Attention Ostriches!

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.