David Cameron: "Multiculturalism has failed"

[blahblah]

Is what most people are discussing an issue of multiculturalism or a concern over political Islam? These are two very separate issues that oft become confused through fear and uncertainty.

[David Votoupal]

We beat ourselves up too much sometimes over this issue, but compared to Europe we are almost friggin angels when it comes to tolerance. In Europe it's far more acceptable to be ethnocentric even though post-WWII wisdom has tried to discourage that. The Germans and Japanese are tiring of the taboo it seems.

[General Ashnak]

Is what most people are discussing an issue of multiculturalism or a concern over political Islam? These are two very separate issues that oft become confused through fear and uncertainty.

Correct they are to different issues, but the rise of the politicisation of the Islamic faith and its use by right wing politicians as a lighting rod for the natural xenophobia that pervades all sections of society is now intertwined almost inseperately from the issue of multiculturism.

There seems to be this concurrent belief amongst some parts of society who support multiculturism while at one and the same time not supporting the same inherent freedom essential to multiculturism for members of the Islamic faith. Pretty impressive double think from my point of view.

So though this is about Multiculturism, the main reason it has 'failed' from what those who have declared it as such is the fact that a multicultural society has to include members of the various Islamic faiths - something they seem to have a massive fear of.

[blahblah]

Is what most people are discussing an issue of multiculturalism or a concern over political Islam? These are two very separate issues that oft become confused through fear and uncertainty.

Correct they are to different issues, but the rise of the politicisation of the Islamic faith and its use by right wing politicians as a lighting rod for the natural xenophobia that pervades all sections of society is now intertwined almost inseperately from the issue of multiculturism.

There seems to be this concurrent belief amongst some parts of society who support multiculturism while at one and the same time not supporting the same inherent freedom essential to multiculturism for members of the Islamic faith. Pretty impressive double think from my point of view.

So though this is about Multiculturism, the main reason it has 'failed' from what those who have declared it as such is the fact that a multicultural society has to include members of the various Islamic faiths - something they seem to have a massive fear of.

I think you are getting much closer to the heart of the matter. When the term 'multi-culturalism has failed' is bandied about it is rarely in relation to the Vietnamese bakery in the suburbs, the Brazilian samba bar down from the pub or the local Sri Lankan cricket team playing at the park.

It has more to do with compromises on the application of rights, and the perception of encroachment on those rights through compromising for other communities. This is a very interesting point in law development where government's need to determined which laws should reflect community concerns and which should guide community development.

[General Ashnak]

Exactly, I fear that in the current political cliamte we are seeing either stagnant or revisionist political currents holding fore with progressive and innovative idealogoies being swept aside. I had held high hopes that the current minority government situation federally would allow us to see some good robust and innovative legeslation being passed due to the requirement for compromise between the disparat views in parliment but it seems that instead they have become mired in indecision and vitirol. Also the massive impact of the severe weather events on the eastern seaboard hasn't helped at all.

Social progression tends to take a back seat when lives, jobs and food on the table are of justifiably more concern.

[Old Gregg]

Multiculturalism is back!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6007226044

"We are not a guest-worker society," he said. "Rather, people who share respect for our democratic beliefs, laws and rights are welcome to join us as full partners with equal rights."

The minister distanced Australia from the debate in Europe, where the issue of immigration has convulsed political classes.

"Frankly, there are few positive lessons to be learnt from Germany's approach to these issues," Mr Bowen said.

Personally I think it's sad that 'multiculturalism' has become such a dirty word in some circles. In practice Australia is a multicultural society in that we accept as a positive the existence of multiple cultures and ways of life - the word doesn't necessarily mean that we have to take a position of pure cultural relativism and say that 'anything goes', obviously there has to be a framework within which multiculturalism can operate for society to function. So long as individuals respect and adhere to the political process and laws of the country, they can construct their cultural identity however they choose.

Talking about 'multiculturalism failing' is, frankly, bullshit, even in the context of the UK and Germany. Perhaps it wasn't implemented ideally, but these countries are richer for their acceptance of diversity.

What are the alternative to multiculturalism? Exclusionism? I would hope that we're beyond that point as a society. Assimilationism? That presupposes a clearly defined national 'culture' to which we expect everyone to adhere (modifying their own behaviours and identities if necessary). Notwithstanding the fact that I don't think it's justifiable to demand this of people, I don't think there could ever be a consensus over what Australia's 'national culture' might entail. A belief in democracy? A belief in capitalism? A belief in universal 'human rights'? Who decides where the line is drawn between acceptable 'Australian' culture and non-Australian ways of life?

Blahblah is right in that the main sticking point in this debate is around an inequal application of rights for various cultural groups - personally I think that the most fundamental concept of democracy is that rights are universal. People are individuals first and foremost and their membership of a certain ethnic/religious/cultural/etc group is secondary to this. So long as people are treated equally and afforded the same rights under the law, multiculturalism should be a non-issue.

[David Votoupal]

I would rather live in a society that promoted a single national identity, culture and language first. And I don't think any country is "richer" for diversity- I think every country should work as hard as possible to preserve its own national identity and culture.

No European country is happy with "multiculturalism" shoved down its throats, and you only have to look at Yugoslavia to see what became of a multiethnic state.

[Old Gregg]

I would rather live in a society that promoted a single national identity, culture and language first. And I don't think any country is "richer" for diversity- I think every country should work as hard as possible to preserve its own national identity and culture.

There are so many problems with this, but I'll try to break it down:
-Who decides what the 'national identity' is? Is it the elites? Members of the ethnic/cultural/religious majority? Where do you draw the line between what is in and what is out?
-What about 'ethnic groups' that exist as minorities within broader society? Roma in southern Europe? European Jews? Indigenous people in Australia or the Americas? Do they get territorial self-determination, or is that only for groups that represent majority populations in certain regions?
-Nationhood & ethnicity are very slippery concepts and the lines are often blurry. If the Scots, Welsh & Corns all want independence from the UK, would you support that? The Basques? The Catalans? Navajo Indians? Bosnian Serbs? Muslim or Catholic enclaves within predominantly Serbian parts of Bosnia? Aboriginal Australians? Japanese Ainu in Hokkaido? Tasmanians (ok now I'm getting silly but you get my point)?
-Self-determinism is a noble concept but the reality is that human identity is so complex and fractured that there are no 'natural' distinctions.

No European country is happy with "multiculturalism" shoved down its throats, and you only have to look at Yugoslavia to see what became of a multiethnic state.

You're coming at that from a very particular political stance. Not sure if you can speak on behalf of every person in every country in Europe.... certainly some parts of Europe (particularly north and west) have been generally more open to multiculturalism than others (east and south), but popular opinion swings with the wind. Some people might not want a nationalist monoculture 'shoved down their throats', either.

As for Yugoslavia, the problems between groups in that region waaaaaay precede Tito's 'south Slav' socialist state. I agree that foisting a false unity on the people was a mistake, but there are similar problems with trying to apportion territory and nationalisms among people whose claims over certain land and constructions of identity have ebbed and flowed over many hundreds of years..

[David Votoupal]

I would -What about 'ethnic groups' that exist as minorities within broader society? Roma in southern Europe? European Jews? Indigenous people in Australia or the Americas? Do they get territorial self-determination, or is that only for groups that represent majority populations in certain regions?
-Nationhood & ethnicity are very slippery concepts and the lines are often blurry. If the Scots, Welsh & Corns all want independence from the UK, would you support that? The Basques? The Catalans? Navajo Indians? Bosnian Serbs? Muslim or Catholic enclaves within predominantly Serbian parts of Bosnia? Aboriginal Australians? Japanese Ainu in Hokkaido? Tasmanians (ok now I'm getting silly but you get my point)?
-Self-determinism is a noble concept but the reality is that human identity is so complex and fractured that there are no 'natural' distinctions.

The right of ethnic self-determination within a defined homeland where they have lived for centuries. Native Americans have self-government in the US, and are receiving such in Canada, such is their inherent and inalienable right.

No European country is happy with "multiculturalism" shoved down its throats, and you only have to look at Yugoslavia to see what became of a multiethnic state.

You're coming at that from a very particular political stance. Not sure if you can speak on behalf of every person in every country in Europe.... certainly some parts of Europe (particularly north and west) have been generally more open to multiculturalism than others (east and south), but popular opinion swings with the wind. Some people might not want a nationalist monoculture 'shoved down their throats', either.

Maybe not liberal-minded people like yourself, but Europeans in general are far more ethnocentric and conscious of their national identity. The Japanese and Koreans are homogeneous and intensely nationalistic societies- and you can't say they're unhappy about it, after all these are two of Asia's great economic miracles postwar.

As for Yugoslavia, the problems between groups in that region waaaaaay precede Tito's 'south Slav' socialist state. I agree that foisting a false unity on the people was a mistake, but there are similar problems with trying to apportion territory and nationalisms among people whose claims over certain land and constructions of identity have ebbed and flowed over many hundreds of years..

Europe was, let's face it, screwed up by WWI and even further screwed up by WWII. We are all paying the price for it today.

[Old Gregg]

The right of ethnic self-determination within a defined homeland where they have lived for centuries. Native Americans have self-government in the US, and are receiving such in Canada, such is their inherent and inalienable right.

Blacks have lived in North America for 400 years, do they get ethnic self-determination? What about Aboriginal Australians - could the Yolngu people (for example) secede from Australia, if they so desired? As I said before, what about groups whose 'homeland' is wholly subsumed by other territorial divisions, like Jews or Roma peope (gypsies) in Western Europe? Can Italians, Serbs or Hungarians assert sovereignty over parts of what is now Croatia, on the basis of history? What about populations that have been forced into exile from their 'homelands'; does their forced removal strip them of any rights of self-determination? Is there a formula by which you can define where certain groups 'belong', or whether they have lived in a territory long enough for it to be considered a 'homeland' over which they have rights?

Maybe not liberal-minded people like yourself, but Europeans in general are far more ethnocentric and conscious of their national identity. The Japanese and Koreans are homogeneous and intensely nationalistic societies- and you can't say they're unhappy about it, after all these are two of Asia's great economic miracles postwar.

For every Japan and Korea there is a Singapore or Canada - countries which are not ethnically homogenous but which have 'succeeded' economically and whose citizens are generally happy and prosperous. European nationalism might be on the rise in general - maybe a backlash to the EU & residual memories of Communism & dictatorships - but that doesn't automatically mean that ethnic nationalism is the natural state of affairs.

Europe was, let's face it, screwed up by WWI and even further screwed up by WWII. We are all paying the price for it today.

Yes, but WWI and WWII happened in the context of much older ideological antagonisms & territorial struggles between the European powers.

[David Votoupal]

Blacks have lived in North America for 400 years, do they get ethnic self-determination? What about Aboriginal Australians - could the Yolngu people (for example) secede from Australia, if they so desired? As I said before, what about groups whose 'homeland' is wholly subsumed by other territorial divisions, like Jews or Roma peope (gypsies) in Western Europe? Can Italians, Serbs or Hungarians assert sovereignty over parts of what is now Croatia, on the basis of history? What about populations that have been forced into exile from their 'homelands'; does their forced removal strip them of any rights of self-determination? Is there a formula by which you can define where certain groups 'belong', or whether they have lived in a territory long enough for it to be considered a 'homeland' over which they have rights?

So you're trying to trivialise or rationalise the idea of ethnicity and nationhood?

For every Japan and Korea there is a Singapore or Canada - countries which are not ethnically homogenous but which have 'succeeded' economically and whose citizens are generally happy and prosperous. European nationalism might be on the rise in general - maybe a backlash to the EU & residual memories of Communism & dictatorships - but that doesn't automatically mean that ethnic nationalism is the natural state of affairs.

Singapore is a model state in terms of its draconian authoritarianism, which is the reason it works. Canada, well, Quebec has often tried to separate from it, and isn't too keen on accepting anything other then French are they?

Remember too that Europe and Asia are facing demographic dangers as well as terrorist threats. Nationalistic policies are legitimate and acceptable in this context.

If people can't live together in harmony, is going separate ways the better option? It's like that in a relationship isn't it?

Ethnic nationalism and ethnocentricity is a legitimate position and inalienable right. Because self-determination is freedom.

[Old Gregg]

So you're trying to trivialise or rationalise the idea of ethnicity and nationhood?

Trivialise? No, obviously ethnicity is a deep and heartfelt part of peoples' identities.
Rationalise? Yes - if you think that ethnic & nationalist self-determination is an inalienable right then you'd better define exactly what those terms mean. Where do you draw the line between a group with legitimate political claims over territory, and a group which might have its own distinct 'identity' but shouldn't have political self-determination?

Singapore is a model state in terms of its draconian authoritarianism, which is the reason it works. Canada, well, Quebec has often tried to separate from it, and isn't too keen on accepting anything other then French are they?

OK. Let's take Canada. I assume you're pro-Quebec independence? Let's say Quebec secedes - now, what happens to all those Francophone communities outside the borders of Quebec (particularly I think in northern Ontario, New Brunswick & the Maritimes)? Should they, likewise, be granted independent statehood? After all, they are living in ethnically distinct communities just as old as the other English and French-speaking settlements in Canada; they are in their 'homeland'. And what about the Inuit across the north of the country - the northern parts of Quebec have large Inuit populations - could they then form their own independent state?

If people can't live together in harmony, is going separate ways the better option? It's like that in a relationship isn't it?

Some might argue that in many cases it's better to sit down and have a good talk and work through the problems. Maybe some counselling would be in order.

Ethnic nationalism and ethnocentricity is a legitimate position and inalienable right. Because self-determination is freedom.

Human rights always, always supercede group rights. The rights of individuals to remain free of religious or ethnic persecution and to make their own political choices is real freedom, and is far more important than the rights of an ethnic group to form their own state, privileging their own type, whenever they want.

Back to Yugoslavia: does an ethnically Serbian family, living on their ancestral farm, experience 'freedom' when Yugoslavia breaks up and they find themselves living on the Croatian side of the border, in a country whose particular brand of ethnic nationalism pinpoints Serbia, Serbians, Orthodox Christianity and Cyrillic script as the 'enemy' to which they are fundamentally opposed?

If you formalise and reify divisions between cultures, ethnicities and nationalisms you unavoidably leave some people on the wrong side of the border (so to speak). Some people might experience 'freedom' but others will most certainly suffer renewed persecution and removal of their rights, liberties and cultural self-worth.

[Agostinho]

The rights of individuals to remain free of religious or ethnic persecution and to make their own political choices is real freedom

[Old Gregg]

Remember too that Europe and Asia are facing demographic dangers as well as terrorist threats. Nationalistic policies are legitimate and acceptable in this context.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'demographic danger'? Danger of being swamped by outsiders?

As for terrorist threats, much of this in Europe or Asia comes from ethnonationalist separatists within the state: ETA, the IRA, Chechens in Russia, Uighurs in China, Muslims in southern Thailand, etc. They are fighting for an ethnic nationalist cause that runs counter to a competing nationalism. The State implementing tougher 'nationalist' policies will only INCREASE terrorism in these cases.

Should ethnic nationalism be given precedence over nationalism based on other principles (French nationalism, for example, based on liberte, egalite, fraternite - or American nationalism based on similar political ideals)?

[David Votoupal]

So you're trying to trivialise or rationalise the idea of ethnicity and nationhood?

Trivialise? No, obviously ethnicity is a deep and heartfelt part of peoples' identities.
Rationalise? Yes - if you think that ethnic & nationalist self-determination is an inalienable right then you'd better define exactly what those terms mean. Where do you draw the line between a group with legitimate political claims over territory, and a group which might have its own distinct 'identity' but shouldn't have political self-determination?

OK. Let's take Canada. I assume you're pro-Quebec independence? Let's say Quebec secedes - now, what happens to all those Francophone communities outside the borders of Quebec (particularly I think in northern Ontario, New Brunswick & the Maritimes)? Should they, likewise, be granted independent statehood? After all, they are living in ethnically distinct communities just as old as the other English and French-speaking settlements in Canada; they are in their 'homeland'. And what about the Inuit across the north of the country - the northern parts of Quebec have large Inuit populations - could they then form their own independent state?

The issue in Canada is more complex than that. There are sizeable Francophone communities in Ontario, Manitoba and the Maritimes. And yes, Inuit and First Nations are advancing towards self-government as part of government policy. But this is apples and cabbages here. They are not "immigrant" minority communities, the Francophones have been there practically since settlement. And the history between the Anglophone and Francophone communities there wasn't exactly rosy- see the Acadian Expulsion of 1755, which was practically the first modern case of "ethnic cleansing".

To show you how many complex factors are there in ethnicity and cultural groups, the Acadians and Franco-Ontarians are quite distinct from Quebecers, despite sharing a lot of the same heritage and language. But these two have no desire for a separate province- they're granted full recognition of their language and culture within Ontario and the Maritime provinces. It is a stark situation to Quebec, where the exodus of its Anglo population since 1976 (mostly around Montreal, but border areas around Ottawa are heavily mixed on both sides) contributed to its economic decline. Quebec's pursuance of a monolingual policy borders on discriminatory, but no other province in Canada would ever get away with this.

I might be shockingly ethnocentric and Eurocentric to you but you will never ever force me to change that.

Some countries have the right idea that only one culture and language is to be promoted above all else, and people living there have to accept that. Franco did that in Spain, and it was definitely wrong for him to repress non-Spanish languages and cultures, but it is what is needed in Australia.