Why multiculturalism is a failure

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Danny Ocean:

I forgot to mention India.

Just a heads up, there are quite a few people who are Muslim in India.

Danny Ocean:
I presume in hot countries it's to prevent burning and in cold countries to keep you warm, and in both cases pretty unrelated to looking attractive, because those hijabs can look pretty damn good when they want them to. At their most complex they can be very ornate, and at their simplest they're just the same as a hood. Not really a big deal.

Not like the Niqabs and Burqas. Those things are a pain-in-the-ass. I suspect that's why it's settled on the Hijab being the standard across most of the region.

I would be hesitant to call them hijabs, seeing as they(as you pointed out) are worn outdoors to be protected from the elements, and presumably are not worn inside. Hijabs are worn regardless of the elements, and it instead depends on who can see the girl/women's hair to curb sexual desire of her.

Helmholtz Watson:

Danny Ocean:

I forgot to mention India.

Just a heads up, there are quite a few people who are Muslim in India.

I'm talking about the Hindus, who wear something similar. Ever seen a Hindu wedding when they tart up their silk Hijabs and look awesome?

Danny Ocean:
I presume in hot countries it's to prevent burning and in cold countries to keep you warm, and in both cases pretty unrelated to looking attractive, because those hijabs can look pretty damn good when they want them to. At their most complex they can be very ornate, and at their simplest they're just the same as a hood. Not really a big deal.

Not like the Niqabs and Burqas. Those things are a pain-in-the-ass. I suspect that's why it's settled on the Hijab being the standard across most of the region.

I would be hesitant to call them hijabs, seeing as they(as you pointed out) are worn outdoors to be protected from the elements, and presumably are not worn inside. Hijabs are worn regardless of the elements, and it instead depends on who can see the girl/women's hair to curb sexual desire of her.

So if I wear a headscarf inside it's a Hijab?

I've gotta say I don't share your attraction to hair. It's mostly face and body for me.

It's not like they're even obliged to wear them in most of the world, it's just standard practice for fashion/practical/traditional reasons. Hell, looking at the map it seems like more places than not have outright restrictions on them. Only Afghan and Saudi and Iran mandate them.

image

So I don't think it's really as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. I dunno why, but the Scandinavians in particular are way down on dem Hijabs.

I can't help but feel that most of this rage against Islamic culture just finds its sources in some kinda us-and-them mentality which a lot of people don't even realise they have. The media and opportunistic politicians having ingrained it quite thoroughly.

Helmholtz Watson:
But Japan already has those things, why adopt West Asian food when they have their own?

America already has its own music and food. Why the hell do all these kids want to eat at Italian restaurants and listen to European metal bands? Why can't they just be satisfied with New England clam chowder and Johnny Cash? Is that not good enough for them?

I'm going to make this clear. I was born and raised in the US, but if you try to come between me and my poczkis or my Santana albums, there's going to be a fight.

Really? The Middle East idea of women in society is what Japan should adopt? I would hardly urge Japan or South Korea to treat women like they do in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

You are aware that there are countries in the Middle East that are not Saudi Arabia, right? Besides, the population of both Iran and Saudi Arabia only accounts for 5% of the world's Muslim population and those are the only countries where a headscarf is legally required. More commonly, it's simply an issue of tradition to wear a scarf, it usually doesn't cover the face at all, and it's mostly a symbol of piety in the way that a nun's habit is.

So what are you opposing exactly?

That could be done by studying abroad, that doesn't require immigration to do.

So you propose sending every single student out to study abroad? Yeah, that'll happen.

Helmholtz Watson:

DrVornoff:

Helmholtz Watson:
ok I'll rephrase, what do places like South Korea have to gain from adopting cultural aspects from West-Asian Muslim immigrants?

Good food and music, perhaps? Ever eaten Middle Eastern food or listened to the folk music of the region? It's great!

But Japan already has those things, why adopt West Asian food when they have their own?

You keep using this word "adopt", as though Japan must give up what Japan already has. The incorporation of a more diverse palate does not mean Japan has to give up sushi.

Oh, and incidentally, anyone who thinks Japan already has Middle Eastern food has never been to Japan. There is the odd restaurant in Tokyo or Osaka perhaps, and a kebab shop here and there. But generally speaking diversity is not one of the hallmarks of the Japanese restaurant scene.

Katatori-kun:
There are tons of things Arab/Muslim immigration could bring to Japan that would be of benefit to Japanese people. Off the top of my head: a rich variety of cuisine, a model of womanhood where women are able to be beautiful and feminine without having to be obsessed with cutesy character goods or pretend they are pre-adolescent

Really? The Middle East idea of women in society is what Japan should adopt?

Christ, will you quit with these absurd strawman arguments? Multiculturalism is not an on/off switch. You don't have to adopt everything in a culture just because you accomodate it. But you can learn from it, and smart civilizations have been doing this for the whole span of human history. To pretend that this is somehow a threat is nothing but xenophobia.

I would hardly urge Japan or South Korea to treat women like they do in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

You do realize there is more to Arab/Muslim culture than Iran and Saudi Arabia, right?

Katatori-kun:
an approach to foreign-language learning that values communication and fluency over rote-memorization for tests, and of course an awareness that not everyone who is foreign comes from New York City or Los Angeles.

That could be done by studying abroad, that doesn't require immigration to do.

It could be, but it ain't. Trust me, I'm well immersed in this scene. Japan has been failing to develop a usable system for EFL for decades, even when study-abroad programs are used.

You excuses are getting increasingly thin. It's obvious by now that you just don't like immigrants. The problem isn't multiculturalism, the problem is you. This is particularly irritating as you are speaking for what Japan and South Korea should do when you clearly lack experience on the ground in either society.

DrVornoff:

America already has its own music and food. Why the hell do all these kids want to eat at Italian restaurants and listen to European metal bands? Why can't they just be satisfied with New England clam chowder and Johnny Cash? Is that not good enough for them?

I'm going to make this clear. I was born and raised in the US, but if you try to come between me and my poczkis or my Santana albums, there's going to be a fight.

...ok. The US isn't Japan, nor South Korea. I also don't see how having ethnic restuarnts would make either place multicultural, because tbh when I eat Panada Express I don't think it represents Chinese culture.

You are aware that there are countries in the Middle East that are not Saudi Arabia, right? Besides, the population of both Iran and Saudi Arabia only accounts for 5% of the world's Muslim population and those are the only countries where a headscarf is legally required.[/quote]Which is why I also used the term West Asia, because I'm not referring to Indonesian Muslims.

DrVornoff:
More commonly, it's simply an issue of tradition to wear a scarf, it usually doesn't cover the face at all, and it's mostly a symbol of piety in the way that a nun's habit is.

So what are you opposing exactly?

I oppose the idea that place like South Korea should be bullied by other nations to become multicultural. If they want to, good for them, but I don't think that they need to have it.

That could be done by studying abroad, that doesn't require immigration to do.

So you propose sending every single student out to study abroad? Yeah, that'll happen.[/quote]My point is that you don't need multiculturalism to do that, hell they could just use the internet to learn about the world.

ShadowsofHope:
Just a note of contention here, but how and why would you be banned from large chunks of Canada, exactly? Canada is one of the most successive cultural mosaic nations on the planet, despite the fact we tend to mess up with our remaining native population *hems*.
I'm asking this as a Canadian myself, btw, because that statement really confuses me.

As part of the fuss about the 'first nations' there's parts some tribes claim like their territory, which whites are banned from, and may only enter with a special permit from said tribe.

While... did they purchase that land? No. Did they earn it? No more than any other Canadian because nobody lives twice. Maybe it's a mutual thing and we can plant a sign saying 'All indians banned' on any random patch of dirt? No, we can't. Can you think of any justification for such an obvious race law? I can't.

Much in the same way, poaching and selling parts of poached protected animals suddenly becomes legal with the right ethnicity, while for other races, it's strictly banned. I've seen Swiss tourists in BC talk about taking eagle feathers and bear teeth home with them for instance. For this they had to pay an indian for some certificate that it's a gift, and suddenly it becomes legal.

You or me try to take the exact same object across a border, and customs throws you in jail for smuggling parts of protected animals.

Katatori-kun:
It's obvious by now that you just don't like immigrants. The problem isn't multiculturalism, the problem is you.

At no point did I suggest that immigrants shouldn't be allowed there, I only said that they should adopt the host culture.

Helmholtz Watson:
I would be hesitant to call them hijabs, seeing as they(as you pointed out) are worn outdoors to be protected from the elements, and presumably are not worn inside. Hijabs are worn regardless of the elements, and it instead depends on who can see the girl/women's hair to curb sexual desire of her.

I think you've missed the point here. One interesting fact which you can take or leave, diaspora Muslim women are generally more likely to wear more conservative forms of clothing than middle eastern Muslim women, despite living in a culture where men are routinely exposed to the sight of women's hair, and therefore demonstrably will not go insane with barely-contained lust if they do so.

If you want an answer to that, you'd be better off looking at Sikhs. Sikhs have always been a religious minority and have often suffered persecution and social exclusion both in the Indian subcontinent and in diaspora. Like most Muslims, Sikhs aren't wearing traditional dress because it's legally required, or even because their tradition would reject them if they didn't, they do it because it's a devotional practice which marks them out and demonstrates their religious commitment.

Now, there's a branch of aggressive secularism which maintains that people shouldn't be allowed to do that. France is a good example of this kind of sentiment being reflected in policy, and I suppose it's a consistent position even if I don't agree with it. But to claim that hijab should be banned because it only exists to curb sexual desire is a bit silly. The same could be said of all clothing.

Moreover, if a woman chooses to wear a low cut top, we don't generally ask whether that it's empowering to her or whether it's a harmful practice which exists for the benefit of lecherous men. Why, when a woman wants to wear modest clothing as a religious devotion, do we suddenly question their capacity for choice, as if noone could possibly want to do such a thing of sound mind.

Helmholtz Watson:
...ok. The US isn't Japan, nor South Korea. I also don't see how having ethnic restuarnts would make either place multicultural, because tbh when I eat Panada Express I don't think it represents Chinese culture.

Just making a point that if you're going to use this, "They already have their own culture, why do they need more?" argument, it rings hollow if you yourself partake of culture from other ethnicities living in your country because you already have your own culture and you still partake of elements from someone else's.

I was born and raised in the Northeast US, but you can tell from the food we have around here that it was significantly influenced by all the European immigrants we had. And if you try to convince me that's a bad thing, I will laugh in your face while stuffing my own with pierogis and kielbasa.

Which is why I also used the term West Asia, because I'm not referring to Indonesian Muslims.

Point stands. You are pointing to two countries in a very large region and acting as if they speak for the whole thing.

I oppose the idea that place like South Korea should be bullied by other nations to become multicultural. If they want to, good for them, but I don't think that they need to have it.

Did I say I was going to bull them into it? I'm saying it's a good idea because you can't have immigrants and be xenophobic at the same time. It doesn't work. And in the modern economy, it's kind of difficult to completely close your borders.

My point is that you don't need multiculturalism to do that, hell they could just use the internet to learn about the world.

Oh please. The internet is great, but it's not a substitute for real life interaction. I'm trying to learn Slovak so that I can visit the old country sometime, but in order to do that I need to find someone who speaks Slovak already so that I can get accustomed to the rhythms and accents in conversation. And hey, check it out, there's an entire society of Slovak-Americans in my hometown that I can talk to for free instead of having to pay a couple hundred bucks for a digital language course.

Point is that if you have immigrants in your country, being nice to them pays off. It's astounding how often people in the 21st century need to be reminded that being nice to others is a good thing to do.

Helmholtz Watson:
At no point did I suggest that immigrants shouldn't be allowed there, I only said that they should adopt the host culture.

If I moved to Spain tomorrow, it's a given that I would have to learn Spanish to get by. And I would try to integrate, but I'm 27 years old and was raised in the US. I can't unlearn 27 years of culture overnight.

Helmholtz Watson:

Katatori-kun:
It's obvious by now that you just don't like immigrants. The problem isn't multiculturalism, the problem is you.

At no point did I suggest that immigrants shouldn't be allowed there, I only said that they should adopt the host culture.

And I didn't say you said immigrants shouldn't be allowed. Obviously you're totally okay with immigrants who give up everything unique about themselves and their culture to seamlessly blend in with what you think is the status quo.

Now howabout you respond to the actual substance of my above post, rather than picking a single line out of it and pretending you've found a straw man?

That guy from the video is the biggest douche I have ever watched since amazing atheist.

Blablahb:

ShadowsofHope:
Just a note of contention here, but how and why would you be banned from large chunks of Canada, exactly? Canada is one of the most successive cultural mosaic nations on the planet, despite the fact we tend to mess up with our remaining native population *hems*.
I'm asking this as a Canadian myself, btw, because that statement really confuses me.

As part of the fuss about the 'first nations' there's parts some tribes claim like their territory, which whites are banned from, and may only enter with a special permit from said tribe.

While... did they purchase that land? No. Did they earn it? No more than any other Canadian because nobody lives twice. Maybe it's a mutual thing and we can plant a sign saying 'All indians banned' on any random patch of dirt? No, we can't. Can you think of any justification for such an obvious race law? I can't.

Much in the same way, poaching and selling parts of poached protected animals suddenly becomes legal with the right ethnicity, while for other races, it's strictly banned. I've seen Swiss tourists in BC talk about taking eagle feathers and bear teeth home with them for instance. For this they had to pay an indian for some certificate that it's a gift, and suddenly it becomes legal.

You or me try to take the exact same object across a border, and customs throws you in jail for smuggling parts of protected animals.

While it may be true for certain tribes i can state from personal experience it isn't for many. Saying it goes for the majority of the Canadian land is absurd. And getting certain artifacts from animals under certain circumstances seems rather normal if you want to control its "harvest".

And you ask why these people deserve the land more... Well they have lived on it for generations and that sure as hell gives them more rights to it than people who just arrive and says "Hi, this is mine". And tbh, it's not liek Canada has a land shortage, if anything they are desperately trying to fill it up as much as they can.

Helmholtz Watson:
I oppose the idea that place like South Korea should be bullied by other nations to become multicultural. If they want to, good for them, but I don't think that they need to have it.

*facepalm*

You quite obviously have no idea how immigration, and by extension therefore multiculturalism, actually works.

It's not like the S Korean government (and Japan by the way, they're in a similar spot) is sitting there going "no thank you, we don't need no multiculturalism". Japan and S Korea have national traditions of closed borders, probably due to their geographical isolation. This is reflected in the attitudes of politicians in those countries.

There is currently a genuine debate going on among economists that the only way Japan can truly modernise and revitalise its economy is by opening its borders to enterprising immigrants. It is these pressures that bring about multiculturalism, not a group of people just deciding its time to get some culture for the country.

I mean, the way you frame your argument makes it sound like we in the UK got our love of curry from popping over to India and saying "bloody hell chaps this stuff is rather tasty! Let's take it back to Blighty with us". When in actuality it came about through immigration to the UK from the former South Asian Empire (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), which in itself was due to the economic pressures in Britain, and the political pressures in the former Empire.

Gerishnakov:
There is currently a genuine debate going on among economists that the only way Japan can truly modernise and revitalise its economy is by opening its borders to enterprising immigrants. It is these pressures that bring about multiculturalism, not a group of people just deciding its time to get some culture for the country.

Excellent point.

And in Japan's case, it highlights the blinkered ignorance of anti-multiculturalism. Japan's population is projected to decline over the next several decades as the post-war baby boomers die off. This decline is wrecking havoc on the economy because there is a growing number of retirees collecting pensions and a shrinking number of people working to pay for it. There are villages in Japan that are disappearing because no one under the age of 50 wants to live there- they're literally aging themselves off the map. Coupled with that Japanese families are having fewer children because the traditional Japanese family working arrangement (man works 40 hours a week plus 20 hours unpaid overtime, wife stays at home with no option of career ambitions beyond "office tea lady", kids eventually spent their entire waking life studying for entrance tests that get them into a good school so that they can become salariman who ignore their families- eventually the whole family ends up living in a house but literally never seeing each other) is undesirable. This could be solved by immigration. Immigrant laborers could build the Japanese tax base to pay for all these retirees, while simultaneously providing ideas of alternating ideas of how to live[1]. Who knows, maybe these salariman could learn something about efficiency from the foreigners. Certainly I've got a few ideas about how to make the schools I worked in function more efficiently.

Unfortunately, there is a reactionary minority in Japanese society that is so opposed to encountering people who look different or dress different or eat different that they scuttle or sabotage almost any attempt to increase immigration. Their only alternative is to beg women to have more babies.

[1] No, Helmholtz Watson- get your mouse off that reply button. This is not the same thing as forcing Japanese people to adopt the work/lifestyle habits of another culture.

NLS:

Helmholtz Watson:

Hold on a second. Tybring-Gjedde does in no way represent Norway. When you quote France's (soon former) president Sarkozy, Germany's chancellor Merkel, and Britain's prime minister Cameron, you're quoting the de-facto leaders and representatives of their nations. Tybring-Gjedde is just leader of FRP's Oslo division. If you're gonna quote "Norway" on this, at least do it from the prime minister of Norway, Stoltenberg, and not some nutjob from the far right division that is highly against any immigration and foreign culture.

Hes not a nutjob, and FRP is not far right as they are a liberalist party. They are not against immigration, they are just against immigration from countries with a culture thats completely different than ours.

Helmholtz Watson:
At no point did I suggest that immigrants shouldn't be allowed there, I only said that they should adopt the host culture.

So, you're fine with immmigrants, as long as you can't tell that they're immigrants?

I take it you're also fine with brunettes, provided they dye their hair blonde?

Guy from the 80's:
Hes not a nutjob, and FRP is not far right as they are a liberalist party. They are not against immigration, they are just against immigration from countries with a culture thats completely different than ours.

Is rampant xenophobia supposed to be better?

Aren't the FRP a tiny whiny racist party that has no influence whatsoever? How the hell can you manage to act like they are representative of all of Norway?!

Elcarsh:

Guy from the 80's:
Hes not a nutjob, and FRP is not far right as they are a liberalist party. They are not against immigration, they are just against immigration from countries with a culture thats completely different than ours.

Is rampant xenophobia supposed to be better?

Aren't the FRP a tiny whiny racist party that has no influence whatsoever? How the hell can you manage to act like they are representative of all of Norway?!

I'm not going to bother to get into this entire multiculturalism discussion, but I just wanted to chip in on this particular point:

When I saw that guy's post where he said that politicians in other countries claimed multiculturalism had failed, and I noticed he'd included Norway, I instantly thought to myself "That's going to be something from FRP, isn't it?"
And lo and behold it was.
Upon watching the video, I laughed out loud at the fact that anyone would consider that guy's opinion significant.
FRP has some pretty retarded views. They even managed to attract Behring Breivik (the shooter) to join their youth party. He left after a while because they weren't extreme enough, but I still think it's quite telling.

The guy in the video is to serious politics what The Sun is to serious reporting.
"...They go through the childrens' candy bags, and on the bags that contain gelatine candy they place a little sticker of a pig as a warning of horror."
Yeah. It's a true horror that they would make a tiny effort to accomodate people who are trying to keep halal.

They aren't tiny though. They're highly populistic. They're opposed to non-western immigration and they want to lower taxes (with no plans for getting the state money once they have); so they get the votes of all the xenophobes and the kids who just want cheaper gas and alcohol.
They've actually ended up with quite a significant portion of votes in recent years.
And they are as far right as you get in Norway. Anyone who looks at politics less than superficially thinks they are nutjobs. They're routinely made fun of in the kinds of crowds who don't watch Jersey shore.

Oh boy! Stupid strawmen arguments! Now are you going to give me a real reason that multiculturalism is a failure? Multiculturalism doesn't automatically mean all cultures but one are lost, but you seem to be claiming otherwise, it just means coexistence.

Katatori-kun:

Helmholtz Watson:

Katatori-kun:

Wait... where the hell did this come from? I can assure you there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of Japan forcing women to wear a burqa ever. It's such an absurd proposition it makes my brain hurt just thinking about it.

Look at my conversation with DrVornoff, I originally said that the immigrants should attempt to adopt their new country's culture, which he responded with asking me about my ethnicity(I said half German) so he came back and said that German culture as contributed to American culture. So I responded, how would places like Japan(a place that puts emphasis on being Japanese) benefit from adopting certain aspects of Muslim immigrants culture, like women wearing the Burqa? I asked the question because he makes the claim that the immigrants culture can contribute to the host country's culture.

That's a completely absurd analogy though. Germans brought Americans good beer (though we do tend to ignore that contribution in favor of the swill that passes for most American beers). There did not suddenly come into being a law that forced Americans to drink only German beer. Likewise, Arab/Muslim immigration to countries where they are allowed to retain elements of their home culture can positively influence the host culture without forcing the host culture to adopt a restrictive version of that home culture.

And frankly, this characterization of Arab/Muslim culture as though the niqab was the only thing they have to contribute to the world is rather bigoted and insulting. There are tons of things Arab/Muslim immigration could bring to Japan that would be of benefit to Japanese people. Off the top of my head: a rich variety of cuisine, a model of womanhood where women are able to be beautiful and feminine without having to be obsessed with cutesy character goods or pretend they are pre-adolescent[1], an approach to foreign-language learning that values communication and fluency over rote-memorization for tests, and of course an awareness that not everyone who is foreign comes from New York City or Los Angeles.

Good points. In fact, there is some Muslim immigration to Japan, and it has indeed had the good effects you describe. captcha-shaken not stirred

[1] Because just in case some people on this board forget, not all Arab Muslim women wear the niqab in public.

--

generals3:
And you ask why these people deserve the land more... Well they have lived on it for generations and that sure as hell gives them more rights to it than people who just arrive and says "Hi, this is mine".

Steady on - if you keep the same sentiment but switch the skin colours of the people involved, that suddenly becomes a horribly racist statement, for some reason.

Katatori-kun:

And in Japan's case, it highlights the blinkered ignorance of anti-multiculturalism. Japan's population is projected to decline over the next several decades as the post-war baby boomers die off. This decline is wrecking havoc on the economy because there is a growing number of retirees collecting pensions and a shrinking number of people working to pay for it. There are villages in Japan that are disappearing because no one under the age of 50 wants to live there- they're literally aging themselves off the map. Coupled with that Japanese families are having fewer children because the traditional Japanese family working arrangement (man works 40 hours a week plus 20 hours unpaid overtime, wife stays at home with no option of career ambitions beyond "office tea lady", kids eventually spent their entire waking life studying for entrance tests that get them into a good school so that they can become salariman who ignore their families- eventually the whole family ends up living in a house but literally never seeing each other) is undesirable. This could be solved by immigration. Immigrant laborers could build the Japanese tax base to pay for all these retirees, while simultaneously providing ideas of alternating ideas of how to live[1]. Who knows, maybe these salariman could learn something about efficiency from the foreigners. Certainly I've got a few ideas about how to make the schools I worked in function more efficiently.

Unfortunately, there is a reactionary minority in Japanese society that is so opposed to encountering people who look different or dress different or eat different that they scuttle or sabotage almost any attempt to increase immigration. Their only alternative is to beg women to have more babies.

I personally think European style immigration and multiculturalism would be terrible, absolutely horrible, in Japan.

Some people talk as if opposing mass immigration and multiculturalism means that you want close to zero immigration and zero tolerance of foreigners and it is not true. Japan in fact is very friendly and open to foreign influences and there are several Korean towns and China towns in the Kanto/Kanagawa area. Not to mention the red light kabukicho which is essentially a multicultural pocket in Japan and probably the only place that has anything coming close to Euro levels of crime. I also have never experienced street racism in Japan, something that my Japanese wife experienced on several occassions in "multi-cultural" Britain.

What Japan wont allow, however, is mass immigration accompanied by the ideology of multiculturalism like what they have in Europe, which in effect means ghettoes, cultural disharmony and the rise of religious and political extremism from both left, right and religious. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I love Japan because it is so "Japanese" and it is partly because of its mono-cultural rigidity and conformity that it has much lower levels of crime and extremism than is the case in Europe.

I also reject the assumption that only mass immigration and multiculturalism can solve Japan's population crisis. One of the most important factors for Japanese parents not having more than one child is the extremely high cost of compulsory (primary and secondary) and post-compulsory education in Japan. Right now Japan has the lowest tax rate in the OECD. So low that if Japan raised its taxes to UK levels it would wipe out its huge deficit overnight. So, if Japan increased taxes for education, for making education cheap or free, then I think that many more would have children.

Japan in my experience is very accepting and tolerant of foreigners like myself. Perhaps because there aren't enough of us to form ghettoes, challenge their cultural norms and become a nuisance?

Regards

Nightspore

[1] No, Helmholtz Watson- get your mouse off that reply button. This is not the same thing as forcing Japanese people to adopt the work/lifestyle habits of another culture.

Katatori-kun:
Immigrant laborers could build the Japanese tax base to pay for all these retirees, while simultaneously providing ideas of alternating ideas of how to live[1].

I actually stopped following this thread to think about the flaws on my side of the argument, but I'm glad to see that you were thinking about me. ;D

[1] No, Helmholtz Watson- get your mouse off that reply button. This is not the same thing as forcing Japanese people to adopt the work/lifestyle habits of another culture.

Nightspore:
Japan in fact is very friendly and open to foreign influences

Strongly disagree. Individual Japanese people may be very open to foreign influences, but when it comes to institutional processes in Japan the country is extremely xenophobic.

and there are several Korean towns and China towns in the Kanto/Kanagawa area.

Yes... and I know for a fact the Chinatown in Ikebukuro routinely gets patrolled by a Japanese bigot with a mob of bullies who run through the town and chant slogans like "take out the trash" and yell at shopkeepers for having the audacity to be foreign. And as long as they don't physically touch anyone, the police let it happen. The mere existence of a Chinatown doesn't mean much when it comes to assessing societal immigration. In fact, I would say that an over abundance of ethnic ghettos is the exact opposite of a society that welcomes immigration.

Not to mention the red light kabukicho which is essentially a multicultural pocket in Japan

Yeah, sorry, not buying it. I've been out in Kabukicho. The existence of Nigerian touts on the street is not multiculturalism. A single district in Tokyo does not a multicultural society make. Especially when part of the reason that district is so "multicultural" is due to sex-trafficking rather than intentional immigration.

and probably the only place that has anything coming close to Euro levels of crime.

Yeah, you don't think the fact that it's a red-light district might be more influential on crime rates than the "multiculturalism" there?

I also have never experienced street racism in Japan, something that my Japanese wife experienced on several occassions in "multi-cultural" Britain.

This has more to do with the characteristics of British and Japanese aggression than the nature of the societies' approach to immigration. The fact is that Japanese people don't typically harass anyone on the streets (though there are cases where gangs of oyajis have harassed foreigners simply for their being foreign). But if I can get refused to even be seen by apartment rental agencies simply because I have a different skin color, if hotels can demand extra information from anyone who looks foreign, if police can randomly demand immigration papers from people who happen to look different, then we cannot say that the society welcomes immigrants. Hell, until a few years ago there was a government website where people could anonymously report foreigners as potential illegal immigrants, with the reason why able to be selected from a pull-down menu that includes such options as "they make me feel uncomfortable". Then of course, there are publications released with the apparent cooperation of the National Police agency (they have arrest scene photos and statistical information that would seem to only be available to people with police connections) that heavily imply that all foreigners are criminals.

What Japan wont allow, however, is mass immigration accompanied by the ideology of multiculturalism like what they have in Europe,

They won't allow mass immigration for any other reason either, including but not limited to refugees accepted for humanitarian reasons. Hell, there were even barriers put up to ensure that trainee nurses from the Philippines wouldn't be able to pass their exams and remain in the country- despite Japan suffering a shortage of care workers.

I love Japan because it is so "Japanese" and it is partly because of its mono-cultural rigidity

Yeah, that's bollocks, sorry. Japan is not mono-cultural. Japan is mono-racial. And it is a convenient lie that Japanese politicians love to toss out to say that Japanese race equates to Japanese culture.

and conformity that it has much lower levels of crime and extremism than is the case in Europe.

Got any evidence to back up the relationship you're trying to establish there? Because Japan was even more mono-racial in 1931, and if you crack open a history book you might find some references to Japanese extremism. And baby bayonnetting. There was also less racial diversity in 1995 than there is today. If that date sticks out to you, it's because that's the year that the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult organized a sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system that injured over a thousand people.

I love Japan man, but we have to be honest about it's flaws. And one of it's flaws is that the country is not welcoming to immigration at all.

SOME PEOPLE IN MY COUNTRY WANT TO LIVE DIFFERENTLY TO THE WAY I ASPIRE TO. GET IN THE BUNKER JULIE AND DON'T COME OUT UNTIL I SAY SO. I'LL GO STOCK UP ON FISH AND CHIPS, TEA AND CRUMPETS BEFORE THEY REPLACE ALL OF OUR GOOD ENGLISH FOOD WITH THEIR FOREIGN TRIPE, HOW COULD THE GOVERNMENT LET THIS HAPPEN? ITS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!
image

Just thought I'd contribute at the same level as most of the posts on this thread.

LOL, Midgeamoo.

The ironic thing is, the effects of immigration have contributed to British cuisine becoming IMHO one of the best in the world.

Surely I'm not to first the notice this thread is called "Why Multiculturalism is a failure" and yet the OP does not cite one piece of evidence whatsoever to suggest it is, other than a video of a rambling man speaking to strawmen.

Midgeamoo:
I'LL GO STOCK UP ON FISH AND CHIPS, TEA AND CRUMPETS BEFORE THEY REPLACE ALL OF OUR GOOD ENGLISH FOOD WITH THEIR FOREIGN TRIPE

Well, you better hurry because that won't take long at all. :p

Midgeamoo:
Typical rubbish from a Riven player

Do you even gank?

Nightspore:
I also reject the assumption that only mass immigration and multiculturalism can solve Japan's population crisis. One of the most important factors for Japanese parents not having more than one child is the extremely high cost of compulsory (primary and secondary) and post-compulsory education in Japan. Right now Japan has the lowest tax rate in the OECD. So low that if Japan raised its taxes to UK levels it would wipe out its huge deficit overnight. So, if Japan increased taxes for education, for making education cheap or free, then I think that many more would have children.

Oh, man. Raising taxes in Japan. Ouch. They've already had negative real interest rates for a ridiculously long time and still are in a slump. The BOJ is flirting with currency manipulation (to weaken it and encourage exports) because it's so bad. I don't know how you raise taxes in Japan without throwing their economy into a death spiral. If you're correct, it is Japan's current economic weakness that is causing that population crisis.

Two points:

A) Multiculturalism is really not just that. Most would probably be reluctant to admit it, but what hides beneath the surface of multiculturalism is multi-religiosity: the tolerance of all religions as equal. Because let's face it, most Westerners have not a single clue what is religiously mandatory in, say, the religion of Islam, and what is merely a cultural practice. In a sense, it's rather difficult to draw the line between culture and religion. Take the example of Jews: you have atheist Jews who celebrate Jewish holidays. The holidays have originated from the religion (at least formally), but the people retain them as a manifestation of their culture. Likewise with Christmas, which is a religious holiday for some, and a cultural thingy for others.

The point I'm trying to convey is that in theory, yes, multiculturalism is nothing but allowing people from different cultures to maintain their native cultures when they arrive to a given country. In reality (which is what really matters) multiculturalism results in minority groups struggling to preserve un-democratic, inhumane belief-systems under the guise of cultural freedom. When Sweden (or was it someone else?) banned Male Genital Mutilation ("circumcision", as the religious put it), religious Jews and Muslims used the whole "why don't we all tolerate each other's culture" card, when in fact it has nothing to do with culture as we understand it, but rather with religion. So in the end, the issue is not different cultures, but ideologies / religions which are not compatible with the Western values. Hallal food is not about culture; the Muhammad-cartoons debacle is not about culture; religiously mandatory manner of slaughter is not about culture. No one cares when an Arab wants to open a Middle-Eastern restaurant, where he would serve his cultural dishes; the issue arises when religious Jews or Muslims demand receiving food which is in accordance with their religion, or else... They would stir up trouble. Just imagine a religious Indian demanding that beef won't be allowed to enter his area, as it offends his 'culture'. The response would rightly be "You wish".

Cultural relativism is not an issue, as long as immigrants stay the minority and don't become a majority (unless it's America, which is a nation of immigrants anyway). Religious relativism, or ideological relativism, which both treat Western democracy (democracy is, after all, a Western notion) and non-democratic ideologies/religions the same way, that's the issue.

B) The second point is that you all ignore the monstrous elephant in the room: about 90% (no, it's not an accurate statistic; deal with it) of the issues with multiculturalism arise from a single problematic culture. While not all the problems with multiculturalism are caused by the spread of the religion (sometimes confused as a culture) of Islam -- other religions are also a source of troubles, don't get me wrong -- I'd say that we wouldn't have had this debate if Islam was to be replaced with Zen philosophy (and accordingly, Muslims with Zenists or whatever they're called). Just look at this long conversation, which deals with religious, religious, and more religious issues deriving from a single religion, to notice that the affair is not about culture at all, but rather about religion and, not to be underestimated, mentality as well. What is culture? It's foods, music, language, dress, poetry, things like that. I'd say these things are not such a big issue. Mentality and religious mentality in particular, is what causes the debate to emerge: Islamic, Middle-Eastern mentality, according to which women and non-Muslims are inherently inferior, and religion is the final arbiter in all decisions -- "is that a cartoon of my prophet?! So you mock my religion [boo hoo]?! Now I have to kill you as my religion commands!"

Since for many Middle-Easterners (and non-Westerners in general) religion is inseparable from culture (and vice versa), it is difficult for many of the European and American people to realize that the force behind all of the following issues: genital mutilation, Hallal/Kosher food, religiously mandatory coverings, and gender segregation, is not a cultural difference at all, but a difference in religion and mentality. Therefore, it's not obvious that multiculturalism, when loyal to it's core underlying convictions, should tolerate any of these things; that's a question of religious in/tolerance, not of varying cultural habits. The ancient Chinese traditions didn't espouse equality between the genders; but since this type of inequality fades (at least, it usually does) when Chinese people emigrate to the West, there aren't many encounters with them on the issue. However, religion is fundamentally different, which is why Muslims who immigrate to Europe sometimes (and sometimes they don't; I shouldn't generalize every single one of them, as there are exceptions to the rule) keep their inhumane mentality and wish to preserve it, which is what causes most of the troubles.

If, under the guise of multiculturalism, the West is going to immerse itself with people whose religious mentality is fundamentally and intrinsically un-democratic (and even anti-democratic), then it shouldn't be surprised that such religious immigrants allow themselves to commit whatever atrocity their religion condones and then pretend that this is merely their culture.

Hey Katatori-kun,

We should hook up some time in Japan for a pint. PM me if you want to. Especially if you live in Kanagawa.

Anyway, to address your points overall.

I won't deny that there is institutional racism in Japan and it is moreso than in the UK or in your own nation (the USA?). The solution is to enforce laws and policies that reduce institutional racism.

This doesn't in anyway justify your - I could be wrong - support for mass immigration and multiculturalism as a solution to Japan's ills.

You support my argument yourself when you say that "This has more to do with the characteristics of British and Japanese aggression than the nature of the societies' approach to immigration. The fact is that Japanese people don't typically harass anyone on the streets".

Why is that?

Because 'the Japanese people' don't typically harass anyone on the streets.

Regards

Nightspore

The people who see "multiculturalism" as a failure tend to be:

A. Racist Americans. (Or, for that matter, racists from anywhere.)

B. Europeans from a country with an unusual definition of "multiculturalism."

If we define "multiculturalism" as "having a genuinely pluralistic and inclusive society," that's a pretty resounding success where it's been implemented.

In the Netherlands, we have always had a lot of immigrants and foreigners in our country. Which means that we don't really have a strong national identity of our own. It is constantly changing and adapting to the people that inhabit the country. Multiculturalism here doesn't mean that all beliefs and habits are equally valid. It means creating a culture is constantly adapting and receiving new influences.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked