Attention Ostriches!

Biffa Bacon

I was born and bred in England. In the area I grew up in 1 out of every 4 people was from an ethic minority. 1 in every 10 was Irish. According to those afraid/worried by the notion of a multi-cultural society, this was a tinderbox waiting to catch fire.

Now here's a strange thing. Not once in 20 years did I see racial violence in my home town of near 100,000 people. Not that racial violence doesn't exist, simply that we seemed remarkably free of it.

Racial violence is not the only problem arising from multiculturalism. Multiculturalism can also engender alienation, both among the existing inhabitants and the immigrants. People no longer feel “at home” in their own country. When a society becomes multicultural, the native culture inevitably loses its dominant position. The psychological effects of this cannot be ignored.

So what was the magic ingredient for this multicultural nirvana? A lack of poverty. The town was in the South East of England and employment was high, salaries were good. Everyone lived well, so no one begrudged the person next door their living, no matter what background they had. Or how they chose to live.

Most people round these boards obviously didn't grow up in a multicultural society, so I'll explain it simply. Multiculturalism does not cause trouble. Poverty does.

Get a group and systematically exclude them - Catholics in the North - and you engender resentment and social unrest. Take a section of society and disenfranchise them - young black males in places like Bristol - and you have the makings of serious upheaval. In places like Oldham and Burnley, if both white and Asian working class people had decent standards of living and good houses to live in, there would be no race riots.

It’s getting off the point somewhat but I have to take issue with this. Poverty does not cause trouble. Knackers cause trouble. How are Catholics in the North or young black males in Bristol excluded or disenfranchised? They’re not. But they riot and commit crimes because they are dirtbag knackers. Poverty doesn’t come into it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
What you are talking about in terms of the yuppie and the junky is really differences in lifestyle rather than differences in culture. As you’ve pointed out, in terms of the multiculturalism debate, “culture” really refers to national identity, which means that multiculturalism is all about having a lot of different national identities co-existing within the one nation.

No, different culture. All nations are to one degree or other multicultural. All you need is a thread on blood sports to start and you’ll suddenly see the urban-rural divide appear. The same with the, effectively, different cultures that form between social classes. When a lifestyle is inherited, you have the defacto basis of a culture or sub-culture.

Let’s not get confused between multiculturalism and multiracialism here. The beneficial aspects of multiculturalism you mention are benefits of multiracialism surely? We could have total assimilation of the immigrant groups, i.e. no multiculturalism, and yet still have the benefits of multiracialism.

I agree that multiculturalism and multiracialism differ. As such the beneficial aspects of multiculturalism I mentioned would not necessarily be in any way related to multiracialism. Also, there’s no such thing as ‘total assimilation’ or ‘homocultural’ societies.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sharkey
here in the U.S. people come to escape the sh!tholes they come from -- then they want to recreate the same cultural atmosphere that made their countires sh!tholes.

You must be joking...

First of all, what do you base your premise that it was their culture that made their countires 'sh!tholes'?

Second, how are they likely to adapt and adopt to a culture that is a fabricated invention anyhow?

Rufus T Firefly

Okay, once again, really slowly. Racial violence does not arise - inevitably, inexorably - from multiculturalism. If it did, everywhere there is multiculturalism, there would be violence. And there isn't.

People can live different lives in peaceful co-existence with people from different cultures, following different lifestyles, armed only with a modicum of understanding. If you'd grown up anywhere other than an all-white, all-Irish neighbourhood all your life you'd know this.

Even Pim Fortuyn - who would hate the fact that he's been adopted as a far right martyr - wasn't anti-immigrant. His beef was actually with the intolerant fundamentalist form of Islam, that went against the very strong Dutch traditions of tolerance and peaceful co-existence of cultures. He was a multiculturalist.

Holland has a strong tradition of multiculturalism, as has France. They don't want to assimliate other cultures in their midst, they want to celebrate them. Address issues arising from them for sure (as Pim Fortuyn did), but not to create a homogenous culture.

As for the bit about the Nothern Catholics and young men from Bristol not being disenfranchised, well at the start of the troubles you were three times more likely to unemployed if you were a Catholic. Among young Catholic men the rate was even higher. You were last in line for housing and benefits and could rely on the RUC and B Specials to treat you like a 2nd class citizen. Not a breeding ground for discontent then?

In Bristol, after the 1980's race riots, the goverment report found that unemployment amongst young black men from the St. Pauls area was 95%. If that's not disenfranchised, then I don't know what is. I'd gently suggest that if the unemployment rate was similar in Dublin, its young men would be rioting too.

But you're right about some things. Multi-culturalism can cause problems, if immigration levels are too high for the economy to support a decent standard of living for all the citizens. But it's nothing as esoteric as the psycholgical effect of the interlopers on the dominant native culture, rather - as happened in England - the dominant culture looking for scapegoats when times are hard. Poverty creates resentment.

And knackers DO cause trouble. Usually they push **** through the letterboxes of black families and throw bricks through the windows of small Asian cornershops. Invariably they're from the native culture. Gotta hate them knackers eh?

Biffa Bacon

No, different culture. All nations are to one degree or other multicultural. All you need is a thread on blood sports to start and you’ll suddenly see the urban-rural divide appear. The same with the, effectively, different cultures that form between social classes. When a lifestyle is inherited, you have the defacto basis of a culture or sub-culture.

But not culture in the sense of a separate national identity, which surely is what is meant by “culture” in the terms of this debate?

As such the beneficial aspects of multiculturalism I mentioned would not necessarily be in any way related to multiracialism.

Well first you said: “Integration of the new culture is necessary as much for the introduction of these new ideas as it is for anything else.” And yet if the new culture integrates then there cannot be multiculturalism, only the one integrated culture. So how can you claim these benefits arise from multiculturalism if integration is necessary for them to be realised?

Also, there’s no such thing as ‘total assimilation’ or ‘homocultural’ societies.

So who in Ireland today considers themselves Viking or Norman?

Biffa Bacon

Holland has a strong tradition of multiculturalism, as has France. They don't want to assimliate other cultures in their midst, they want to celebrate them.

Surely many of them do? Jean Marie Le Pen and pals?

As for the bit about the Nothern Catholics and young men from Bristol not being disenfranchised, well at the start of the troubles you were three times more likely to unemployed if you were a Catholic. Among young Catholic men the rate was even higher. You were last in line for housing and benefits and could rely on the RUC and B Specials to treat you like a 2nd class citizen. Not a breeding ground for discontent then?

Who cares about the start of the Troubles? We’re talking about Northern Ireland today.

In Bristol, after the 1980's race riots, the goverment report found that unemployment amongst young black men from the St. Pauls area was 95%. If that's not disenfranchised, then I don't know what is.

The unemployment rate is irrelevant to whether they were disenfranchised or not. Were they lazy or stupid? Or were they all discriminated against because of their race?

I'd gently suggest that if the unemployment rate was similar in Dublin, its young men would be rioting too.

So? If they did they would be criminals who would deserve to be jailed.

But it's nothing as esoteric as the psycholgical effect of the interlopers on the dominant native culture…

Are you suggesting alienation is not a problem?

Gotta hate them knackers eh?

Absolutely.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But not culture in the sense of a separate national identity, which surely is what is meant by “culture” in the terms of this debate?

In this debate, yes, but it’s important that we consider what culture is in the first place. The Irish have a separate national identity, but scratch the surface and you’ll find that this identity is not all that homogeneous after all, but subdivided into various sub-cultures.

So how can you claim these benefits arise from multiculturalism if integration is necessary for them to be realised?

The benefits that arise from the integration of a foreign culture into a domestic one require multiculturalism to be present initially. If cultural development is an ongoing process, then multiculturalism is always required. However, where I would concur with you is in how this is handled by either culture.

So who in Ireland today considers themselves Viking or Norman?

I hardly consider myself a Celt, Roman or Etruscan either. But people will consider themselves or describe themselves Travellers, Anglo-Irish, Northsiders, Culchies, or whatever. It’s foolish to assume there is just one basic culture in any nation.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So who in Ireland today considers themselves Viking or Norman?

Few if any I imagine, but is there anyone in the world who considers themselves Viking or Norman? But taking only those that have lived here for more than say 20 years, many consider themselves (as an identity different from the 'standard') Huguenot, Protestant (of various Presbyterian and Anglican groups), Northern Ireland Protestant, British, English, Irish-English, English-Irish, Scottish, Irish-American, American-Irish, Jewish (those Jews that immigrated over the centuries and in particular 1933-1939), German (those that immigrated in the period 1928-1948 as civil, electrical and mechanical engineers and technicians, and then post 1973 as industrialists and environmentalists), Dutch (much like the later Germans), Italian (1945-1970), Czech (1939-1949), Polish (1939-1949), Vietnamese (1970s), Chinese (1970s-1980s), South-African (1970s-1980s), Iranian Bahai (sp) (1970s-1980s), Pakistani and various Arab groups (1980s).

All these people brought new ideas, new methods of working, new money, new trade links, new arts, new music. While each group may not all have made huge impacts individually or collectively, without them Ireland would be very much in poorer and still be living very much in past (knock 10-30 years off development). All maintained there own character and culture, while adding to Irish culture.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Surely many of them do? Jean Marie Le Pen and pals?

Kindly replace "many" with "some". And the last time I looked, Le Pen was being whooped in an election.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Who cares about the start of the Troubles? We’re talking about Northern Ireland today.

The problem in Northern Ireland is historical and conflict based. The problem there is that most areas are either 90% one side or 90% the other. Above that figure the majority do not feel threatened and the minority do not go out of their way to make trouble, below that figure some parts of the majority feel threatened and some parts of the minority feel "safe" enough to cause trouble.

Sand

The reason the north is so f-cked up is not 'multiculturalism' or even (more accurately) 'pluralism', is the politics of the place - which are not based on multiculturalism.

I would have thought the North's unique politics arise from its multiculturalism - two cultures - one nationalist Irish, the other unionist Irish/British, the importance of symbols , epecially for the police force and other state institutions (Flags and RUC stations) , and the differing reactions a visit by the head of state can bring about, given her identification with one particular "tribe", A certain football player gets booed by his own supporters because he plays for Celtic ( A gross stupidity only matched by the fans at Ireland games whove decided to embarrass everyone by booing anyone remotely connected to Rangers - its their culture apparently ). The major political question is not "Right or Left" but "Irish or British" -i.e. a question of culture. Granted I could be wrong but this is the impression I get.

Regards poverty being a cause for social division- Id agree to an extent but it doesnt explain all situations- India's hindu and muslim communities have been trying to kill each other off for the past few months in areas where theyre equally poor. Surely their resentment would be directed at those who had more than them?

Von

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Keep it there.

The p1ss off and don’t post to it.

If you adjudge my argument to be "stupid" then follow your own advice, and desist from responding to it.

I see. I’d prefer to work with objectivity and facts myself.

You might think you do but you don't. Like the time you called me a "middle class communist" and claimed that the people beaten in sleeping bags in Genoa by the police were anarchists and deserved no sympathy. Like any nationalist in the Orwellian sense, under certain circumstances, you're all too ready to ignore facts and information that might contradict your own prejudices and be inconsistent with your allegiances.

If you’re in favour of taking away the right to free speech to some for the good of humanity or society, be it right or wrong, don’t come sobbing to us about someone doing the same to you or those who you might support.

More vapid moral equivalence. I can launch my Wog’n’Wop Hater’s Monthly magazine without fear of someone suppressing my democratic right to free speech then? Free to schoolchildren. And why oh why doesn’t someone show old nazi propaganda films on the telly? The ever reasonable humanitarian democrat Ian Paisley was simply exercising his right to free speech by calling out names and addresses of Catholic families who were subsequently burnt out of their homes wasn’t he?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
If you adjudge my argument to be "stupid" then follow your own advice, and desist from responding to it.

You gave two clear statements indicating that you were uninterested in argument, only abuse. I’ll respond to argument, but I know when to call it a day too and give up on any attempt to reason with the unreasonable, so I flamed you.

You might think you do but you don't. Like the time you called me a "middle class communist" and claimed that the people beaten in sleeping bags in Genoa by the police were anarchists and deserved no sympathy. Like any nationalist in the Orwellian sense, under certain circumstances, you're all too ready to ignore facts and information that might contradict your own prejudices and be inconsistent with your allegiances.

You are a ‘middle class communist’, another suburban brat regurgitating revolutionary rhetoric. You’re not interested in argument, in differing points of view, because you arrive here only to covert, not to actually test your convictions. I doubt if you’ve backed down from a single argument here. Ever.

You accuse me of inconsistency yet consistently avoid questions that you feel uncomfortable, or would expose the contradictions and hypocrisy in your faith, or else you will respond with a further barrage of psudo-intellectual dogma backed but with dubious, and generally irrelevant, material. If all else fails perhaps an extreme example will prove your point.

As I said above, I responded to your posting nothing but pure drivel and abuse against someone you obviously consider The Enemy. I don’t agree with the chap in question, but I’ll hear him out, and not out of any belief of freedom of speech, but because I’m competent enough to argue with him, and I’m intelligent enough to accept that however confident I am of being right in my convictions, I’m not so arrogant as to believe that I cannot be wrong.

Von

I can list examples of multiculturalism off all day long, and have, where it doesnt work.

You should ask why it doesnt work and look at where and how it does work. Mass media, naturally enough, focuses on negatives and always has done. “No racial tension today” would not make a newsworthy story.

Its not case of "saying". I ask you, do you think the Irish Government can get right what so many others have got so badly wrong? I dont.

Trying is the first step towards failure. So don’t. Gotcha. If everyone applied that sort of optimism to everyday life where would we be? Still grunting at each other and fighting over berries probably.

Its laughable to suggest I want an all white society, if that were the case a relative of mine might be on the first boat out of here.

It’s laughable to suggest that anyone coming here can magically conform to whatever the Irish stereotype is which is what some of those on the right and left seem to expect.

Immigration in and of itself is fine so long as it suits Irelands economic needs - we should just be careful not to allow multiculturalism (i.e not an integrated culture but rather two sperate competing cultures).

Knock down the mosques and synagogues cos they compete with Catholic Church Inc. for consumers? Are you suggesting that Ireland abandons its international obligations, stops unemployed EU citizens coming here to look for work and refuses entry to asylum seekers? “Wassat? Raped? Tortured? Family butchered? Too bad. Serves you right for being weak.” The more destructive the war and the more oppressive the regime, the more asylum seekers there’ll be, so limiting numbers is tricky. Closing the doors is not an option and neither is it good enough to take the PC lefty view and expect that anyone who comes here from a different culture will have no prejudices or intolerances of their own which conflict with Ireland’s essentially liberal values (re:sexism, religious/political tolerance, homophobia) and will "fit in" automatically. But don’t kid yourself that someone from an EU country will necessarily “fit in” here easier than someone from an LDC. In some EU nations, sexism and misogyny is quite normal. Here, it’s seen as antisocial and unacceptable.

So all in all youre justification for multiculturalism is that itll solve racism (unproven at the very least) and add new ideas which couldnt be got by actually looking at other cultures anyway? Well sign me up. Why didnt they think of this solution for the north years ago?

I and pretty much everyone I know who has lived in multicultural societies would be inclined to say that the racial and cultural stereotypes we acquired while growing up were in most cases destroyed through direct personal experience. In some cases they were reinforced but all in all it’s a waste of mental energy trying to convince yourself that individuals should conform to tabloid caricatures. I got my first “introduction” to a criminal gang the hard way on my first night working in a pub in London. They were Irish and behaved in a deeply unpleasant fashion. The violence and the language children! Should I infer that all Irish people should henceforth be judged according to that experience? I think there’s a possibility that Ireland’s insane and unhealthy booze centred culture (I'm just back from being out) will eventually be changed by multiculturalism. Public drunkenness is tolerated and encouraged here. Elsewhere it’s not and for very good reasons.

I don’t think you can push a button and download the experience of interacting with people who we are informed are too different or savage to have anything in common with us or have anything worth knowing. To suggest you can is utterly sad.

You see youre coming into this discussing ( ranting about? ) immigration- Im discussing multiculturalism. Northern Ireland is a perfect example of multiculturalism. The Balkans are another. Why havent these eliminated racism and become cultural centers to rival the best in the world?

There you go again. As far as I’m aware, it’s not Irish govt and business community policy to actively discriminate against any one section of the populace in favour of another on the basis of religious or political grounds as was the case in NI. There are no plans to create an apartheid style two or three tier society here. You could argue that we already have a two-tier society and perhaps attention should be focused on resolving that before we’re into a “gated communities surrounded by ghettos” scenario. People in my class at school would lie about their addresses when applying for jobs. Instead of saying they were from Finglas or Ballymun they’d say they were from Glasnevin, a much nicer part of Dublin 11 altogether.

No culture from NI? For what it’s worth, John Peel’s favourite record of all time is Teenage Kicks by The Undertones (who are imo the best band Ireland has ever had). As for down here, what about Phil Lynott? The nig nog? Thin Lizzy are reckoned to be a huge influence on rock music. “Tonight there’s gonna be a jailbreak – somewhere in the town.” The jail Philo! Try the jail!

Von

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You are a ‘middle class communist’, another suburban brat regurgitating revolutionary rhetoric.

Tish and fipsy. Are you some kind of class warrior then? Did the huddled rabble of the lower classes choose you to be their spokesman cos you talk all pompous and posh like? And let's suppose I am "middle class" then you are obviously "lower class" and so should you not kowtow to your social betters and stop with the insolent talking back hmm? What's a class system without some discipline and faith in Order? Chaos. Revolutionary rhetoric? What are you on? Do you read the papers? Look at the news? The world is heading rapidly into an all out state of crap in case you hadn't noticed while you cheer on fascists, real ones, for beating up naive kids.

You’re not interested in argument, in differing points of view, because you arrive here only to covert, not to actually test your convictions.

If I wasn't interested in differing points of view I'd actually be out of a job. So I can assure you that's bollocks.

I doubt if you’ve backed down from a single argument here. Ever.

Well there was this one time me ma told me to do the washing up and it was me sister's turn but I ended up doing it anyway. So unfair. Oh here? Well probably.

You accuse me of inconsistency yet consistently avoid questions that you feel uncomfortable, or would expose the contradictions and hypocrisy in your faith,

Everyone, to some degree, has contradictions and double standards. Except you apparently.

or else you will respond with a further barrage of psudo-intellectual dogma backed but with dubious, and generally irrelevant, material. If all else fails perhaps an extreme example will prove your point.

Pseudo-intellectual dogma? Wha'? If I use oblique references or there's anything you don't understand, ask and I'll offer an explanation with crayons. And you the voice of reason's considered response to someone you don't agree with is to accuse them of being a "middle class communist." That's not extreme? That's gas.

As I said above, I responded to your posting nothing but pure drivel and abuse against someone you obviously consider The Enemy. I don’t agree with the chap in question, but I’ll hear him out, and not out of any belief of freedom of speech, but because I’m competent enough to argue with him, and I’m intelligent enough to accept that however confident I am of being right in my convictions, I’m not so arrogant as to believe that I cannot be wrong.

Do I need to pick out examples where you've abused others and refused to argue with them? Of course you're that arrogant. Don't be absurd.

I thought your other post was quite good. Thread doomed methinks.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
Tish and fipsy. Are you some kind of class warrior then? Did the huddled rabble of the lower classes choose you to be their spokesman cos you talk all pompous and posh like? And let's suppose I am "middle class" then you are obviously "lower class" and so should you not kowtow to your social betters and stop with the insolent talking back hmm?

At this stage Von you should have realised that I’ve no interest in class conflict, and no, I’m not ‘lower’ or ‘working’ class, and neither do I have pretensions to portray myself as such.

Chaos. Revolutionary rhetoric? What are you on? Do you read the papers? Look at the news? The world is heading rapidly into an all out state of crap in case you hadn't noticed while you cheer on fascists, real ones, for beating up naive kids.

Of course I read the papers and hear the news, but it’s not all one big international Masonic/Capitalist/Zionist (depending upon your political extreme) conspiracy.

Poor little naïve kids – yet, you would cheer on the same violence as long as it was directed against the bad guys. You can have this double standard, but don’t ask me or anyone else to accept it.

Everyone, to some degree, has contradictions and double standards. Except you apparently.

Of course I do. Everyone does, it’s human nature. And you should argue against mine as much as I do against yours.

Pseudo-intellectual dogma? Wha'? If I use oblique references or there's anything you don't understand, ask and I'll offer an explanation with crayons. And you the voice of reason's considered response to someone you don't agree with is to accuse them of being a "middle class communist." That's not extreme? That's gas.

You’re not the worst by any means in this regard, but there is a difference between oblique and obfuscation. You’re the one who brought up being a "middle class communist" in this thread, and tried to obfuscate my original point to you:

You posted nothing but abuse against what you appeared to be an easy target, I posted back, given you had blatantly no intention of debating and abuse was all you were willing to contribute, that you should p1ss off. Then you surreally, accused me of not debating the matter with you and turn the discussion completely off topic.

Do I need to pick out examples where you've abused others and refused to argue with them? Of course you're that arrogant. Don't be absurd.

Nobody’s perfect. I honestly try to be open to argument. You don’t.

I thought your other post was quite good. Thread doomed methinks.

You’ll consider one of my posts or anyone else’s as good only as long as they’re on the same side of the debate as yourself. This thread may well have run it’s course, it’s gone on for a while and OT discussions are beginning to dominate it. I suppose there we agree.

Biffa Bacon

In this debate, yes, but it’s important that we consider what culture is in the first place. The Irish have a separate national identity, but scratch the surface and you’ll find that this identity is not all that homogeneous after all, but subdivided into various sub-cultures.

I don’t dispute that, but you cannot claim that this makes Ireland multicultural if you accept that “culture” in this discussion refers to national identity.

The benefits that arise from the integration of a foreign culture into a domestic one require multiculturalism to be present initially. If cultural development is an ongoing process, then multiculturalism is always required.

Does this mean you see multiculturalism not as a desirable goal in itself, but as an inevitable yet temporary by-product of cultural development? And in if multiculturalism is always required, does this mean there must always be new immigrant groups coming into the country?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Victor

Few if any I imagine, but is there anyone in the world who considers themselves Viking or Norman? But taking only those that have lived here for more than say 20 years, many consider themselves (as an identity different from the 'standard') Huguenot, Protestant (of various Presbyterian and Anglican groups), Northern Ireland Protestant, British, English, Irish-English, English-Irish, Scottish, Irish-American, American-Irish, Jewish (those Jews that immigrated over the centuries and in particular 1933-1939), German (those that immigrated in the period 1928-1948 as civil, electrical and mechanical engineers and technicians, and then post 1973 as industrialists and environmentalists), Dutch (much like the later Germans), Italian (1945-1970), Czech (1939-1949), Polish (1939-1949), Vietnamese (1970s), Chinese (1970s-1980s), South-African (1970s-1980s), Iranian Bahai (sp) (1970s-1980s), Pakistani and various Arab groups (1980s).

None of them are here in significant enough numbers for Ireland to be reasonably considered multicultural.

While each group may not all have made huge impacts individually or collectively, without them Ireland would be very much in poorer and still be living very much in past (knock 10-30 years off development).

Come off it, that figure's completely made up.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Victor
Kindly replace "many" with "some". And the last time I looked, Le Pen was being whooped in an election.

"Many" doesn't suggest a majority if that's what you're thinking. And the figure's certainly in the millions.

The problem in Northern Ireland is historical and conflict based. The problem there is that most areas are either 90% one side or 90% the other. Above that figure the majority do not feel threatened and the minority do not go out of their way to make trouble, below that figure some parts of the majority feel threatened and some parts of the minority feel "safe" enough to cause trouble.

I agree that NI isn't a good example of the perils of multiculturalism. I was just disputing that poverty lay at the heart of the Northern conflict.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I don’t dispute that, but you cannot claim that this makes Ireland multicultural if you accept that “culture” in this discussion refers to national identity.

I accept that, to a degree (there have long been immigrant communities in Ireland). But you should also accept that what differeciates a sub-culture to a different culture is also largely a simple question of degree (national identity as a metre is another discussion, your view of your Irishness would not neccessarly concur with that ot others, for example).

Does this mean you see multiculturalism not as a desirable goal in itself, but as an inevitable yet temporary by-product of cultural development?

Multiculturalism in the model I proposed is not a by-product but an input. As for temporary, that depends, again, on how it's introduced. In itself, I don't consider it a negative thing, but when badly handled it can be, like anything else in Society.

And in if multiculturalism is always required, does this mean there must always be new immigrant groups coming into the country?

Yes. Again depending on how alien cultures are introduced.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
None of them are here in significant enough numbers for Ireland to be reasonably considered multicultural.

Then who were all these people? http://www.cso.ie/principalstats/cenrel.html

Year - 1981
Total persons		 3,443,405
Catholic		 3,204,476
Church of Ireland	    95,366
Presbyterian		    14,255
Methodist		     5,790
Jewish			     2,127
Other stated religions*	    10,843
No religion		    39,572
Not stated		    70,976

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Come off it, that figure's completely made up.

Well kindly kiss the following goodbye: Ardnacrusha, rural electrification, peat electrical generation, Siemens, Ford, Dunlop, VW, GM, Verolme shipyard, Liebherr, Aughinish Alumina, Quinnsworth, Marathon Oil, the discovery of natural gas, the Irish Soccer Team, Riverdance, Intel, Dell, HP.

Way too many "bloody foreigners" involved there, eh?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Victor


Then who were all these people?...

People of different religions. So? What's that got to do with there not being enough foreign people living here for Ireland to be reasonably considered multicultural?

Well kindly kiss the following goodbye: Ardnacrusha, rural electrification, peat electrical generation, Siemens, Ford, Dunlop, VW, GM, Verolme shipyard, Liebherr, Aughinish Alumina, Quinnsworth, Marathon Oil, the discovery of natural gas, the Irish Soccer Team, Riverdance, Intel, Dell, HP.

I was questioning the 10 to 30 years remark, i.e. you plucked a figure out of thin air.

Way too many "bloody foreigners" involved there, eh? [/B]

I'm getting sick of those idiotic snide remarks. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that I am not racist or xenophobic as I have spelled out already numerous times.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
People of different religions. So? What's that got to do with there not being enough foreign people living here for Ireland to be reasonably considered multicultural?

But if you looked at individual areas, e.g. the old Dun Laoghaire borough, the % of non-catholics and non-Irish was (and is) much higher. Is it Ballyhaunis that has the Halal meat plant, that employed dozens of Muslims?

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I was questioning the 10 to 30 years remark, i.e. you plucked a figure out of thin air.

A guesstimate, all those projects were dependant on foreign people, simply because there was no skills base here. to take the example of Ardnacrusha, if it was built with German help in the late twenties, electification would not have progressed until after 1945 (when it would have been harder to do as the engineers would have been off re-building Europe).

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I'm getting sick of those idiotic snide remarks. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that I am not racist or xenophobic as I have spelled out already numerous times.

Sand

You should ask why it doesnt work and look at where and how it does work. Mass media, naturally enough, focuses on negatives and always has done. “No racial tension today” would not make a newsworthy story.

It "works" where people integrate into the host culture and at most offer a slightly different aspect to the host culture. As such its not multiculturalism but rather an integrated culture and identity.

Knock down the mosques and synagogues cos they compete with Catholic Church Inc. for consumers? Are you suggesting that Ireland abandons its international obligations, stops unemployed EU citizens coming here to look for work and refuses entry to asylum seekers? “Wassat? Raped? Tortured? Family butchered? Too bad. Serves you right for being weak.”

Sigh. [Sarcasm] Oh yeah sure [/Sarcasm] . You know you seem to be the one with the rabid fixation on the Catholic Church. Its meaningless to me (and a lot of Irish people given attendances) whilst you cant seem to enter into making a post without ranting on about it. As for asylum seekers theyre not immigrants, despite the rampant abuse of our asylum system by immigrants of late.

I don’t think you can push a button and download the experience of interacting with people who we are informed are too different or savage to have anything in common with us or have anything worth knowing. To suggest you can is utterly sad.

So youre accepting people who dont agree with you might actually have something worth *not* ranting at?

And which particular people have I (or anyone for that matter) decided are too different or savage to have anything in common with us? I dont care who comes to Ireland. Personally I find people from abroad interesting, worth more attention than the Outraged Protest Party resident on every campus, full of people who are livid they missed the 60s. So you can stop ranting and raving about racism and other assorted crap - My position is that I simply dont see why Ireland needs to allow a situation to develop where social division is increased. It seems only wise to encourage integration, to remove any cause for resentments that might develop between the host culture and any immigrating cultures and generally avoid like the plague the situations which have developed in other "multicultural" countries.

bonkey

Lads - getting back to the question of multiculturalism (as opposed to sniping at each other) Id like to know this :

Do you think Ireland should back out of its EU comitments to allow freedom of movement and employment to EU citizens?

If you are not in favour of multiculturalism, surely this is the biggest threat? I mean - we can toughen up our immigration laws all you like, but the EU freedom of movement will sooner or later migrate large numbers of foreign cultures within our borders.

Will this be a problem? Look at many EU nations - there is a large degree of inter-nation migration there, with even the British having very strong "ex-pat" communities in many nations. What if we end up the same - we could have French, Italian, etc. ex-pat communities springing up in Ireland.

I'm not trying to bait people...I'm seriously wondering if you consider this an issue, and if so, what the solution would be.

jc

mike65

Lads - getting back to the question of multiculturalism

Glad someone said that Victor!

As for repelling all borders, well its a bit late now as it would require leaving the EU which won't happen not even if SF take power.

There are as you note many ex-pat communities but I dont think they operate as such - I'm not aware of any "Dog and Duck" English theme pubs here!

Inwards migration is only an issue if its not recognised as being a reality and ajusted to in an appropriate fashion which for me would be to educate both the Irish to the matter of the fact and
to, how can I put this?, show to the incommer whats expected of them ie obey the laws of the state, pay your taxes (ahem), vote early and often...be more honest than some of the natives!

Mike.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Lads - getting back to the question of multiculturalism (as opposed to sniping at each other) Id like to know this :

Do you think Ireland should back out of its EU comitments to allow freedom of movement and employment to EU citizens?

If you are not in favour of multiculturalism, surely this is the biggest threat? I mean - we can toughen up our immigration laws all you like, but the EU freedom of movement will sooner or later migrate large numbers of foreign cultures within our borders.

Will this be a problem? Look at many EU nations - there is a large degree of inter-nation migration there, with even the British having very strong "ex-pat" communities in many nations. What if we end up the same - we could have French, Italian, etc. ex-pat communities springing up in Ireland.

I'm not trying to bait people...I'm seriously wondering if you consider this an issue, and if so, what the solution would be.

jc

My feeling would be that since it's not an issue at the moment, there's no point in making it an issue. Note also that freedom of movement does not guarantee a right to citizenship in another EU member state.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Will this be a problem? Look at many EU nations - there is a large degree of inter-nation migration there, with even the British having very strong "ex-pat" communities in many nations. What if we end up the same - we could have French, Italian, etc. ex-pat communities springing up in Ireland.

Much of the immigration from the EU has been fairly transient and mirrors Irish immigration to EU countries (with the exception of the UK prior to joining the EU) in that people arrive, stay for a while, work and then go back to their home nation. From what I can see, much of it is in the 18 - 30 age bracket and not dissimilar to how young Irish have behaved in Munich over the years.

(As an aside, it’s interesting to note how we now complain of EU nationals screwing our social welfare system - not that we would abuse it ourselves :rolleyes: However, if we look at the Munich analogy, which was a popular destination in the early nineties for young Irish due to the number of jobs that could be had there, in particular from BMW, we shouldn’t forget how we screwed the Germans too, thanks to the similar dimensions shared by the Deutchmark and the old five pence piece )

The EU is fairly homogenous economically, as such there’s no major incentive for one to emigrate from one nation state to another for economic reasons. As such, we’re unlikely to see much permanent immigration as long as this status quo is maintained. One curious exception is the popularity, in particular with Germans and Dutch, with the west of Ireland as a retirement destination (I suppose the Costa Del Sol was too full of English ).

As for ‘ex-pat’ communities, there have been numerous such communities and ‘international’ associations present in Ireland for years; for example, my mother (who’s Irish but married to a non-national) is a member of an ‘International Women’s’ association and my father has been solicited (without success) for years to become a member of the local Italian ‘ex-pat’ club, which is odd, because he’s neither a chipper or restaurateur...

mike65

Originally posted by The Corinthian

...my father has been solicited (without success) for years to become a member of the local Italian ‘ex-pat’ club, which is odd, because he’s neither a chipper or restaurateur...

Has he ever been an ice-cream vendor...;)

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
There are as you note many ex-pat communities but I dont think they operate as such - I'm not aware of any "Dog and Duck" English theme pubs here!

Not in Ireland...but there are on the continent. My argument is that the same would/could/will happen here with European cultures.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
My feeling would be that since it's not an issue at the moment, there's no point in making it an issue.

Why not? We're making an issue of the "forseeable" problems that our current policies may end us up in down the road. Are you not the person who was posting saying that you have no objections to the influx of foreign cultures, as long as they are not in such large numbers that they cause multiculturalism? Surely this is also making an issue of something thats not an issue at the moment?

Originally posted by The Corinthian Much of the immigration from the EU has been fairly transient and mirrors Irish immigration to EU countries (with the exception of the UK prior to joining the EU) in that people arrive, stay for a while, work and then go back to their home nation. From what I can see, much of it is in the 18 - 30 age bracket and not dissimilar to how young Irish have behaved in Munich over the years.

But isnt such a revolving door going to result in people who are never here long enough, individually, to integrate into our culture, but who - as a group - are here long enough and in large neough numbers to have a truly multicultural influence.

My basic point is that I'm amazed how willing we are to accept these things despite the fact that when you look at them from a cultural impact point of view, they are as multicultural in influence as the things we do have concerns about.....from my persepective. THis, once again, leads me to the conclusion that it is not multiculturalism that people have a problem with, but rather specific cultures. Of course - I cant see anyone ever admitting to that one.....

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mike65
Has he ever been an ice-cream vendor...;)

Ahem. No.

Originally posted by bonkey
But isnt such a revolving door going to result in people who are never here long enough, individually, to integrate into our culture, but who - as a group - are here long enough and in large neough numbers to have a truly multicultural influence.

I suspect not, but if anything pick something up from here that they eventually bring home, not unlike we might after even being on holiday in a foreign country.

My basic point is that I'm amazed how willing we are to accept these things despite the fact that when you look at them from a cultural impact point of view, they are as multicultural in influence as the things we do have concerns about.....from my persepective. THis, once again, leads me to the conclusion that it is not multiculturalism that people have a problem with, but rather specific cultures. Of course - I cant see anyone ever admitting to that one.....

I suspect you're right to a great extent, although the shear volume is another thing that is causing such xenophobic reactions in general.

mike65

THis, once again, leads me to the conclusion that it is not multiculturalism that people have a problem with, but rather specific cultures. Of course - I cant see anyone ever admitting to that one.....

True, no-one will worry about crazy clock-watching Germans, the Irish can live with that, crazy guys with wild eyes shouting "death to the great satan!" is quite another matter....:D

There, I said it!

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I suspect you're right to a great extent, although the shear volume is another thing that is causing such xenophobic reactions in general.

Sure....but I would still maintain that the sheer volume is not the problem, but rather the cultures which constitute that volume.

I live in Switzerland. They (the Swiss) have 4 national languages, and english is not that far removed from being a fifth.

These languages strongly correlate to different large cultural groups within the nation itself., which can then be subdivided into smaller distinct cultural groups.

This nation, even if it had no outsiders, would be highly multicultural.

Add to that the fact that the population is about 15% non-Swiss. 1 in every 7 people living here is not Swiss. Many of these people also have formed their own "community cultures" - the Albanians being a particularly noticeable group, due to their relative size.

Whats the impact of this? Very little. Certain specific nationalities are known to be far more active in illegal activities, but that neither reflects on the multiculturalism in general, nor indeed on the attitudes most people here hold towards the individual. It also, incidentally, has not led to a clampdown on immigration from these nations.

Interestingly....I see no evidence of any of this massive influx of foreign cultures weakening Swiss traditions or the Swiss culture in general. We're talking in excess of 1 million foreigners in a country of 7 million total, and they havent had a significant impact on the culture.

So - what is the problem, if not with ourselves, rather than the immigrants, when we say that multiculturalism is a bad thing.

Ultimately, someone against multiculturalism would probably start making exceptions when put to it. I mean - obviously the multiple indigenous cultures are all exempt from multiculturalism causing problems. And people from most english-speaking nations probably arent a problem either - they can fit in. And, well, I'm sure a number of nations would also be OK because, well, people from there are nice.

Like I said - multiculturalism is not the problem. It is something far more specific than that....but admitting to it would get you called all sorts of nasty names.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Why not? We're making an issue of the "forseeable" problems that our current policies may end us up in down the road. Are you not the person who was posting saying that you have no objections to the influx of foreign cultures, as long as they are not in such large numbers that they cause multiculturalism? Surely this is also making an issue of something thats not an issue at the moment?

It’s not an issue at the moment because people are not coming to Ireland from the rest of the EU in large numbers, despite the fact that they are legally entitled to do so. There is also the fact that our EU treaty obligations only extend as far as allowing people from the rest of the EU in to work here; it does not automatically grant people citizenship.

Immigration is an issue at the moment because some people want to loosen our immigration laws and some want to tighten them up. Loosening our immigration laws would have a much greater effect on the multicultural nature of our society than the EU’s freedom of movement provisions.

But isnt such a revolving door going to result in people who are never here long enough, individually, to integrate into our culture, but who - as a group - are here long enough and in large enough numbers to have a truly multicultural influence.

Not really. First, they are not arriving in large numbers and second they are not granted citizenship and thus don’t really belong to society.

THis, once again, leads me to the conclusion that it is not multiculturalism that people have a problem with, but rather specific cultures. Of course - I cant see anyone ever admitting to that one.....

Well now you see that you’re wrong.

Like I said - multiculturalism is not the problem. It is something far more specific than that....but admitting to it would get you called all sorts of nasty names.

Are you suggesting this applies to me also? Because I would take offence at that.

Biffa Bacon

I notice also that everyone (except for shootamoose) has ignored my question about Jewish settlers. Obviously that's because the darkies and nig-nogs can't be trusted to behave themselves in a multicultural society. Multiculturalism is for Whites only. Definitely a hidden racist subtext there. Shame on you.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I notice also that everyone (except for shootamoose) has ignored my question about Jewish settlers. Obviously that's because the darkies and nig-nogs can't be trusted to behave themselves in a multicultural society. Multiculturalism is for Whites only. Definitely a hidden racist subtext there. Shame on you.

It was off-topic. No one, other than yourself (although you've retracted it subsequently), has equated colonization by force with immigration/multiculturalism.

Biffa Bacon

No, the question was whether the Palestinians are motivated by racism in not wanting Jewish settlers in the West Bank, not whether the tensions over the issue proves multiculturalism doesn't work.
And it's hardly off-topic.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Not really. First, they are not arriving in large numbers and second they are not granted citizenship and thus don’t really belong to society.

I didnt realise that. So - youre saying that if I moved to France, lived, worked and retired there, never leaving the place I moved to, that I wouldnt be a member of society because I wasnt a citizen? And because I'm clearly putting words in your mouth there, what if 100 Irish did the same thing - all moving to one town in France? Not a problem cause they arent citizens? So what if they came here? Now - its not as far-fetched as it sounds - look how many Germans live in places like Schull in West Cork. Again - no problem because they dont have a vote, or because they're technically not citizens?

o, the question was whether the Palestinians are motivated by racism in not wanting Jewish settlers in the West Bank, not whether the tensions over the issue proves multiculturalism doesn't work.
And it's hardly off-topic.

Slightly off-topic because the discussion was about Ireland, which doesnt figure in this case. But regardless....

I would say that there is a degree of racism, but it is racism which has been engendered by the creation of the Israeli nation. I dont believe that this excuses it in any way, but I can understand where it comes from. Having said that, I would also say that the apparently large number of Israelis who believe Israel should be a Jewish State for the Jews are also showing at least an equal amount of racism - if you allow ideological beliefs to classify races.

But how does this relate to Ireland and whether or not we should allow immigrants, howmany we should allow in, or how we should choose them?

jc

mike65

look how many Germans live in places like Schull in West Cork. Again - no problem because they dont have a vote, or because they're technically not citizens?

Of course they can vote, bonkey. If the've been here for (I think)
3 years. Or were you suggesting that Biffa Bacon does'nt know that to be the case?

Mike.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
So - youre saying that if I moved to France, lived, worked and retired there, never leaving the place I moved to, that I wouldnt be a member of society because I wasnt a citizen?

Well you'd be a part of society but not really part of the nation if you see what I'm getting at.

I would say that there is a degree of racism, but it is racism which has been engendered by the creation of the Israeli nation. I dont believe that this excuses it in any way, but I can understand where it comes from. Having said that, I would also say that the apparently large number of Israelis who believe Israel should be a Jewish State for the Jews are also showing at least an equal amount of racism - if you allow ideological beliefs to classify races.

But how does this relate to Ireland and whether or not we should allow immigrants, howmany we should allow in, or how we should choose them?

I posed the question because I thought it was quite obvious that here was an example of people rejecting multiculturalism for reasons that were quite clearly not racist. But at least you're being consistent.
All I'm trying to say is that it's not racist to be opposed to multiculturalism.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by mike65


Of course they can vote, bonkey. If the've been here for (I think)
3 years. Or were you suggesting that Biffa Bacon does'nt know that to be the case?

Mike.

If that's true then that's the first I've heard of it. Are you sure?

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well you'd be a part of society but not really part of the nation if you see what I'm getting at.

Sure - but I would see multiculturalism affecting life at the societal level....which is what I was getting at

I posed the question because I thought it was quite obvious that here was an example of people rejecting multiculturalism for reasons that were quite clearly not racist. But at least you're being consistent.
All I'm trying to say is that it's not racist to be opposed to multiculturalism.

I would agree that being opposed to multiculturalism is not necessarily racist. However, targetted opposition (I dont mind group X, but Y is right out) is heading down a somewhat racist path. Again - that racism may be understandable in certain cases, but this still does not make everthing alright.

Ultimately - taking that idea a bit further - I tend to find that the only arguments against multiculturalism either stem back to some other problem (e.g. racism, religion, history of conflict) or from some form of xenophobia.

Ultimately - multiculturalism does not cause problems - it simply highlights them. At least - thats my belief.

jc

mike65

BiffaBacon

Re: Three years, I'll have to check but its something I've been carrying around in my head for years.


I just found these (thank God for Google!)

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/citizens/en/vivr_ir.htm

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/citizens/en/ir/001930.htm

Which if I read them rights impose no residency time-limit, only that you be defined as a resident.

Mike.

Sand

I would agree that being opposed to multiculturalism is not necessarily racist. However, targetted opposition (I dont mind group X, but Y is right out) is heading down a somewhat racist path. Again - that racism may be understandable in certain cases, but this still does not make everthing alright

Not sure if anyones being specific in their opposition to multiculturalism by opposing immigration of people from certain regions or nations. In fact, Id feel immigration from a broad range of regions/nationalitys will mean immigrants will have to integrate - a good thing.

Ultimately - multiculturalism does not cause problems - it simply highlights them. At least - thats my belief.

Fair enough - And Id agree to an extent. But highlight is a poor choice of words imo - multiculturalism sets the stage, creates the conditions for social division.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Fair enough - And Id agree to an extent. But highlight is a poor choice of words imo - multiculturalism sets the stage, creates the conditions for social division.

I disagree.

I live in a town where the people speak many different languages (technically bilingual, realistically quadralingual). They come from distinct cultural backgrounds. This town is in the middle of a country which is formed from culturally diverse cantons which decided to stop their incessant warring and live as one nation. Today, not only does Switzerland have many indigenous cultures, but the actual population of the country is swelled by approximately 1,000,000 immigrants (out of a total of 7m people). These come mostly in large numbers from a small number of nations - the border countries mostly, but there are also surprisingly large numbers of Tamil and Albanian refugees/immigrants here.

Where is the social division? I see no major social problems. If multiculturalism sets the stage for social division, surely Switzerland should be the most socially divided society in western Europe?

This is why I use the term I did - I do not believe that multiculturalism sets the stage nor creates the conditions at all. Other conditions may be accentuated by multiculturalism, but thats a different issue.

jc

Sand

This town is in the middle of a country which is formed from culturally diverse cantons which decided to stop their incessant warring and live as one nation.

From what I understand they came together in the 1200s to fight a war of not-quite independance from the Holy Roman Empire.

Where is the social division? I see no major social problems. If multiculturalism sets the stage for social division, surely Switzerland should be the most socially divided society in western Europe?

Swiss society is rare in the history of the world- its a country created by allies (Mostly german speaking with French and Italian thrown in as well) fighting together against an outside enemy (above). Seeing as Swiss identity has such "unity through diversity" strain to its probably better positioned to accepting incoming cultures which dont integrate as well- though nobodys perfect, the Swiss has a civil war like everyone else- over some cantons taking up a Roman Catholic identity.

I cant think of many other modern states whose history and identity is similar to the Swiss case. Ireland doesnt have a similar history or culture. Switzerland might be seen as more of an exception than a rule.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
From what I understand they came together in the 1200s to fight a war of not-quite independance from the Holy Roman Empire.

Not quite. The first alliance was formed in 1291, but you were talking about a tiny number of cantons at that point - a fraction of what is today's Switzerland = 3 cantons on total. It wasnt even anything more than a military alliance - they wanted to break free from the vassals of the Hapsburgs (who ruled the Holy Roman Empire at the time) so that they would be ruled directly by the Hapsburgs. (These Swiss were a bit weird).

In fact, Switzerland was still officially part of Germany until 1648.

The Switzerland we know today (Confederation Helvetica - hence the CH) only came in to being in the 1800s. 1848, under Napolean, to be precise. Prior to that time, the cantons were actually called "Nation States" (Nationalstaaten) and there were borders between them. So it only truly became a unified nation about 155 years ago.

Of course - I have an advantage here...I do have a slight advantage from having a scholarly Swiss girlfriend with all this knowledge at her fingertips.

Swiss society is rare in the history of the world- its a country created by allies (Mostly german speaking with French and Italian thrown in as well) fighting together against an outside enemy

Actually - its not that rare - there is a large Celtic influence in the Swiss. After all, this is the part of the world the Celts moved thru on their way to the coast and on to Ireland.

In medievel times the Swiss were notorious for being a set of small nation-states who were inter-warring constantly, only banding together to go and kick the crap out of anyone who came near any of the borders. Funnily enough - this is exactly the same as could be said about Ireland.

Similar to "old" Ireland - when the "old" Swiss weren't being allies against a common enemy, they were usually occupied kicking seven colours of sh1te out of each other.

though nobodys perfect, the Swiss has a civil war like everyone else- over some cantons taking up a Roman Catholic identity.

Oh - theyve had tons of civil wars. I think the one you're thinking of was actually when a strongly Roman Catholic region had an "outbreak" of Protestantism, due to one of the major reformers of the time (Zwingli). But - yeah - that was one. There have been plenty of others - including ones which managed to break apart previous attempts at unifying the Swiss as one nation.

In recent times though, its mostly calm except for a bunch of Swiss-French seperatists who blew up an ancient wooden bridge in the 90s - about 7 years ago - but theyve calmed down now. These guys even stole some famous national sport treasure (a throwing stone - honest) in the 70s and only gave it back last month at the opening of an Expo in this region.

I cant think of many other modern states whose history and identity is similar to the Swiss case. Ireland doesnt have a similar history or culture.

Actually - Scotland and Ireland are remarkably similar in a lot of respects, except that we were conquered. Even still, we have evolved as a nation formed from multiple cultures, who come from a history of inter-warfare intersperced with alliances formed to fight a common enemy.

Switzerland might be seen as more of an exception than a rule.

This I would agree wholeheartedly with. It does show, however, that there is no reason why these things cannot be done and done successfully. As I pointed out above - its still not perfect - there are still some problems between the cantons and cultures.

The cultures in Switzerland are still fierce in their "cultural partisanship" in a lot of ways, but they by and large manage to get along together. Whats interestingly is that they've only managed to do this recently.

You can take this as a negative sign, by saying that only a millenium of warfare has led them to this peace. Alternately, you can take a positive outlook and believe that such acceptance can come rapidly, once people are willing to embrace it.

jc

Sand

Yep, my knowledge of Switzerland is pretty much in passing - good for table quizes and the like but short on precise details:) I would just assume that a common identity for the Swiss came about through having a common foe in the shape of exspansionist forces like the Holy Roman Empire and later France, necessity rather than a mutual appreciation for each others culture and/or a concious desire to create a multicultural state.

Actually - Scotland and Ireland are remarkably similar in a lot of respects, except that we were conquered. Even still, we have evolved as a nation formed from multiple cultures, who come from a history of inter-warfare intersperced with alliances formed to fight a common enemy.

My own personal view is that Irelands recent history includes a rather drastic rejection of non - nationalistic (multi-cultural?) society in the shape of the breakaway from the UK - which was pretty close to a multicultural state with its empire stretching across the globe (granted, in a patronising to ignorant 19th century manner) - many former colonial areas, Indians most notably, seem to have a fond attachment of sorts to Britain which cant be said about most of Ireland. Whatever about the British Empires claims to be multi cultural its pretty true to say that the early Irish state was awash with monoculturalism. The UK might have been a multicultural state imposed through force, and this brought about the resentment perhaps - but surely imposing a multicultural state over the concerns of many merely brings about similar resentment - the warning signs are already there with people asking why are immigrants driving nice cars, wearing nice clothes, ripping us off yadda yadda - any pub youre in, when the conversation turns to immigration this comes up. People need to have their concerns met, or else the resentment will continue to mount, with les than great results.

Hopefully though this will just be teething trouble and the immigrants will integrate - not necessarily dance at the crossroads (does anyone?) but become Romanian-Irish and Nigerian-Irish as the Normans, the Vikings and the English did before them, rather than having a little Romania inside and yet outside of Ireland, convenient scapegoats for peoples bitterness.

You can take this as a negative sign, by saying that only a millenium of warfare has led them to this peace. Alternately, you can take a positive outlook and believe that such acceptance can come rapidly, once people are willing to embrace it.

The european project (surely a great attempt at a multicultural state) only became a non-daydream in the aftermath of WW2, when again people came together, not because the French suddenly loved the Germans, but because they had a common enemy - a third war. Since memories of the war have faded, people have become less and less ambitious about the Euro project, now its viewed as an economic club, and as a sort of watchdog over Euopean governments. Many are actually quite resentful of European interference in their affairs and politicians looking for a few votes are quick to play this card when they can. My opinion would be that a rebirth of the European ideal would only occur should Europe itself be threatened in some fashion and actually *need* to band together for mutual survival. Im not sure people ever *want* a multicultural society, or conciously engineer one (outside of SWP daydreams), they seem to come about (the more successful ones anyway) more through necessity and/or accident more than anything else.