Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Post War America]

That's fair, I'm not necessarily opposed to tougher stances on Islam if they're coming from a strictly secularist viewpoint. I personally would prefer state atheism, but would be totally fine with strict secularism. It just rustles my jimmies to see people get pissified about a reactionary regressive religious philosophy referring to it as an existential threat to modern civilization while at the same fine pushing another reactionary regressive religious philosophy that serves as an existential threat to modern civilization.

if people want to see how Islam is compatible with the west look at Hamtramck, Michigan, a majority Muslim city. There is no sharia law there nor any theocracy.

I don't really believe any religion is compatible with modern civilization, but do go on.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

One might want to look at Savile Town, Yorkshire.

93% Asian Muslim. The sect is Deobandi, which is an ultraconservative Sunni sect which defends the right to wage holy war in the so-called "defence" of Islam.

Deobandism controls around 50% of all mosques in the country, and trains around 80% of Islamic clerics in the country.

The people living in Savile Town are largely covered up. The men wear Arab-style robes, the women and girls in hijabs and niqabs. They advocate living as the Prophet Muhammad did, doing as he did, and not doing what he didn't do.

They have a Shariah court which typically handles divorce, and which the Home Secretary at the time Amber Rudd did not wish to regulate because it would 'legitimise' Shariah law, and the people there have absolutely no interest in living alongside anyone but their own people, going so far as to even try to buy a woman's house just days after her husband died.

I would wager for every example you can find of an Islamic community in the West with no, at least outwardly apparent wish, to impose their own beliefs, you can find one that does.

Islamic identity is fundamentally against Western identity. Its values, tenets, and core principles are not aligned in any way with those of the Enlightenment values espoused here in the West.

A Muslim who is self-professed as being wholly Western in every way, shape or form, can at best be simply described as a person who believes in a God whilst being Western. To be Muslim is to adhere to Islam, a political as well as religious movement with a defined set of ideas and values that overlap its sects and variations, and direct every aspect of personal life. To be Muslim is not to just believe in a God, it is to believe in a certain way, to live a certain way, to think, act, feel, and behave a certain way.

And that is not the Western way. That is the Islamic way. Shariah law. Theocracy. Submission before God.

If a community exists with Islamic identity, then the advocacy of those things within that community is inevitable.

[Kubumba Tribe]

One might want to look at Savile Town, Yorkshire.

93% Asian Muslim. The sect is Deobandi, which is an ultraconservative Sunni sect which defends the right to wage holy war in the so-called "defence" of Islam.

Deobandism controls around 50% of all mosques in the country, and trains around 80% of Islamic clerics in the country.

They have a Shariah court which typically handles divorce, and which the Home Secretary at the time Amber Rudd did not wish to regulate because it would 'legitimise' Shariah law, and the people there have absolutely no interest in living alongside anyone but their own people, going so far as to even try to buy a woman's house just days after her husband died.

Source for the bolded stuff?

[San Lumen]

One might want to look at Savile Town, Yorkshire.

93% Asian Muslim. The sect is Deobandi, which is an ultraconservative Sunni sect which defends the right to wage holy war in the so-called "defence" of Islam.

Deobandism controls around 50% of all mosques in the country, and trains around 80% of Islamic clerics in the country.

The people living in Savile Town are largely covered up. The men wear Arab-style robes, the women and girls in hijabs and niqabs. They advocate living as the Prophet Muhammad did, doing as he did, and not doing what he didn't do.

They have a Shariah court which typically handles divorce, and which the Home Secretary at the time Amber Rudd did not wish to regulate because it would 'legitimise' Shariah law, and the people there have absolutely no interest in living alongside anyone but their own people, going so far as to even try to buy a woman's house just days after her husband died.

I would wager for every example you can find of an Islamic community in the West with no, at least outwardly apparent wish, to impose their own beliefs, you can find one that does.

Islamic identity is fundamentally against Western identity. Its values, tenets, and core principles are not aligned in any way with those of the Enlightenment values espoused here in the West.

A Muslim who is self-professed as being wholly Western in every way, shape or form, can at best be simply described as a person who believes in a God whilst being Western. To be Muslim is to adhere to Islam, a political as well as religious movement with a defined set of ideas and values that overlap its sects and variations, and direct every aspect of personal life. To be Muslim is not to just believe in a God, it is to believe in a certain way, to live a certain way, to think, act, feel, and behave a certain way.

And that is not the Western way. That is the Islamic way. Shariah law. Theocracy. Submission before God.

If a community exists with Islamic identity, then the advocacy of those things within that community is inevitable.

Id like a reliable source

[Kubumba Tribe]

One might want to look at Savile Town, Yorkshire.

93% Asian Muslim. The sect is Deobandi, which is an ultraconservative Sunni sect which defends the right to wage holy war in the so-called "defence" of Islam.

Deobandism controls around 50% of all mosques in the country, and trains around 80% of Islamic clerics in the country.

The people living in Savile Town are largely covered up. The men wear Arab-style robes, the women and girls in hijabs and niqabs. They advocate living as the Prophet Muhammad did, doing as he did, and not doing what he didn't do.

They have a Shariah court which typically handles divorce, and which the Home Secretary at the time Amber Rudd did not wish to regulate because it would 'legitimise' Shariah law, and the people there have absolutely no interest in living alongside anyone but their own people, going so far as to even try to buy a woman's house just days after her husband died.

I would wager for every example you can find of an Islamic community in the West with no, at least outwardly apparent wish, to impose their own beliefs, you can find one that does.

Islamic identity is fundamentally against Western identity. Its values, tenets, and core principles are not aligned in any way with those of the Enlightenment values espoused here in the West.

A Muslim who is self-professed as being wholly Western in every way, shape or form, can at best be simply described as a person who believes in a God whilst being Western. To be Muslim is to adhere to Islam, a political as well as religious movement with a defined set of ideas and values that overlap its sects and variations, and direct every aspect of personal life. To be Muslim is not to just believe in a God, it is to believe in a certain way, to live a certain way, to think, act, feel, and behave a certain way.

And that is not the Western way. That is the Islamic way. Shariah law. Theocracy. Submission before God.

If a community exists with Islamic identity, then the advocacy of those things within that community is inevitable.

Id like a reliable source

Well, in terms of him/her talking about a true Islamic community, they're pretty much right. I disagree with them saying that it's incompatible tho.

[Valgora]

Id like a reliable source

Well, in terms of him/her talking about a true Islamic community, they're pretty much right. I disagree with them saying that it's incompatible tho.

Islam ain't incompatible, at least not any less compatible than any other religion.

However, Islamism is incompatible. However, considering the likely hood of an actual Islamist gaining any meaningful power in the US, Islamism ain't much of a threat.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Well, in terms of him/her talking about a true Islamic community, they're pretty much right. I disagree with them saying that it's incompatible tho.

Islam ain't incompatible, at least not any less compatible than any other religion.

However, Islamism is incompatible. However, considering the likely hood of an actual Islamist gaining any meaningful power in the US, Islamism ain't much of a threat.

Well, Islamism is the action of or supporting the action of governing a community by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. Since governing by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is something Al-Islam supports, it would be incompatible. That is, if you think that incompatibility is the case.

[Frievolk]

How does it not

Al-Islam advocates for both Shari'ah and theocracy.

Not helping your case. Wait before there are enough Muslims, then talk about overthrowing the rightful government and establishing your fascist dystopia.

[Frievolk]

In all seriousness I feel Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value, and a kind of human right in a way.

I'm trying to remember the last time Judeo-Christianity (and please, for the love of god, don't group up the two beliefs when talking about cultures. It ignores roughly around 1600 years of mistreatment of Jews by Christians) had a dominance in power...
Remind me again, how many Crusades did we have in Europe alone? (and more importantly, how did everyone in Europe become Christian again?)
I wouldn't call Multiculturalism a core value... if a value at all.

[Frievolk]

I'm trying to remember the last time Judeo-Christianity (and please, for the love of god, don't group up the two beliefs when talking about cultures. It ignores roughly around 1600 years of mistreatment of Jews by Christians) had a dominance in power...
Remind me again, how many Crusades did we have in Europe alone? (and more importantly, how did everyone in Europe become Christian again?)
I wouldn't call Multiculturalism a core value... if a value at all.

Dude I'm part-Jewish(Apparently on my dad's side. My mom could be lying and if she is I'll happily apologize but for right now it is and has been core to my identity.) so I say that more specifically for my case, as a Christian.

Also I dislike the Crusades blood-filled massacres of my people, the Jews, many of the crusaders were horrible people and makes me wonder if they truly achieved salvation.

Though they did attack the Seljuks who at the time were pretty intolerant, and hostile, and stopped Christian pilgrimages and maybe Jewish ones too.

Islam in general didn't stop them, just the Seljuks. So against the Seljuks they were justified in concept, but not not execution....

Oh god that was a horrible ironic pun about my own people being slaughtered, that was unintentional.


Anyway, I think Jesus said in a way to love people of all cultures no matter where they were from so I think multiculturalism is rooted in Christianity and Christians have fucked up failing to remember that for millennia. It is to me a very Christian value. Thus, I strongly support it.

I'm not talking about The Crusades on the Levant lol. The Crusades on... virtually the entirety of non-Christian Europe (Which, for a long time, was pretty much most of Northern Europe). Christians have had a habit of... not dealing with other cultures in their general vicinity very well. Muslims are kinda even worse, or would be if they had launched colonial expeditions.

Jews... I'll reserve my opinion about the Jews in this matter, because given the history they've had, they've never been in power long enough to show how they'd deal with other cultures in their general vicinity.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

In all seriousness I feel Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value, and a kind of human right in a way.

Multiculturalism? A core value?

I heard fart jokes better than what you said, damnit.

[San Lumen]

In all seriousness I feel Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value, and a kind of human right in a way.

Multiculturalism? A core value?

I heard fart jokes better than what you said, damnit.

Countries like Canada and the United States were literally founded by immigrants and have been multicultural for almost their entire history.

[Post War America]

Multiculturalism? A core value?

I heard fart jokes better than what you said, damnit.

Countries like Canada and the United States were literally founded by immigrants and have been multicultural for almost their entire history.

The US and Canada were, at least at founding staunchly secular in nature with Canada not existing at all without religious tolerance, and the US being a damn near revolutionary state culturally until the 1830s, as a result the notion of Christian values wasn't as strong, or at least not as out in the open until the Great Resurgence. Hell Judaeo-Christian values as a concept didn't really exist until after World War II, and it was more a political convenience than anything else what with Western Powers backing the Jewish State of Israel against the Soviet backed Arab League.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

One might want to look at Savile Town, Yorkshire.

93% Asian Muslim. The sect is Deobandi, which is an ultraconservative Sunni sect which defends the right to wage holy war in the so-called "defence" of Islam.

Deobandism controls around 50% of all mosques in the country, and trains around 80% of Islamic clerics in the country.

They have a Shariah court which typically handles divorce, and which the Home Secretary at the time Amber Rudd did not wish to regulate because it would 'legitimise' Shariah law, and the people there have absolutely no interest in living alongside anyone but their own people, going so far as to even try to buy a woman's house just days after her husband died.

Source for the bolded stuff?

For the Deobandi stats
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/06/who ... r-mosques/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/radical ... 60056.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hard ... hdjz2cjpnc

Details in Savile Town, including their Shariah Court, can be found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savile_Town

Was also covered in a report by the Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... dents.html

And in a video by the Iconoclast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em92Hrb2s90

Amber Rudd's statement
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... rs-UK-laws
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expre ... rt-gallery
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe ... s-1.701243

Apologies for the delay, I had things to do.

[Conquerus]

I've seen and heard comments recently here and elsewhere regarding changing demographics and areas becoming more multicultural and diverse is a bad thing. That somehow it undermines the concept of a nation or is somehow destructive to the culture of the country or province or city. Having a multicultural nation or city contributes much to a society.

Some have even go so far as to allege there is some conspiracy involved which is complete nonsense.

I fail to see how multiculturalism and diversity is a bad thing. Go to any major city and you find people from all backgrounds and different ethnic groups. Why is that a bad thing? My city and our neighboring city is one of the most diverse and multicultural in the world. Being diverse and multicultural has contributed a great deal to our culture and history. I love walking down the street and hearing other languages and seeing people from many different backgrounds and countries.

If someone comes to your country legally either as an immigrant or a refugee seeking a better life and opportunity why is that bad. In addition said person gets a work visa and a job and later becomes a citizen, why is that not a good thing?

Furthermore everyone is a descendent of immigrants in some way no matter how far back you go. Unless you are from certain areas in Asia or the Middle East or Africa you are technically an immigrant.

What's your thoughts NSG? And is it Good or Bad?

The first part

I generally do not care about your race or religion. Unless you're a terrorist or wish yo commit crime, I don't see any problem with where you live. However, there needs to be some degree of control. In order to live here, you need to assimilate and adopt western values. That way, our western culture is not being pushed out by another one. Not being racist or anything, but it us clear that western values are superior to thise of others as we tend to emphasize basic human rights such as freedom of speech and gender equality.

[Zhizao]

Haha, the player that asked The Land of the Ephyral for sources now has their work cut out for them!

IMO multiculturalism is of dubious value. Promoting it as something to be striven for seems odd to me. I don't think it should be overtly promoted or opposed.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

Multiculturalism? A core value?

I heard fart jokes better than what you said, damnit.

Countries like Canada and the United States were literally founded by immigrants and have been multicultural for almost their entire history.

This might depend on your definition of multicultural.

The Thirteen Colonies as well as Canada were founded as British colonies, settled almost entirely initially by British people (technically not immigrants as they were moving from one part of their county to another), and only secondarily by those of other descent. In the Thirteen Colonies specifically, Germans were the second most populous group. However for essentially all of American history both prior to independence and after it, the natural population growth of those born in the country as descendents of the original and secondary colonists outweighed migration heavily, as migration for many of the initial decades post independence is estimated to be about 60,000 every ten years, whilst population growth was in the millions.



Details are of course difficult to ascertain due to records being inconsistent or utterly absent.

Anglos and Germans made up the vast majority of heritage groups. Groups like the Italians arrived only in significant numbers almost a full century after America became an independent state. They self-segregated into Little Italies, and following WW2, adopted the English language, integrated fully into the remainder of society, and became more American.

I don't know about you but I think a century is a long enough time to develop your own cultural identity.

Other groups such as Scandinavians had barely a couple thousand people from independence.



The largest non Anglo-German group of course were the Africans bought from West African kingdoms as slaves and shipped over to the Americas. However given they existed as non-person entities within both the colonial territories of the Crown and later the United States, their contribution to an idea of multiculturalism can largely be dismissed as they didn't exist as a cultural bloc the way other migrants did.

The Chinese also existed in very small numbers until roughly a century or so after independence.

From the Wikipedia article of Chinese Americans, and cited from numerous sources there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Americans#History
"The first Chinese immigrants arrived in 1820, according to U.S. government records. 325 men are known to have arrived before the 1849 California Gold Rush,[9] which drew the first significant number of laborers from China who mined for gold and performed menial labor.[10][11][12] There were 25,000 immigrants by 1852, and 105,465 by 1880, most of whom lived on the West Coast. They formed over a tenth of California's population. Nearly all of the early immigrants were young males with low educational levels from six districts in Guangdong Province.[13]"

It wasn't really until 1880 that Chinese immigrants achieved any significant population, by which again, the nation had existed for a full century and was very much already culturally developed.

The bulk of the American population at independence possessed a singular colonial identity, re-branded under an American nationality, as they were no longer subjects of Britain. Their descent was from Britain itself, and from the German states. All other populations present that at the time were in such absolute minorities as to have virtually no choice but to assimilate directly. And by the time those populations that might be considered diversifying to the American people arrived, the culture and nature of America itself had been progressing by the values and ideas of its very homogeneous population for a hundred years.

And ultimately, these peoples did integrate. It is also worth noting that almost half of the Italians that migrated to the United States as part of the Italian Exodus, during which some 13 million Italians left and 4 million came to the United States, ended up returning to Italy.

Chinese Americans today exist as just 1.5% of the US population as of 2017. Italian Americans comprise just 5.4%. German Americans by contrast are a full 14.4%. Measuring those Americans descended from the British isles is a lot harder, due to the nature of the revolution largely quelling support for any kind of British identity. But between the British descended and German descended Americans, they would account for most of the population until the 1960s. That is when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed, which should be mentioned, is almost two full centuries after Independence, and is the cause of the most diverse immigration to the United States. At a number of points in history, migrant quotas from places considered undesirable were enforced. Another thing to note is that the figures of those people predicted to come from Asia and other places as a result of this Act were considered scaremongering points by the supporters of the Act. The actual figures that came were often 3x as many as these figures suggested. So at no point during this Immigration Act did its proponents seem to have any intention of creating a diverse American state.

"The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years ... I don't think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States ... There is not a general move toward the United States." - Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, 1965.

Figure given for Indian migration in the following five years is 8,000.

Actual figure, above 25,000. Following that period of time, Indo-Americans now number some 4.4 million.

Another example of poorly predicted figures is of Japanese migration.

"Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population .. .Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned." - Senator Hiram Fong

One can see from the quote itself that at no point was any idea of "multiculturalism" the driving force behind this, or thought to be wanted or happen.

However once again, within five years, some 20,000 or so Japanese immigrants came, and today they number 1.4 million. Asian Americans make up 6.6% of the US population.

To call something multicultural is to allege that within a certain space, multiple distinct cultures exist with their own cultural integrity.

The USA is not and has never been an example of this, as the USA has repeatedly limited migration from more culturally distinct areas, and in the Act in which they opened themselves up, the proponents did not expect anywhere near the level of migration from these areas that actually occurred.

It is also important to note that a state cannot be both multicultural and a melting pot at the same time. The USA is certainly multi-ethnic, and whilst cultural remnants of the migrant populations of significant size can of course be seen in self-segregated areas of those of similar ethnic heritage, such as Koreatowns and Chinatowns, and originally with the Little Italies, the vast majority of these migrants we can safely assume assimilated into the presently existing, Anglo-Germanic influenced culture the held sway throughout the USA in everything from language, to its law, to its architecture.

So by the definition of multiculturalism, the USA falls flat. In fact, no state typically ever exists as multicultural without forming a mono-culture out of the varied cultures (or just some to the exclusion of others), in the case of empire, the culture of the founding stock will often use varied means to ensure its own dominance, or the state itself fractures as each culture seeks to carve itself out a piece.

If we can all agree that cultures tend to represent in many ways a set of ideas and values which are by general rule, applicable to a specific identity group, then between cultures these values and including what is right and wrong will vary. But a state can only really pursue one course of action which will appease one or a few cultures but likely anger others. And the most stable way for a culture and its identity group to exist as their culture generally guides them to is to be independent. Multiculturalism seems to me at the least, largely untenable, maintained historically only through making it more beneficial to stay within the state than outside of it, but always as subject to the culture of the original stock. The Roman and Persian Empires come to mind as examples of this. The Assyrian Empire would deport and diffuse conquered peoples throughout its territory to eradicate the chance of a culturally unified revolt which would inevitably occur otherwise.

So, if the United States is not multicultural, then how about a melting pot?

Not impossible, only it's a very Anglo-Germanic pot indeed. The Italian migrants certainly brought aspects of their culture with them, which became adopted by America as the Italians also adopted what it was to be American in the philosophical sense. The same is true of the Chinese. However these populations were and are still so small that if America is indeed to be considered a melting pot, it's a very homogeneous one.

America was not founded by immigrants, it was founded by the descendants of colonists from very homogeneous and similar backgrounds having forged a colonial identity then solidified by revolution under a new nationality. The immigrants you tend to think of as being the 'founders' did not arrive in any significant numbers until a century later, and many others did not arrive until sixty years ago.

It is not multicultural in any sense of the word, because it does not operate by the literal definition of multicultural, and a common set of ideals of what it means to be American in terms of rights and responsibilities, as enshrined in the Constitution, does exist and binds all those who follow it to a singular mono-American identity.

And it is not a melting pot insofar as being highly culturally or ethnically diverse, because the greatest diversity the USA has ever experienced was the direct result of an Act that even the supporters did not expect would produce the result it had. Until that point it was exceptionally ethnically homogeneous, being primarily North-Western European, with a culture descended primarily from Britain with German influence left to evolve on its own course for a century before it had any real reciprocal contact with any other people.

To call it a nation founded by immigrants and being multicultural is highly disingenuous, because these statements are based on migration patterns that occured a century after the birth of the nation to as recently as sixty years ago, following the pass of an Act that the supporters of which did not expect the result of.

Such statements are based on a misinterpretation of actual outcomes, not the actual intent of the actions of America itself, and on a dire misunderstanding of exactly who migrated to the United States and when.

EDIT 1 - added name to quote
EDIT 2 - corrected typo 'so' to 'ago'

[Darussalam]

On the other hand, the early settlers of the United States weren't very homogenous either - Fischer documented that there were at least four distinct cultural groups that colonized the continent and later heralded the American polity to independence: Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers, and Borderers. Between Puritan-Quakers and Cavalier-Borderers the culture and behavior are distinct enough that they might as well be from the opposite side of the Hajnal line.

I don't think multiracialism is the problem per se - more essential, I think, are the inter-group differences, especially in cognitive ability and trust. The difference is that there doesn't seem to be a problem with mixing high-trust, high-IQ groups with each other, hence Asian-Americans or Singaporean racial communities. I will go further and say that high-IQ people in general have no trouble coexisting with each other. I'm also with Garett Jones in that most problems related to immigration and group differences seem to be worsened by democracy and egalitarian politics in general. Maybe open border works well in scenario where law enforcement actually enforces laws, which is decidedly not the case in many Western countries, and where people with negative externalities are excluded from participation in political decision-making which affects the entire country's institutions.

[Page]

most problems related to immigration and group differences seem to be worsened by democracy and egalitarian politics in general. Maybe open border works well in scenario where law enforcement actually enforces laws, which is decidedly not the case in many Western countries,

How would an undemocratic state better maintain a multicultural society, and what examples do you have of law enforcement not enforcing laws in Western countries?

[Valgora]

In all seriousness I feel Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value, and a kind of human right in a way.

To be honest, I don't see how Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value.

And Multiculturalism ain't a human right. The only way it's a human right is if you go with the idea of freedom of persecution due to your culture is a human right and concluded that that requires Multiculturalism or something.

---

Countries like Canada and the United States were literally founded by immigrants and have been multicultural for almost their entire history.

Yes, America was founded by what could be considered immigrants. And this country arguably owes a lot to immigrants who have come here.
But the United States ain't multicultural in the same sense as Canada is.

If I remember correctly, Canada goes with the idea of different cultures being pieces of the mosaic of the culture of Canada.
America doesn't think that way. The Melting Pot is how we've gone with it, which focuses more on assimilation instead of multiculturalism. Basically, there is an American Culture that immigrants assimilate into but also influence with their original culture.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

As a further point, and this is now my belief solely, I do not believe multiculturalism should be promoted or pushed.

Migration really only tends to occur one way. You do not see as many Europeans moving to Africa as vice versa.

However, from my own observations which I will permit the idea could be skewed, I happen to believe that if a receiving culture is now seeing the influx of a number of people from different cultures, and promotes multiculturalism over integration, its own culture must inevitably take a loss.

The emphasis is placed on the accommodating of the new cultures, which places the onus of action upon the old.

What this typically results in, especially in Europe today, is the host culture suppressing its own elements when they are deemed offensive to, or contrary to, the values of the newcomers in order to try and reinforce the multicultural idea. But this does not work two ways. If an element of the new culture is offensive or contrary to members the host culture, I observe that it is the members of the host culture who are then called intolerant or bigoted.

This places immeasureable advantage on the newcomers, as it results in no real government attempt to integrate them, the promotion of the new cultures and the wilful ignorance of less savoury elements, as well as the suppression of contested parts of the host culture and the dismissal of opponents of multiculturalism within the host culture as being intolerant.

As seen in what I was talking about Savile Town earlier, this can and does lead to the general cultural replacement of geographic areas, which have historically occurred on larger scales such as with the Turkic invasions, and the Arab-Islamic conquests, though this is a more non-violent spread.

So my opposition to multiculturalism is rooted in the defence of the host culture. The country which the new cultures come from may well be poor, or it may be successful. It could be developing or developed. Impoverished or luxurious. But it has its own culture. It has every right to it. But so do we. We have no obligation to sacrifice elements of our own identity for the sake of people who have entire nations where their own cultural traditions are dominant. If they come to our countries, it should be in regulated numbers and with full integration, just as would be expected of us if we went there.

Because the term many people applied to when Europeans moved to new places, enforced their own culture at the expense of the hosts, and then came to political and economic positions of power, is colonialism. Multiculturalism is in my view a disguised word for reverse colonialism. It is a tactic, not a goal.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

most problems related to immigration and group differences seem to be worsened by democracy and egalitarian politics in general. Maybe open border works well in scenario where law enforcement actually enforces laws, which is decidedly not the case in many Western countries,

How would an undemocratic state better maintain a multicultural society, and what examples do you have of law enforcement not enforcing laws in Western countries?

Examples of this in history would be the Roman Empire, which created tributary areas within provinces within which communities were under the protection of Rome, and could in their own settlements, elect their own leaders or see similar succession often by their own cultural ways of doing so, with Roman official oversight. A special treaty enshrining both Roman and native law would be enacted. Those elected to office within the state would be given citizenship upon completion, and auxiliary military service could award the same.

It was more of a process than a goal. The goal was never multiculturalism, but Romanisation. However having conquered new areas, those areas did not become immediately Roman, and forced conversion immediately would inevitably trigger a revolt. So incentives were provided to Romanise and remain within the Roman system, with the end goal being Romanisation, but not making the people feel as though they were being persecuted.

Roman culture remained dominant, and other cultures remained distinct for a time. Cultural dominance of the host and long-term conversion of other groups is, in my view, the best "example" of multiculturalism insofar as it doesn't produce civil war or secession.

Oh and as to the second bit, one example might be the Rotherham Sex Exploitation Scandal, in which a government report found nearly one and a half thousand girls had been systematically trafficked and raped by an overwhelmingly Muslim Pakistani heritage group of gangs, that the police actually knew the abuse was going on, but did not actually do anything for almost two decades for not wanting to seem racist. Similar events have also occurred in Rochdale and Telford, with the abuse in Telford being exposed recently as having been going on for forty years, with almost a thousand girls victimised, to the knowledge and lack of response by police until Operation Chalice, which made only a slight dent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham ... on_scandal

The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal consisted of the organised child sexual abuse that occurred in the northern English town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire from the late 1980s until the 2010s and the failure of local authorities to act on reports of the abuse throughout most of that period.[8] Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials and warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007, has since described it as the "biggest child protection scandal in UK history".[9] Evidence of the abuse was first noted in the early 1990s, when care home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers.[10] From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five British-Pakistani men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12–16.[11] From January 2011 Andrew Norfolk of The Times pressed the issue, reporting in 2012 that the abuse in the town was widespread, and that the police and council had known about it for over ten years.[a]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 51926.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscrut ... 7763ca754a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_c ... on_scandal

The Telford child sexual exploitation scandal is an ongoing scandal in the United Kingdom. Originally, a group of British-Asian men were convicted of grooming local children for sex between 2007 and 2009 in Telford in the English county of Shropshire.[1][2][3] While media reports had suggested 100 or more girls had been affected[4] and around 200 perpetrators were suspected,[5] in March 2018 the Sunday Mirror reported that up to 1,000 girls may have been abused, with some even murdered, in incidents dating back to the 1970s.[6]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-s ... e-45432423
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5777071/t ... s-victims/

Germany today also has a problem regarding deporting those who are refused asylum. Insofar that with many of them, they don't.

https://www.thelocal.de/20160922/550000 ... in-germany
https://www.dw.com/en/why-rejected-asyl ... a-18981467

[Darussalam]

most problems related to immigration and group differences seem to be worsened by democracy and egalitarian politics in general. Maybe open border works well in scenario where law enforcement actually enforces laws, which is decidedly not the case in many Western countries,

How would an undemocratic state better maintain a multicultural society, and what examples do you have of law enforcement not enforcing laws in Western countries?

We can see first how democracy fosters ethnic conflict: in a multicultural society, people vote according to their ethnic loyalty. This is not a new observation, and even in a stable, developed polity like the United States, we're still seeing this trend. As Caplan observes, voting is not an act assessed through selfish cost and benefit, because in doing so (1) the relevance of your own voting in influencing your own life is basically zero, and therefore (2) the benefit of free-riding others' vote and not voting yourself exceeds the benefit of actually voting. Therefore, people vote sociotropically. In an unrestricted (i.e not "liberal") democracy, people will easily vote for larger share of spoils for their ethnic blocs, promoting a feedback cycle that I can't see not ending in eventual destruction.

An undemocratic state might administer a multicultural society better for various reasons. A competent ethnic bloc tends to monopolize the position of the ruling elite (ex: Singapore's Lee family and their extended Peranakan elite). This situation at first might be unstable as the ethnic bloc is yet to consolidate its power (ex: the Peranakan facing opposition from the much more numerous working class Chinese contenders in early formative years of Singapore, plus Malays backed by mainland UMNO), but unlike the constant instability of multiethnic democracy, as the bloc consolidated, its grip of power becomes stronger, and it becomes increasingly impossible for other ethnic blocs to challenge its hegemony, authority stabilizes. The elite might as well be cosmopolitan and open to outsiders, because at this point democracy doesn't matter and thus incentives that apply differ.

Another reason is that an undemocratic polity reduces the chance of certain individuals to participate in political decision-making. These individuals might otherwise affect the national institutions negatively by alterations done by said decision-making. This is partly how the US used to work before regulations that restricted the lobbyists, and subsequent increasing democratization and polarization.

Ephyral has highlighted the examples in Europe, now I want to emphasize on under-policing in the US partly because fear of racism.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... liced.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 743259716f

[San Lumen]

In all seriousness I feel Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value, and a kind of human right in a way.

To be honest, I don't see how Multiculturalism is a core Judeo-Christian value.

And Multiculturalism ain't a human right. The only way it's a human right is if you go with the idea of freedom of persecution due to your culture is a human right and concluded that that requires Multiculturalism or something.

---

Countries like Canada and the United States were literally founded by immigrants and have been multicultural for almost their entire history.

Yes, America was founded by what could be considered immigrants. And this country arguably owes a lot to immigrants who have come here.
But the United States ain't multicultural in the same sense as Canada is.

If I remember correctly, Canada goes with the idea of different cultures being pieces of the mosaic of the culture of Canada.
America doesn't think that way. The Melting Pot is how we've gone with it, which focuses more on assimilation instead of multiculturalism. Basically, there is an American Culture that immigrants assimilate into but also influence with their original culture.

That is interesting I never know that about Canada. They do seem to do well with assimilation though to an extent

[Valgora]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 743259716f

Yea.... I'm going to have to call bullshit on that Ferguson Effect.

"William Bratton, the then-New York City Police Commissioner, said in 2015 that he had seen no evidence of a "Ferguson effect" in his city. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before Congress on November 17, 2015, that there was "no data" to support claims that the Ferguson effect existed. According to Slate, Ronald L. Davis, a former police chief and the executive director of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, testified at the same hearing that the notion that police would fail to do their jobs because they were scared was "an insult to the profession". President Obama also said in a 2015 speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police that although gun violence and homicides had spiked in some U.S. cities, "so far at least across the nation, the data shows that we are still enjoying historically low rates of violent crime", and "What we can't do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or to feed political agendas." In December 2015, Edward A. Flynn, police chief of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said that although police were unnerved due to anti-police protests, this was not solely responsible for the increase in violent crime observed in his city recently, because rates of such crimes there started increasing before Michael Brown was shot."

"Some researchers have said that there is little evidence of a crime wave in the United States; for example, law professor Franklin Zimring told NBC News in 2015 that "I don't think there's a trend" in recent nationwide crime rates. Jeffery Ulmer, associate head of the Department of Sociology and Criminology at Penn State University, has said that although the Ferguson effect is possible, he does not consider it likely nationwide. As it is recognized that the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting, having a 5.6 times increase in homicide and over ten times increase in the robber, in a select number of cities in 2017 particularly, Indianapolis and Baltimore cannot be ignored."
- Wikipedia