NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do posters prefer, and why?

Incidentally, if you need an explanation as to the permeatations of both, find one yourself, I'm hungover, however, integration is the racial policy pursued by the Frecnh, multi-culturalism that of the anglo-saxon world.

As someone attending an international school and living in New York City, I can tell you that multiculturalism is a better system because it makes people who are not members of the dominant culture happier, makes everyone more tolerant and understading and altogether makes for a more colorful, enriching world.

Multiculturalism, but it only works with equality and respect with each other.

Multiculturalism - but it's more of a mutual assimilation thing. Your children grow up in the new country, and adopt some of its ways, and bring their ways to the new country.

To see this in action, just go to New York City.

A bit of both, I suppose.

Moving to a new country, with a new culture, shouldn't mean you have to give up your own culture. However, creating insular, little ethnic 'nations' within the greater nation doesn't strike me as particularly productive.

I go to a school outside of phillidelphia were we have many cultures not only diffrent nationaliutys but diffent social classes. Here we are all treated equally and if we dont do so we will be punished or atleast not excepted by other students. Weather it is a boarder from afganistan or someone from the ghetto of trenton who got here on scolership we treat eacother with respect. I think it is very important and leads to happier studens and more prepared stdents.

:sniper:

neither. :p
multiculturalism works slightly better in practise than integration but both fail to address the issue that we're all different, even among similar groups, and that humans as a species have never gotten along with one another.

How about both?
If you move to a new country you don't have to throw your old customs and culture overboard, but you'll need to adapt it a little so it will fit within the country's culture.

Which do posters prefer, and why?

Incidentally, if you need an explanation as to the permeatations of both, find one yourself, I'm hungover, however, integration is the racial policy pursued by the Frecnh, multi-culturalism that of the anglo-saxon world.
People should be allowed, within acceptable limits, to retain whatever aspects of their previous culture they decide to retain. It's just extending a kindness to them, if nothing else. Besides, it makes for a more interesting larger culture overall. Think about all the different sorts of ethnic foods! YUM! :D

I do think, however, that everyone who lives within a given culture, or nation, should be expected to learn that nation's language purely as a practical matter.

I do think, however, that everyone who lives within a given culture, or nation, should be expected to learn that nation's language purely as a practical matter.

An spanish proverb says "Donde fueres, haz lo que vieres". It means that you should adapt your customs to those of the place where you live.

I think it is an acceptable saying, but I reduce it to "just change your customs if they crash with the ones of the place".

An spanish proverb says "Donde fueres, haz lo que vieres". It means that you should adapt your customs to those of the place where you live.

I think it is an acceptable saying, but I reduce it to "just change your customs if they crash with the ones of the place".
"Crash?" :eek:

LOL! I tend to agree. It's a classic case of balancing what you would prefer against what actually works for the best of all.

Which do posters prefer, and why?

Incidentally, if you need an explanation as to the permeatations of both, find one yourself, I'm hungover, however, integration is the racial policy pursued by the Frecnh, multi-culturalism that of the anglo-saxon world.
Multiculturalism. It's much more interesting. Integration will happen anyway to a certain extent...East Indian or Chilean culture in a different country will be different than it is in its home country (overlooking the fact that there is no homogenous East Indian or Chilean culture, but rather a mixture of cultures there as well). Total integration, or assimilation, is...well...bland!

Multiculturalism is more practical given that people generally won't simply accept an entirely new culture replacing their old one.

Multiculturalism short-term, followed by long-term integration. By that I mean mutual integration - I'd like to see the best and/or coolest aspects of immigrant cultures absorbed into and become part of the "dominant" culture. That's pretty much how modern American culture came to be in the first place - the initially dominant English culture absorbed elements of other cultures to form a unique and powerful new culture.

:p

Integration is more logical.

People go to a new place because it is better than the old place. This is a truism. If it wasn't better, there would be no reason to go.

The new place's qualities don't just spring up spontaneously, they are the result of ideas, attitudes, and practices.

Logically, if a newcomer is to enjoy fully the qualities of the new place, he must make the ideas, attitudes, and practices of it his own.


However, the debate over integration or "multiculti" is not the real issue. The real issue is burden. Do immigrants have the right to impose burdens on the people among whom they will live? This includes any burden, from massive welfare, or crime, down to state funded translators and interpretors.

I don't think that an immigrant has any right to impose a burden, even if it is only the cost of employing someone to translate government documents.

If immigrants want to have their own food, festivals, languages, religions, etc, fine. That in itself causes no problems, however, when they impose a burden, they become harmful, and must be stamped out.

However, the debate over integration or "multiculti" is not the real issue. The real issue is burden. Do immigrants have the right to impose burdens on the people among whom they will live? This includes any burden, from massive welfare, or crime, down to state funded translators and interpretors.

That's why I said it only works with respect for each other.

I don't think that an immigrant has any right to impose a burden, even if it is only the cost of employing someone to translate government documents.


The burden argument works for infants, the elderly and terminally sick people as well. Should we go ahead and stamp them out too?

As someone attending an international school and living in New York City, I can tell you that multiculturalism is a better system because it makes people who are not members of the dominant culture happier, makes everyone more tolerant and understading and altogether makes for a more colorful, enriching world.

Did you copy that from a book or did you actually write that you’re self?

Multiculturalism is more practical given that people generally won't simply accept an entirely new culture replacing their old one.

Then they should stay in there own country. When in Rome do as the Romans and such, it is the way things worked before you know. And what about the people who lived in the area before the new people arrives, what if they have a problem with that?


People should be allowed, within acceptable limits, to retain whatever aspects of their previous culture they decide to retain. It's just extending a kindness to them, if nothing else. Besides, it makes for a more interesting larger culture overall. Think about all the different sorts of ethnic foods! YUM!

Why should they be allowed to keep there culture, it was there own choice to come there. And food is food; if you really wanted you could find exotic food in your own country to. And please define: “interesting larger culture overall”.

To see this in action, just go to New York City.

But surly you realise that there is a difference between America and the rest of the world in that case.

For me it is Integration all the way, it is simply more logical. And it works.

The burden argument works for infants, the elderly and terminally sick people as well. Should we go ahead and stamp them out too?

You clearly didn't read my post. Immigrants frequently impose a burden on the general population in taxpayer-funded services, ranging from extra law enforcement to counter immigrant crime, through subsidised cultural events and massive welfare payments, to translators and interpretors.

The sorts of burden you point to are family burdens. Are you trying to tell me that there is no difference between the burden a child places upon its mother, and the burden imposed by immigrants who want to enter, and go straight on to welfare?

Which do posters prefer, and why?

Incidentally, if you need an explanation as to the permeatations of both, find one yourself, I'm hungover, however, integration is the racial policy pursued by the Frecnh, multi-culturalism that of the anglo-saxon world.

By definition I suppose multiculturalism, in reality I believe that giving a name to people getting along as if it were a uniform system--which multiculturalism is not in no uncertain terms, you simply have offered a way to begin debasing it, first the language is undermined then the idea.

France isn't all integration and no multiculturalism. People here do retain aspects of their own culture. Islam is now the second most important religion in France in terms of numbers, and couscous is pretty much a national French dish... despite the fact it comes from North Africa.

To me, cultural diversity is a great thing. Being exposed to other cultures within your own country is an eye-opener. You can learn from them, experience the fact that other cultures have different norms, habits, ways of doing and seeing things. I favour something between multiculturalism and integration, much like what we have over here. Respect the country's laws and basic values, adapt to your new setting, but by all means continue to uphold your own culture.


did you actually write that you’re self?

*shudders*

I hereby confer upon you the award for worst grammatical error I've ever seen. Though "there own country", and "surly" instead of "surely" weren't bad either...

Well, at least in one country "multiculturalism" doesn't always work either.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Racist-mob-violence-rocks-Cronulla/2005/12/11/1134235936217.html
As the crowd moved along the beach and foreshore area, one man on the back of a ute began to shout "No more Lebs" - a chant picked up by the group around him.

Others in the crowd, carrying Australian flags and dressed in Australian shirts, yelled "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie ... Oi, Oi, Oi".

Many had adorned their bodies with racist slogans. One shirtless teenager walked by, this message painted on his back: "It's time for a f****** war, so join the army of hardcore".

Within half an hour, reporters at the scene watched at least three young men of middle eastern appearance being singled out and chased, their clothes torn as they fled.

Well, at least in one country "multiculturalism" doesn't always work either.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Racist-mob-violence-rocks-Cronulla/2005/12/11/1134235936217.html

But every country's always going to have its share of prats, whatever the system, surely?

Integration and multi-culturalism are not each other's opposites. People from other cultures can be integrated into another society and still keep their culture.

Imo a healthy society needs a big chunk of both.

Elgesh']But every country's always going to have its share of prats, whatever the system, surely?
Obviously. It was just something that fit the thread, and this was on the news today.

Even in Australia, which is often used as the model multicultural society, the problems persist. But I'm not sure how multicultural Australia is anyways sometimes...

Obviously. It was just something that fit the thread, and this was on the news today.

Even in Australia, which is often used as the model multicultural society, the problems persist. But I'm not sure how multicultural Australia is anyways sometimes...

Ah, I see! Did you guys find that it went 1st Generation immigrants, fevered integration to keep their heads down, then gradually, by the time their children/grandchildren grew up, these subsequent generations highlighted their differences, in the more multicultural model? (You wonder if, in a couple more generations, there'll be a more genuine integration; I guess you can see that in some US cities, like New York's old Irish etc.)

Elgesh']Ah, I see! Did you guys find that it went 1st Generation immigrants, fevered integration to keep their heads down, then gradually, by the time their children/grandchildren grew up, these subsequent generations highlighted their differences, in the more multicultural model?
I guess you'd have to ask a real Australian. I'm a first generation immigrant, and I don't think I'm here for good either.

What I see is that everyone usually gets along well, and that the various cultures don't matter all that much in my area.
But drive across the river into some poorer areas and the differences become much more defined. I guess if people have little and need support, they're more likely find it with people who are similar to them.

Multiculturalism - but it's more of a mutual assimilation thing. Your children grow up in the new country, and adopt some of its ways, and bring their ways to the new country.

To see this in action, just go to New York City.

True, but both the country and the individual who have moved must be willing to adopt both sides; the individual must learn the ways that are 'socially acceptable' in the adopt country whilst the adoptive country must be willing to embrace those new cultures and ideas.

To a certain extent, however, I would beg to differ that the US is a melting pot. The US very willing to export their culture, predominately the white plastic-fantastic shallow culture, to the rest of the world, but when it comes to embracing the ideas of other cultures, they seem to do a North Korea and errect a fence around itself.

neither. :p
multiculturalism works slightly better in practise than integration but both fail to address the issue that we're all different, even among similar groups, and that humans as a species have never gotten along with one another.
Neither. But I'm not so optimistic to say that MC works slightly better. Both are ideas from the red we're gonna change the world '60's and '70's and are outdated like the Soviet Union.