the position of user __earth, is untenable (and I doubt if any source could be found for that position). User __earth should clarify the issue, and say if he wants this article expanded to cover any society where multiple cultures are present. If only Malaysia is the issue, then a source should be provided, for the claim that it has multiculturalist policies since 1957.Paul111 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about your interpretation of multiculturalism? That should be referenced too. And see an article at the economist [1]. Also, Malaysia and Capitalist Modernisation: Plural and Multicultural Models by Steve Fenton. Also, see Guardian on how the author uses multiculturalism [2] __earth ^(Talk) 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the interpretation of multiculturalism which is at issue, but the usage. Multi-ethnic societies are a reality, there is no doubt of that. But the existence of these (non-western) societies has no part in the western controversy on multiculturalism. Those concerned in that debate are, for the most part, totally uninterested in Malaysian society. You may find that offensive, and it does illustrate their lack of global perspective, but it is the way things are. Perhaps a separate article on modern non-western multi-ethnic societies is an option.Paul111 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, is this page about multiculturalism on general or multiculturalism controversy in Europe? If it's the latter, it should be moved at Multiculturalism in Europe because multiculturalism here should discuss multiculturalism on general. __earth ^(Talk) 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is about multicultural-ism in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, EU member states and candidate members, and possibly Japan and South Africa. It is not about multicultural societies, because as pointed out already, thousands of existing and historical societies were, and are, multicultural. This article can not cover them all, and to do so would deny the specifics of multiculturalism as an ideology. I asked you to state your position on this, so please do so, then it can be put to a vote if necessary.Paul111 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue was raised before, tho not as specifically. I think __earth has a relevant point: is this article about the BIG M "Multiculturalism" as policy, or little "multiculturalism" as a phenomenon, which may encompass policy? Per the intro definition, it appears to focus on BIG M policy. While that is completely legit, unless there's a disambiguation being made, perhaps the article title should be more reflective of the specific nature of that usage (example Multiculturalism_(Policy). Paul111's suggestion of a separate article re: multicultural societies is a great idea.--Jonashart 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A better name for the phenomenon in question is multiculturality, the phenomenon of there being several cultures in one country. 'Multicultural societies' is confusing because it can mean for instance modern Canada or the Ottoman Empire, and because supporters of multicultural-ism see it as the ideal end result of multicultural-ist policy. For example they would say "The UK needs more multicultural polices to make it into a truly multicultural society". In fact the UK has always had several cultural and linguistic groups, since it came into existence, but that's not what the multiculturalists mean, and it's not what the British National Party mean either, when they denounce them.Paul111 20:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. Certainly worth further consideration. So, is your take the 'Multiculturalism' should stand, as-is as the title?--Jonashart 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting English

Kitrus reverted copy-edits to this section. Presumably the target was the substantive edits, but the English needed improvement - 'fuel economics growth of the region', 'frequent intellectual spars', 'during the same time', and 'reflect the society readiness' - and such copy-edits should not be reverted.Paul111 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavoj Zizek

Unsigned comment below is by Jonesbaron23. Please sign your comments, use a header if it is a new theme, and don't put them at the top of the page.Paul111 10:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should include reference to the Lacanian-Marxist critique of multiculturalism, found principally in the many books of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek and formulated from a standpoint that is entirely distinct from the pseudo-leftist critique of multiculturalism common in the American university (including academic feminists). In particular, Zizek calls into question the naive, pre-modern, pre-Weberian, pre-Levi-Straussian notions of culture on which multiculturalism (at least its American version) rests, as well as the politically reactionary element of "identity politics."

[edit] Citations

The proper way to cite book titles is to underline them, not to italicize or place quotation marks around the titles. The article did both of these things--which is silly.

---

To the person that wrote the comment above: If you are so well versed in citation rules then you would know that there happen to be several different rules depending on what 'style' the author wrote with. There are three major styles in professional writing (APA style, MLA style and Chicago style). I write in APA style and in APA titles of book ARE put in italics (though not put in quotations). However, according to the Online Writing Lab at Purdue University, there is also an ASA style, used by the American Sociology Association, which does use quotation marks around book titles.

I suggest taking a look at the Online Writing Lab at Purdue University before you make 'silly' comments. [3]

citation: ASA Style information retrieved from [4] on December 2, 2006.

---

Julie

Martin

[edit] Netherlands

Enjoyed the article just some comments on the criticisms on multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status.

From the 1970s, multiculturalism was a consensus ideology in The Netherlands among the 'political class', and determined official policy. The principle was expressed in the phrase "Integratie met behoud van eigen taal en cultuur", that is, social integration while retaining the language and culture of the immigrant groups. Immigrants were treated as members of a monolithic cultural bloc, on the basis of nationality - their religion only became an issue in the 1990s. These communities were addressed by the Dutch government, in what it considered to be their own languages - Arabic for Moroccan immigrants, even though many of them did not speak it. Opposition to the consensus was politically marginal. The anti-immigration Centrumpartij had occasional electoral successes, but its leader Hans Janmaat was ostracised, and fined for his strident opposition to multiculturalism.

However rom the late 1990s multiculturalism came under sustained intellectual attack in Western Europe, again largely, but not exclusively, from the political right. The period saw the rise of anti-immigrant populism in Europe, which was uniformly, and often fanatically, hostile to multiculturalism. The debate became increasingly polarised, and increasingly associated with Islam and terrorism. The multiculturalism issue merged with the immigration policy issue.

Some have claimed that in the 1950s, the Netherlands was generally a mono-ethnic and monocultural society: it was not monolingual, but almost everyone could speak standard Dutch. Its inhabitants shared a classic national identity, with a national mythos emphasising the Dutch Golden Age, and national heroes such as Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. This is not true because the Netherlands also consisted of overseas teritories such as Suriname and Indonesia in which she created multicultural societies with the aim of exploiting them economically. The ‘national’ mythos of heroes such as Michiel de Ruyter where not shared by large parts of the population living in both Indonesia and Suriname. These ‘national heroes’ where often nothing more than slave trafficers and pirates and the Dutch Golden Age was the period in which the the port city of Amsterdam was the European capital of slavery, also helping to manage the slave trade of neighbouring nations and with up to 10,000 slaving vessels associated with the port. In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book 'The Philosophy of Human Rights. Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-western culture and values.

The truth is that the rule of law and human rights are not typical nor original parts of Dutch culture nor western culture. Torture (Like in Abu Gharib by Americans), economic and enviromental exploitation and degradation unfortunatly are. Human rights originated from ancient Mesopotamia and the dutch where in colonial times nothing but renowned for committing the most cruel atrocities against human rights (Hollanse bok). The rule of law and the adherence to human rights are not typical to western culture just as they fail to be in other culture’s.

Paul Cliteur also claims that human rights are the product of the Enlightenment. Other more reliable sources report that appalled by the barbarism of the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

According to Njalsson, multiculturalism is particular to a western urban environment and cannot survive as an ideology outside it.

Fortunately Multiculturalism exsists in non western societies like Suriname and guarantee’s the survival of at least a sence of social harmony in that country. The mosque and synagogue besides each other in Keizerstraat, Paramaribo, Suriname

Scheffer approvingly quoted the sociologist J.A.A. van Doorn, that the presence of immigrants in the Netherlands had "put the clock back" by 100 or 150 years. The high immigration rate, and the lack of 'integration' threatened society, and must be stopped.

If the presence of immigrants put holland back 150 years it still has another 150 to go; right where it should have been had it not explioted slaves for 300 years. The truth is that immigration was invited by the dutch in the 1950 and 1960 and accelerated in the 1970s when the dutch needed migrant labour to sustain their then slaveless economy.

In 2002, the legal scholar Afshin Ellian - a refugee from Iran - advocated a monocultural ‘Rechtsstaat’ in the Netherlands. A liberal democracy cannot be multicultural, he argued, because multiculturalism is an ideology and a democracy has no official ideology. Also, according to Ellian, a democracy must be monolingual. The Dutch language is the language of the constitution, and therefore it must be the only public language - all others must be limited to the private sphere.

Allthough I would agree that it is to the benefit of immigrants to learn to effectivly communicate in the language of the constitution I must stongly object to fact that it has to be the only language and that a democracy has no oficial ideology. The word ‘Rechtsstaat’ means constitutional state which means that the whole idea of a democracy derives its ligitimacy from the submission of state authority to fundamental rights enshrined in a constitution embodying the dominant ideology.

Ellian also complained that the Netherlands had legalised the "feudal system of the Islamic Empire". Democracy and the rule of law could only be restored by abolishing multiculturalism.

The Islamic feudal system like in the ottoman empire was characterised by absent land ownership and by excessive taxation and exploitation. However it examplified the abandonement of the ‘spoils system’ predominant from the time of the Prophet Muhammad and regulated by his successor, Caliph Omar.

‘Know that whenever you seize anything as a spoil, to God belongs a fifth thereof and to his Apostle ....’

In the Prophet Muhammad's time, that fifth of the booty of conquest was to be portioned out to members of his family and also to the needy. But as the booty more often passed to the leaders who succeeded Muhammad, this system indeed seems to have set the patterns for an unequal distribution of wealth ever present in Dutch society. But unfortunately for the slaves and indentured immigrants in Dutch colonies these patterns had been adopted long before the immigration of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the 1960 and 1970’s and can therefore not be blamed on immigration. Democracy and the rule of law can better be restored with measures guaranteeing an involved and informed participation in the public sphere supported by a constitution. This should be accompanied by a restoration of social justice and a fair distribution of wealth as suggested by the Prophet (blessings be upon him)

00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)83.147.128.197

The lack of a national identity in the Netherlands is largely due to the Second World War. It is a social stigma in the Netherlands for example, to wear the Dutch flag on one's jacket, people rather wear orange, in reference to the Dutch monarchy. This needs some expanding and mentioning in the Netherlands section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitch12440 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Is multiculturalism a Good Thing?

The comments on Malaysia by user __earth seem to indicate a misunderstanding of the historical background. Apparently, he is trying to claim that Malaysia invented multiculturalism, or at least 'had it before the West'. That assumes that multiculturalism is a Good Thing, a Great Invention, like printing or the telephone. But in reality, it is a bitterly disputed political ideology, which is hated and despised by millions of people, and which is being rapidly abandoned in western Europe. I hope that will clarify why this article should not include claims to have 'invented multiculturalism', or false historical attributions of 'multiculturalism' to non-modern societies - see anachronism.Paul111 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say Malaysia invented multiculturalism. Neither did I say it's a good thing. I'm just saying it exists. In fact, like I've mentioned, Austria and Switzerland probably did it earlier than Malaysia. I'm just saying Malaysian society became multicultural before independence and right after independence, it practices multicultural policies like different education system for different ethnic groups. __earth ^(Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See above (Malaysia section) for the question of whether Malaysia has multiculturalist policies. Most large states prior to the 19th century were 'multicultural', but that is not what this article is about. The comment about not trying to 'claim' it for others is intended to keep the article focussed on what is generally understood by 'multiculturalism' in English. That doesn't include Swiss language policies, although they may serve as a model.Paul111 12:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like some countries called in the article multicultural are in fact two-, or, maximum three-cultural. Like Malaysia, Swiss and so on. And these 2-3 cultures must not be too different. And each must live in one's own skin. Or else this country crashes like USSR, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Empire or Yugoslavia. It seems like states are crushing then they become too "multicultural". The "melting pot" policy hardly seems multicultural. It is rather a policy to meld some nations into one. So if state declares that it want to become multicultural, it expresses wish to split as history shows. That what is called multiculturalism now, IMHO, is just a policy to get maximum of cheap labor force, with'nt any thought about that what will happen some time later. Only ideology I can see in it is greed. I like this article--Igor "the Otter" 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foremost Essay on Mutliculturalism- Charles Taylor

Firstly, one may either italisize OR underline works; furthermore if a piece of writing cannot stand on its own then it is put in quotes. As an English teacher might say, "If it has a spine underline," and if not, use quotes. I would just like to refer people to Charles Taylor, a Canadian man who wrote a critical essay on multicultralism. His work brings up many current issues of multiculturalism and talks about the value of collective over individual rights. His work may be considered essential reading on this topic. 142.179.124.211 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider this a foremost essay, but a religiously biased essay on multiculturalism. Ref: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9304/oakes.html

Pco 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to US Melting Pot by Pco

User Pco posted several signed comments into the text of this section. After notification that this was inappropriate, several comments were "reposted" in the section. They are obviously personal views, but Wikipedia is not a forum, and they did not improve the previous version. Reverted.Paul111 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marxism and racism

This section now contradicts itself, so I moved it here pending a rewrite by the editors concerned.Paul111 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-racists of a Marxist theoretical perspective view white supremacy as an internalized form of imperialism— that is, exploitation of other races for the accumulation of capital in the homeland. When racism is thus analysed as a problem of political economy, the logical response is to tear down its structural foundations—that is, imperialism. Multiculturalism stands in the way of such agenda, because it implies that the grounds for racism in society are not economic, but cultural or ideological. This is irrelevant, however, since actual multiculturalism, or the criticism thereof, deals with cultural and not racial identity.

[edit] India

I am doing research on Indian History and it is painfully sad to note that India - mother of all multiculturalism sinces ages does not have a mention on this page. For example so many cultures living together in India -

Punjabi, Gujarati, Hindi, Bihari, Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya, Goan, Bengali, Tamil, Telgu, Kannada, Malyalam

and a couple of dozen more. Each of those have different belief, language, fooding, clothes, festivals etc. And yet we do not find it adequate to mention it on this page. zombie_neal 16:22, 05 February 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above (and archived) on Malaysia and the Ottoman Empire.Paul111 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the name of page needs to changed to something like "Multiculturalism in Western Countries". You cannot define a phenomenon on your terms. Multicultarism is a general term which applies to all socities equally. I see only two options here

1) Either include eartern societies and their view on this page. 2) Or change the name of page to reflect aptly what it contains. The basic problem with us in west is that we think we are the whole world, which we are not. Wake up people. zombie_neal 14:34, 06 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

I would like to point out that there were people from all around the British Empire arriving in Australia before 1800 and that it is only true that the majority of people were detained in England for instance there were people from the American and former American colonies--Squall1991 13:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ryt

reet

[edit] Intellectual critique

I plan on adding the following to the "Intellectual critique" section of the article. It is about professor Stanley Fish's critique of multiculturalism. Seeing as how this is a disputed article, I thought that I would write about it here in the discussion page before placing it in the main article, so as to give people time to review it. Here is the article that I will be citing: http://www.reason.com/news/show/27743.html and the most important portion of Fish's work is the following:

"The politics of difference is what I mean by strong multiculturalism. It is strong because it values difference in and for itself rather than as a manifestation of something more basically constitutive. Whereas the boutique multiculturalist will accord a superficial respect to cultures other than his own, a respect he will withdraw when he finds the practices of a culture irrational or inhumane, a strong multiculturalist will want to accord a deep respect to all cultures at their core, for he believes that each has the right to form its own identity and nourish its own sense of what is rational and humane. For the strong multiculturalist the first principle is not rationality or some other supracultural universal, but tolerance.
But the trouble with stipulating tolerance as your first principle is that you cannot possibly be faithful to it because sooner or later the culture whose core values you are tolerating will reveal itself to be intolerant at that same core; that is, the distinctiveness that marks it as unique and self-defining will resist the appeal of moderation or incorporation into a larger whole. Confronted with a demand that it surrender its viewpoint or enlarge it to include the practices of its natural enemies--other religions, other races, other genders, other classes--a beleaguered culture will fight back with everything from discriminatory legislation to violence.
At this point the strong multiculturalist faces a dilemma: either he stretches his toleration so that it extends to the intolerance residing at the heart of a culture he would honor, in which case tolerance is no longer his guiding principle, or he condemns the core intolerance of that culture (recoiling in horror when Khomeini calls for the death of Rushdie), in which case he is no longer according it respect at the point where its distinctiveness is most obviously at stake. Typically, the strong multiculturalist will grab the second handle of this dilemma (usually in the name of some supracultural universal now seen to have been hiding up his sleeve from the beginning) and thereby reveal himself not to be a strong multiculturalist at all. Indeed it turns out that strong multiculturalism is not a distinct position but a somewhat deeper instance of the shallow category of boutique multiculturalism."

_selfworm_ ^{( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_} 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)