[Icarus]

Honestly, I think which one is a better model is a matter of opinion. They both have their advantages and drawbacks.

For the mosaic model, the advantage is that you encourage people to keep their cultural identity while still making them feel Canadian. One of the drawbacks is that there are times when the government may go into PC mode to satisfy a minority group much to the chagrin of the majority population (e.g. there was a controversy back in the 1990s when a Sikh joined the RCMP and wanted to wear his turban; a lot of people were pissed when he was permitted to, because they felt that since the RCMP was a Canadian institution with a proud heritage, he should have had to make the sacrifice, not the RCMP).

As for the melting pot idea, I wouldn't be the best to advocate its advantages and tackle its flaws since I haven't really seen its effects first hand (living in Canada and whatnot), but I see one advantage being that you put every culture on a level playing field without trying to cater to a specific minority, but that's in theory; in practice, it never works that way. One of the flaws would be that you essentially tell someone, "Screw your culture. It's be American or GTFO," although I don't see it being that extreme.

[EDIT] For context, I used Canada as the mosaic and the US as the melting pot.

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 13:33)

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 10:05) I'm not a racist, I'm just thinking of reality. I'm not quite sure who you are "agreeing 100%" with, unless its the OP. The majority of posters in this thread who have gone to the worthwhile lengths of making proper cases to support their arguments have been arguing against the idea that multiculturalism has or will fail, and those of us who concede that it certainly hasn't improved in the West in the last decade or two lay the blame for that solely at the feet of not the ethnic minorities but majority-demographic radicals who create many of the social problems and ethnic tensions in the first place.

Maybe it's late and I am mis-reading your post, and if so then I apologise now. The main point that I have tried to put across throughout this topic is that it actually is down to our Government as to why Multi-Culture in this country is such a failure. As I have said plenty of times, they are so scared to be branded racist that it's come to the stage where we see the Government trying to tell us all to hide the pride we have for the country, such as sporting events etc. Obviously though, racism does exist within people of the general public, but the majority of this stems from the media, and the way it portrays how we seem to come 2nd place at times. There was a recent news article that mentioned how a Somalian Immigrant and her family of so many have been given a mansion, and have everything being paid for them in terms of rent and benefits. Obviously, as a homeless person myself who has been rejected so many times for a property, this does actually anger me, but maybe there's a bigger story behind this...but I doubt it.

I totally accept multi-culturism within a country, but don't accept the major parties that cause the majority of the problems.

[KaRzY6]

Sorry, you's are right. I need to add more info to back up my point. Multi-culturism could work, but as Butters 2011 said, it's the government's fault for it being a failure. If the government is scared to be called racists, then there's some problems. England/UK has been Christans since before Viking raids (I think), so the English should be aloud to say 'Merry Christmas'. The English flag has been around for centuries, so the English people should be able to have it in their yard and be pround, not be called racists.

[Irviding]

You have to keep in mind with the melting pot model, while people generally assimilate more than they just keep their own identity, it eventually gets to a point where the immigrant identity in the US becomes what people are expected to assimilate to. Cinco de Mayo celebrations across the country for a recent example.

[Icarus]

Yeah, I was pointing to the extremes of the melting pot model which are not going to be the most accurate depiction. I'll judge for myself next month when I'm in the United States.

KaRzY, I think the main thing with the United States and Canada are that we're both immigrant nations and throughout our history, we're used to having mass influxes of people from around the globe (although at the dawn of our respective nation's beginnings, this main influx was predominantly from Europe), so it's almost in our blood, if you will, to be more accepting of those from different cultures and backgrounds, because it's a part of our national history. That's why I see multiculturalism working so well in our societies; there is certainly going to be tension and friction, but that's to be expected.

I believe the key difference between the United States and Canada versus Europe as a whole (for an example) with respect to multiculturalism is that while we have the status of being immigrant nations, Europe has the emigrant nations (for lack of a better term), in that Europe is more used to having its citizens pack up and head abroad to establish a new life as opposed to people coming from different corners of the globe to establish in Europe. So when you look at the demographics from immigrant nations, you'll see it's quite diverse, whereas for an emigrant nations, there's one very dominant group.

Let's have a look (I'm pulling my numbers from Wikipedia - I apologize).

United Kingdom:

QUOTE (Demographics of the United Kingdom)

White British - 85.67% White (other) - 5.27% Indian - 1.8% Pakistani - 1.6% White Irish - 1.2% Mixed race - 1.2% Black Caribbean - 1.0% Black African - 0.8% Bangladeshi - 0.5% Other Asian (non-Chinese) - 0.4% Chinese - 0.4% Other - 0.4% Black (others) - 0.2%

You see there scales are tipped heavily towards White British. Now let's have a look at Canada.

Canada:

QUOTE (Demographics of Canada)

Canadian - 32.22% English - 21.03% French - 15.82%  Scottish - 15.11%  Irish - 13.94% German - 10.18%  Italian - 4.63%  Chinese - 4.31%  North American Indian - 4.01%  Ukrainian - 3.87%  Dutch (Netherlands) - 3.32%  Polish - 3.15%  East Indian - 3.08% Russian - 1.60%  Arabs - 1.51%  Welsh - 1.41%  Filipino - 1.40%  Norwegian - 1.38%  Portuguese - 1.32%  Métis - 1.31%  British, not included elsewhere - 1.29%  Swedish - 1.07%    Spanish - 1.04%  American - 1.01%  Hungarian (Magyar) - 1.01%  Jewish - 1.01%

You'll see that even though Canadian holds the status of being the plurality, it's still a minority. Furthermore, Canadian can be broken down into more ethnic groups, because someone might have Irish heritage, for example, but feel much more connected to being Canadian, so they'll check off Canadian in the census.

My point in all this? With the United Kingdom, as an example, having a large majority of its population being termed as White British (by a huge margin), multiculturalism might be seen with a critical eye and some might see it as something that would threaten British patriotism. For a country like Britain, multiculturalism is something that seems a bit more newer in conceptual terms as opposed to it being heavily ingrained in North American society.

I don't know the full situation in the United Kingdom, so I'll have to read more in this topic and from other sources.

I'll let Irviding, sivi, and others carry on any of my points that I may have poorly elaborated (or incorrectly navigated), since that's more of their area of expertise as opposed to mine. I never thought in my life I'd have use for a demographic chart. Go figure.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 00:43)

Maybe it's late and I am mis-reading your post, and if so then I apologise now. The main point that I have tried to put across throughout this topic is that it actually is down to our Government as to why Multi-Culture in this country is such a failure.

Why, though? Governments legislate, enforce a rule of law and allow democratic participation for the majority. Its not their job to fire-fight social issues- that's the job of devolved local administrations and community groups. There's only so far central government can go in promoting (note the use of the word) a multi-cultural agenda- the rest is down to the disparate groups in society. This, in the UK is where the issues lie.

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 00:43)

As I have said plenty of times, they are so scared to be branded racist that it's come to the stage where we see the Government trying to tell us all to hide the pride we have for the country, such as sporting events etc.

I know you've said it plenty of times, and I've responded plenty of times that I think it is, for the most part, a media fabrication. Its certainly not anything that's legislated from "on high", as it were- if these issues exist locally in your area, you have only local councils and societal groups to blame, not central government. I keep pretty well abreast of political issues in this country and I do not once recall having heard members of the legislative or executive branches of the UK's government encouraging people to be guarded and candid about national pride- if anything, its the exact opposite (David Cameron is always banging on about restoring national pride and national identity). I repeat what I have said before; blaming central government for local societal issues that are outside of their remit is a straw man- by all means direct your aggression towards local authorities who engage in the pedantic nit-picking, namby-pamby heath-and-safety bollocks and are to blame for many, many other issues as well (in no particular order; the condition of Britain's local and trunk roads, the reintroduction of scameras, political posturing on council tax issues (for instance Labour local councils intentionally forgoing government grants for keeping tax levels static and drastically increasing council tax to try and turn voters away from the Coalition parties); twice monthly bin collections, hounding people for inappropriately administered parking fines and other minor misdemeanours, illegal use of surveillance powers, illegal use of bailiffs when county court judgements have not been made). People always seem to forget just how much responsibility local government has for...well, local issues.

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 00:43)

Obviously though, racism does exist within people of the general public, but the majority of this stems from the media, and the way it portrays how we seem to come 2nd place at times.

I disagree partially; I think the media portrayals are in part derived from an undercurrent of xenophobia in British society. Classical conditioning is still very much present in many closed societal groups, like small "working class" communities with low levels of educational standard and high levels of crime (generally the hot-beds for racism and xenophobia in the UK); as most of the criminal activity in the community is committed by people inside it, it stands to reason that these individuals either excuse their actions by blaming social conditions created by a largely non-existent minority group, or just outright blame that minority group for their actions. And because people in such living situations generally fail to rationalise opinions and are more prone to just believing other individuals in their communities, xenophobia develops. It was the same for irrational hatred of Pakistani and Indian nationals who came to the UK after their declaration of independence in 1947 and the partition into two states, and there are still many derogatory terms for people from the Asian and Indian continents/subcontinents derived from this period in time. During the 1970s, 1980s and much of the 1990s it was targeted squarely at the Black community, most notably West Indies/Caribbean in the early years and sub-Saharan Africa in later ones. And nowadays its Islam, or more accurately anyone perceived to be from the Middle East, North Africa or Central Asia who is of Arab, Kurdish, Pashturn, Balochi, Persian or really any other demographic of this kind.

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 00:43)

There was a recent news article that mentioned how a Somalian Immigrant and her family of so many have been given a mansion, and have everything being paid for them in terms of rent and benefits.

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 00:43)

Obviously, as a homeless person myself who has been rejected so many times for a property, this does actually anger me, but maybe there's a bigger story behind this...but I doubt it.

I sympathise with your position but its unhelpful to allow personal emotive experiences to cloud reasoned judgements in the context of complex social issues, especially where the facts, legislation and empirical evidence do not stack in your favour. Single news articles of this nature are entirely unhelpful in discussing such a complex issue (I think this is the one you are referring to in this context, though). I take issue with even the basic summary of this one on several points;

1) "Mansion" is treated by the media as general principle but in reality it refers to a specific kind of house, defined not by value or bedrooms but by land and floor area. So in this context, unless they have been given a country house (which I very much doubt), "Mansion" is used entirely incorrectly and solely for emotive purposes

2) I imagine that such an article entirely fails to provide any background information on the individual in question and her history. This may be of no consequence but without knowing we cannot judge that. For all the reader knows, the man or woman in question could be related to an al-Shabaab warlord who has essentially "defected" to a Western nation- if this were the case, then you could give them a solid gold car for all I care as no cost of keep can outweigh the value of the information they could theoretically provide. Granted, its unlikely, but without a proper understanding of the circumstance these articles are valueless in discussion and serve only as propaganda. And that article provides no real information at all, if indeed it is the one you are referring to

3) I find it very difficult to believe that everything has been "paid for them" in terms of benefits at least. Even if you are granted asylum in the UK (which this individual was, and later became a British citizen, something the Mail article glosses over but the article by the Telegraph on the same issue does not), you are not entitled to anywhere near the same level of benefits as domestic citizens. In this case, as well, we are not referring to a foreign national but someone who is, to all legal purposes, British. There was a report several days ago on a British family, neither parent having worked in their lives, who were receiving £90,000 a year in benefits. But no, that doesn't draw as much attention from the reactionary elements of the media purely because they are white, British and therefore cannot be the problem.

Its also worth pointing out that the benefit cap is due to be implemented very soon- so far from the government (as you imply) doing "nothing" to prevent foreign nationals coming to this country illegally, being granted leave to stay, then becoming British citizens perfectly legally and receiving their entitlement as such, they are severely limiting the ability for cases such as the one outlined about to occur. However, I see little to no mention of this in these kind of arguments- possibly because this policy treats people equally regardless of ethnic heritage or racial background, and therefore isn't conducive to presenting an argument that can be lapped up by closet (and public) xenophobes.

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 00:43)

I totally accept multi-culturism within a country, but don't accept the major parties that cause the majority of the problems.

Please explain to me why they are causing the "majority of these problems", when I have clearly explained several times that the remit of the government does not extent to enforcing social cohesion.

[KaRzY6]

@Icarus

Okay, I see. What are the Australian stats?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Friday, Jun 22 2012, 07:45)

@Icarus Okay, I see. What are the Australian stats?

Why don't you search yourself?

[KaRzY6]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jun 22 2012, 21:22)

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Friday, Jun 22 2012, 07:45) @Icarus Okay, I see. What are the Australian stats? Why don't you search yourself?

Because I don't know where he got that information from.

[sivispacem]

I found it for you-

QUOTE (2006 Australian Census results)

Australian (31.13%) English (29.65%) Irish (9.08%) Scottish (7.16%) Italian (4.29%) German (4.09%) Chinese (3.37%) Greek (1.84%) Dutch (1.56%) Indian (1.17%) Lebanese (0.92%) Armenian (0.82%) New Zealand (0.81%) Filipino (0.81%) Maltese (0.77%) Croatian (0.59%) Australian Aboriginal (0.58%) Welsh (0.57%)

(I've eliminated all nationalities below 0.5%)

My rudimentary maths indicates that 78% of the Australian population are Australian or British/Irish, and about 90% European Caucasian.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Saturday, Jun 23 2012, 10:13

[KaRzY6]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jun 23 2012, 21:11)

I found it for you- QUOTE (2006 Australian Census results) Australian (31.13%) English (29.65%) Irish (9.08%) Scottish (7.16%) Italian (4.29%) German (4.09%) Chinese (3.37%) Greek (1.84%) Dutch (1.56%) Indian (1.17%) Lebanese (0.92%) Armenian (0.82%) New Zealand (0.81%) Filipino (0.81%) Maltese (0.77%) Croatian (0.59%) Australian Aboriginal (0.58%) Welsh (0.57%) (I've eliminated all nationalities below 0.5%) My rudimentary maths indicates that 78% of the Australian population are Australian or British/Irish, and about 90% European Caucasian.

Oh, thanks man. When it says "Australian", that could mean they come for any countries, but have called themselves Australian, correct?

[Sanjeem]

However don't other people find it annoying when say far right leaders and activists try and explain themselves in the media but they hardly get a chance because they are either interrupted or the presenters seem so biased. Is that just me or do other people find that to be the case as well? For example on Question time when they interviewed Nick Griffin a few years ago, It was hard for him to even explain his views because he hardly got the time to finish what he meant, instead kept being rudely interrupted by the opposition. It usually only happened when he spoke as well.

Also another thing, what would any of you consider a indigenous English person? Or British people? Surely they exist but what I don't understand is why the media or so it seemed on Question time especially kept on slagging off the term Indigenous when it was applied to the English. I also found it quite astonishing that people fail to understand that the English are to an ethnic group with their own culture...

[Icarus]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Saturday, Jun 23 2012, 03:58)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jun 22 2012, 21:22) QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Friday, Jun 22 2012, 07:45) @Icarus Okay, I see. What are the Australian stats? Why don't you search yourself? Because I don't know where he got that information from.

QUOTE (Icarus @ Friday, Jun 15 2012, 23:30)

Let's have a look (I'm pulling my numbers from Wikipedia - I apologize).

I was kind enough to provide you my source.

[Stefche]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 19:05)

I 100% agree with you. Multi-cultural is a failure and will never work. I bet if you went over to a muslim country and burn their flag, you would probably be stoned. Governments of the western countries are stupid and need to change things before it's too late. Btw, I'm really sorry to those who are muslim. I'm not a racist, I'm just thinking of reality.

QUOTE

Location: Victoria, Australia

If you live, or have ever been to, Melbourne, you will know first hand that multiculturalism is actually far from a failure if monitored correctly (i.e. not really forced down people's throats by either centralised or decentralised authorities). As Icarus posted, and as sivis roughly calculated, a full one-fifth of Australians are of non-Anglo Saxon heritage; without doing my own calculations, I guarantee that the proportion would be higher in Melbourne (based off of an educated guess through living here my entire life).

I'm mean, I'm sorry for not really providing anything empirical to the discussion, but I'm genuinely perplexed as to why a Victorian would be so vehement to rubbish multiculturalism when Melbourne would have one of the lowest rates of racially-motivated violence across Western cities.

[KaRzY6]

@Stefche

Yeah, I know I'm Victorian. I am from the outer suburbs or Melbourne. I myself see a lot of multicuturalism. I'm a white Australian and I'm friends with other white Australian, Europeans, blacks, aboriginals and a muslim. In my case, it workd. But in general, I just don't see it working, when for example, as the OP said, christians can't say Merry Christmas or wave the English flag on World Cup.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Sunday, Jun 24 2012, 01:07)

...for example, as the OP said, christians can't say Merry Christmas or wave the English flag on World Cup.

The principle crux of the 7 pages worth of debate on this issue is that statements like this are absolute falsehoods. They, quite simply, are a fictitious creation of the right-wing press. They are not real.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Saturday, Jun 23 2012, 18:07)

christians can't say Merry Christmas

I believe this is over-exaggerated.

I have no doubt there are some people who are not Christian (or religious) who would get their panties in a bunch if someone says Merry Christmas to them, but if someone says it to me (as an atheist), I don't think twice about it and will probably respond in kind. To me, it's not something that actually bothers me. If they started saying I was stupid for being an atheist (or immoral or <put an insult here>), then I would have grounds to want to tear them apart, but not for saying Merry Christmas. Most people will say it with good intentions in mind, not to spite someone.

I think the exaggeration on that one is a bit high.

[Stefche]

Exactly. In my eyes, Christmas has become an almost completely secular holiday in Australia, and, without wanting to judge the scenario in other countries without having visited them, I'm sure it's the exact same amongst the vast majority of small and large communities in Canada, the US or the UK. I could only think of a handful of people I know who actually perform any religious activities around Christmas time, such as going to church for midnight mass or whatever; the commercialisation of the holiday has reached a point where any historical significance about the holiday's actual meaning has been drowned out by Santa Claus and gifts, so this idea that nominally Anglo Saxon, historically Christian (heritage wise, at least) western communities would actively seek to appease Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc from being offended by Christmas by removing all symbolism of a holiday which is now rooted in secular culture, is absurd.

[John The Grudge]

I think many of the things listed in the original post are to be taken with a pinch of salt. That's not to say that the poster (Butters 2011) is making stuff up, rather the papers like to print stories that will cause anger. I think stories of people being charged for flying the English flag are nonsense. I actually recall that story about taxi drivers not being allowed to fly it being in a paper too.

Nobody can stop you from flying the English flag under any obscure law, unless of course there's a logical reason why it might not be wise or considerate to fly a large banner/flag of any sort in a particular place.

As for the people burning the poppies and other hate protests, the authorities in the UK have shown on a number of occasions that they wont stand for that. But the action they take has to be proportionate. Burning poppies, while offensive, is a fairly minor offense.

As for religion, most muslims and people of other faiths just want to practice their religion in peace, without offending or infringing on other people's lives. Those who do not, are dealt with by the law.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Friday, Jun 29 2012, 07:44)

As for religion, most muslims and people of other faiths just want to practice their religion in peace, without offending or infringing on other people's lives.

Well, the media is only going to report on the activities of the extremists, because it makes a better headline. You're not to have much readership if your story is about your average Muslim living in peace, enjoying his or her day-to-day life.

When extremists get as much exposure as they do in the news, it's no wonder some people seem to think that being Muslim is synonymous with being a terrorist.