On integration, assimilation and multiculturalism

[North Yemen-]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

wow

[Nouveau Yathrib]

I think that in the West, most often the kind of multiculturalism people want is liberal. That's the kind where a diverse selection of cultures coexist in the same society, just all of them are liberalized. The way it works is that we are supposed to give ethnic minorities lots of multicultural privileges, such as the right to perform exclusive practices, schooling in their native language, affirmative action, etc, and over time they will give up all their illiberal traditions to become a full part of our liberal open societies. The problem is that this process also depends on minorities being able to situate themselves and integrate into their adoptive societies, and in countries where national identity is still very much an ethnic thing, that isn't so easy.

And then you have genuinely multicultural countries like Singapore or South Africa, which while reasonably developed, wouldn't be considered liberal by most North Americans or Western Europeans.

[San Lumen]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

[Neo Balka]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

So they are not really native to america, are they?

[San Lumen]

Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

So they are not really native to america, are they?

Technically unless your from the Great Rift Valley you ancestors immigrated at some point. It depends on how you look at it.

[The Sauganash Union]

"... they have to share the same commitment to liberal, democratic political values as the general population."

And if the general population doesn't necessarily care for liberalism or thinks there's more to its national identity than republicanism and democracy?

[Pope Joan]

Forced assimilation is brutal and it just doesn't work. It seems to me that in general if you let people get jobs and earn houses and cars and so on, and gain a stake in life, settle down, then in a couple generations the kids are speaking the dominant language and swimming like fish in the culture around them. Not that they don't appreciate their roots, but they would prefer not to be so old fashioned.

I could trace this process among the Croats and Hungarians in the rust belt city where we used to live. Their ethnic language churches are now closed, although they are still Catholic. Their in-crowd duckpin leagues are closing, but the still go bowling like everyone else. They still like Mama's cooking but they also pursue the ubiquitous hamburger.

This sort of thing is driving them crazy in Quebec. Too much English spoken by the teens! Too much fast food! It may not be the march of progress, but whatever it is, it's marching.

[Threlizdun]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Now in relation to the topic, since that was just a fact that I wanted to show you, I think that some factors make a country a citizen of that country.

1. The ability of someone to speak and write fluently in their native language.
2. Have all the necessary documents that make him or her a citizen capable of voting or participating in political life.
3. Can work and have your rights as any citizen born at home.
4. Although living in a state with an official religion (ex: Chile), you can fulfill your beliefs and customs unless you force other people (terrorists)

[Cetacea]

Im sorry what? How do you define the true owners? I have no idea what country your from however everyone is technically immigrants. The Native Peoples from the Americans crossed a land bridge from Russia into Alaska 10,000 years ago. People from Europe are descended from migrants from the middle east. Humanity began in what is now Ethiopia. So who are these true owners you speak of?

So they are not really native to america, are they?

they are however Indigenous in as much as crossing the land bridge was a "natural process that resulted in the first establishment of the species", being indigenous does not require that a species evolved in its ecosystem, only that it is identifiably an intgrated part of its environment and not a later introduced species. Indigenous Americans are also Aboriginal as that relates to the people who have been in a region from the earliest time

[Immoren]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Apartment house.
Terraced house.
semi-detached house.

[Genivaria]

"... they have to share the same commitment to liberal, democratic political values as the general population."

And if the general population doesn't necessarily care for liberalism or thinks there's more to its national identity than republicanism and democracy?

Then obviously they need some freedom.

[Neu Leonstein]

And if the general population doesn't necessarily care for liberalism or thinks there's more to its national identity than republicanism and democracy?

Then they could vote in the above poll for some of the other options.

[Cetacea]

I think that in the West, most often the kind of multiculturalism people want is liberal. That's the kind where a diverse selection of cultures coexist in the same society, just all of them are liberalized. The way it works is that we are supposed to give ethnic minorities lots of multicultural privileges, such as the right to perform exclusive practices, schooling in their native language, affirmative action, etc, and over time they will give up all their illiberal traditions to become a full part of our liberal open societies. The problem is that this process also depends on minorities being able to situate themselves and integrate into their adoptive societies, and in countries where national identity is still very much an ethnic thing, that isn't so easy.

And then you have genuinely multicultural countries like Singapore or South Africa, which while reasonably developed, wouldn't be considered liberal by most North Americans or Western Europeans.

New Zealand while far from perfect has done very well at the whole multicultural approach while also maintaining a strong bi-cultural identity in which everyone shares a commitment to liberal , democratic political values ... and have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home.

[Neo Balka]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

Are you sure about that?

[Genivaria]

Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

Are you sure about that?

Depends on how far back you go.

[Immoren]

Are you sure about that?

Depends on how far back you go.

Now I am imagining an ancient arthropod complaining to another one about these new tetrapod immigrants from the ocean.

[Neutraligon]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.

Apartment house.
Terraced house.
semi-detached house.

Houses where there is joint ownership (ie husband and wife). Condos, etc.

[Oneracon]

So as a result, to me multiculturalism doesn't mean tolerating people who beat their wives or agitate for a theocracy. But it does mean tolerating that there's a Buddhist temple in town and that there are people speaking five different language when I catch public transport. For a long time I thought this was obvious, but it happens every so often that people have completely different ideas of what the word means and then talk past each other.

^ This essentially sums it up for me. I'm proud to live in one of the most multicultural urban areas on the planet and diversity makes us stronger.

The fact that someone has gone through the complicated process of immigration to even settle here (regardless of what stream you came through) shows that they support the country and its ideals. If they didn't, they wouldn't have come.

Apartment house.
Terraced house.
semi-detached house.

Houses where there is joint ownership (ie husband and wife). Condos, etc.

Heck, condominium literally means "shared ownership".

[San Lumen]

Every society is composed of migrants. No culture exists independent from outside influence. Constructing a society without any degree of power sharing between the member groups residening within it is both ahistoric and impossible to maintain.

Are you sure about that?

humanity began in what is now Ethiopia so technically yes.

[New Rogernomics]

Within reason, 2, 4, and 5.

And then you have genuinely multicultural countries like Singapore or South Africa, which while reasonably developed, wouldn't be considered liberal by most North Americans or Western Europeans.

New Zealand while far from perfect has done very well at the whole multicultural approach while also maintaining a strong bi-cultural identity in which everyone shares a commitment to liberal , democratic political values ... and have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home.

New Zealand is basically a one-party state, since Labour is incompetent, and the Greens - are well, the Greens.

But I am kinda glad that NZ has avoided the messes that Australia* (and other countries) have multiculturalism and 'far-right' conservatism wise, and that on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, bathroom use, adoption,etc the government and society as a whole is relatively sane.

*Blame those crazy Queensland voters who vote One Nation.

[NERVUN]

Since integration is a problem that takes care of itself, it's a red herring. In three generations, they will be assimilated.

That said, the rule of law is the rule of law. Immigrant status does not allow someone to buck the rules of the new nation, regardless of how things are done 'back home*'.

Asking for immigrants to love liberal democracy and whatnot is a bit hypocritical as we don't ask the same of natural citizens (And indeed NSG shows just how many are not all that interested in liberal democracy).

One thing I would like to add in is about the 'They're holding themselves apart'. No, they're not. In many cases they have no choice. When moving into a new nation, you usually do not have the resources or connections that allow you to easily move into any area. Not to mention discrimination. In many cases it's simply a matter of convenience.



*Damn Japan and it's over the counter drug laws!

[San Lumen]

Within reason, 2, 4, and 5.

New Zealand while far from perfect has done very well at the whole multicultural approach while also maintaining a strong bi-cultural identity in which everyone shares a commitment to liberal , democratic political values ... and have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home.

New Zealand is basically a one-party state, since Labour is incompetent, and the Greens - are well, the Greens.

But I am kinda glad that NZ has avoided the messes that Australia* (and other countries) have multiculturalism and 'far-right' conservatism wise, and that on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, bathroom use, adoption,etc the government and society as a whole is relatively sane.

*Blame those crazy Queensland voters who vote One Nation.

Australia and New Zealand are multicultural countries.

[Neo Balka]

Within reason, 2, 4, and 5.
New Zealand is basically a one-party state, since Labour is incompetent, and the Greens - are well, the Greens.

But I am kinda glad that NZ has avoided the messes that Australia* (and other countries) have multiculturalism and 'far-right' conservatism wise, and that on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, bathroom use, adoption,etc the government and society as a whole is relatively sane.

*Blame those crazy Queensland voters who vote One Nation.

Australia and New Zealand are multicultural countries.

Shitposting is a culture?

[San Lumen]

Australia and New Zealand are multicultural countries.

Shitposting is a culture?

What in the world are you talking about?