Thread: "Multiculturalism has failed."

Yes, quite a melodramatic thing for David Cameron to say, and no doubt to be wildly blown out of proportion by the media, but it holds interesting questions.

Is he right? Has multiculturalism failed in the UK (or wherever you are, for that matter)?
The EDL protested with over 2,000 members shortly after this statement made by David Cameron. Will we now see a lot more xenophobia in Britain than we already have, with this unintentionally (I hope) implied encouragement? Will the government itself start to really discriminate against innocent Muslims, and indeed other religions and cultures?

Who knows what wild things could ensue. The promise to be tougher once more could fall flatter than all the others, or driven by the popularity of this particular occasion, we could start to see some truly vile things in our country, encouraged by the government, to 'squash the Islamic terrorist threat' (as they would say). It's only natural to jump to wild images of Orwell's 1984 or Hitler's Germany, but is it at all necessary to assume the worst?

Some food for thought for you, WritingForums.

I don't know about Cameron, or what that statement means for the political change that is very obviously happening across the country, but I think if anything, he'll tighten laws against discriminating Muslims. There a huge base of the UK population, and a great many voters are Muslim; he'll probably appease them, in a sense.

Multiculturalism works in spots rather than wholes. I would say, that like anywhere, there's a huge divide. Some places you'll find people sharing cultures almost lazily, as if it was a culture in itself to be amongst numerous cultures, but then again, there's areas where if you're not a certain religion, race etc. you'll stick out like a sore thumb and people will let you know it.

It hasn't failed. But it isn't successful. And it never will be, and arguably it'll never fail, but that's just my optimistic approach to the human race. Silly, I know.

Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism have been pretty successful with multiculturalism. Maybe the most successful in the world over a long extended time of centuries if not thousands of years. Although, not a perfect history of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism has always been problematic in the United States. The ethnic tension between whites eased once people like the Italians and Jews were finally assimilated into the identity of whiteness in the U.S.

Western Europe is experiencing a lot of tensions of multiculturalism ever since it began taking in lots non-Europeans and non-Christians decades ago. A large part - not all - of these tensions are drawn from economic competition in my opinion. You have less ethnic tension in places like Brazil and Colombia because these nations are more culturally homogeneous. You have more Italians and Japanese living in Brazil than in the United States but you would never know it because when you become a citizen of Brazil you are expected to assimilate into its culture. Although, there still remains a racial caste system in Brazil and Colombia.

Through all its imperfections perhaps the present day Dominican Republic is a better example. The DR - today - possibly does a better job of extending access into the nations increasing prosperity than Germany does for Turks and Muslims or the United States has done currently in Detroit for Black-Americans, the largest black city in the U.S., entirely without a single major grocery store. The major cities of the DR are erecting aesthetically attractive malls to cater to the consumption of its brown peoples. Every mall targeting black consumers in Milwaukee has closed but for one. The Milwaukee Mall and it looks like it belongs in Haiti and not the United States.

That's my view on it anyways.

Canada is still, very much, a work in progress. You do see splotches of different races and creeds that do not completely interact with each other but that's more of a first generation immigrants. Our infrastructure needs more funding and a rethink (English requirement to get in is lower than what is needed).
But there is always the odd exception that provides hope. I went to an authentic Indian restaurant that was run by Chinese people... so, there is some blending going on.

MC just raises the age old question "can people of differences retain their cultural identities while interacting peacefully and proactively with each other?"

I think what the OP was alluding to is that a melting pot concept has failed, but he ignores that the reason for this is because of protectivism by whites fearing a radical sect of Islam that has hijacked what is supposed to be a religion of peace. Radical Islam holds thought processes abhorrent to Western Civilization. Furthermore, because of 9/11, along with many varied acts of exteme terrorism carried out by radical muslims, western civilization has put away the welcome mat once extended to a culture that holds a potential to believe in polygamy, non state sanctioned acts of "justice" (which employ primitive acts of savagery to offenders), and acts of extreme terrorism towards cultures other than Islam.

Polygamy has been outlawed in the US for over a hundred years, and offenders, when found, are prosecuted. Furthermore, amputation, utilized by sharia law, is in direct conflict to the 8th amendment of the US Constitution. Lastly, 9/11 has assured that radical islam will never ever be embraced in the US.

Lastly, the "white flight" alluded to by writ has happened in Detroit and parts of other cities because the policies of social scientists, which started over fifty years ago, have absolutely failed. The suburbs of Detroit (i.e. Auburn Hills) flourish because strict homeowner regulations make it difficult for low wage earners to move in. A number of low wage earners don't take care of their properties, let alone their neighborhoods, causing real estate prices to plummet and middle class whites to flee a neighborhood that has been infiltrated. I have a niece who purchased a million dollar home in a very unfinished subdivision. Shortly afterwards, the real estate bubble popped, and the vacant homes were turned into section 8 housing. Needless to say, my niece has fled the neighborhood.

In North Houston, there's an area called "Greenspoint". Forty years ago, for a brief moment, Greenspoint was the tony place in town to live. Suddenly, someone in a position of power, bought miles of apartment complexes and turned them into low income housing (later to be section . Greenspoint has been in a tail spin ever since. The death nell will happen in 2014 when ExxonMobil flees 12 high rises in Greenspoint. The mall, which has lost all but one of it's anchor stores, will most likely finally be demolished (an idea floated the past ten years because it's become an eyesore).

What is the origin of this myth that Islam is a religion of peace. This is just an aspect of PC brainwashing and it really isn't necessary to study the history of Islam too deeply to see that it has never been peaceful. The great Ottoman Empire didn't happen because they were invited in, it was the result of violent invasion and subjugation. Mohammed was a robber who established his wealth and built his following at the end of a sword. Islam was conceived in violence and it's no real surprise that in its 1400 year history it has never progressed beyond that. It doesn't matter how liberal the face of Islam is presented in the West, a look at the mediaeval laws applied in States that are under Islamic control reveals the reality behind the public image. The greater percentage of the issues that Amnesty International is campaigning relate to human rights issues in Islamic countries.

Originally Posted by Baron

What is the origin of this myth that Islam is a religion of peace. This is just an aspect of PC brainwashing and it really isn't necessary to study the history of Islam too deeply to see that it has never been peaceful. The great Ottoman Empire didn't happen because they were invited in, it was the result of violent invasion and subjugation. Mohammed was a robber who established his wealth and built his following at the end of a sword. Islam was conceived in violence and it's no real surprise that in its 1400 year history it has never progressed beyond that. It doesn't matter how liberal the face of Islam is presented in the West, a look at the mediaeval laws applied in States that are under Islamic control reveals the reality behind the public image. The greater percentage of the issues that Amnesty International is campaigning relate to human rights issues in Islamic countries.

Islamic culture between 700 and 1300 was a beacon of light during the barbarity of the European Dark Ages. The Church of the same period hardly encouraged the sort of scientific and philosophical exploration that was going on in regions under Islamic purview. In fact they actively discouraged free thought, often by flaying alive or burning at the stake any poor schmuck who dared to suggest that people could study and understand the world without acknowledging god or dogma. European progress during the Renaissance owes a massive debt to the example, and products, of Islam's Golden Age. So you see that Muslims are not instinctively predisposed to brutality. There goes your PC brainwashing theory.

You are a hypocrite. I already know how quick you are to write off the many crimes committed by Christians under the banner of Christianity as incidental. You might consider extending Islam that same courtesy.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

Islamic culture between 700 and 1300 was a beacon of light during the barbarity of the European Dark Ages. The Church of the same period hardly encouraged the sort of scientific and philosophical exploration that was going on in regions under Islamic purview. In fact they actively discouraged free thought, often by flaying alive or burning at the stake any poor schmuck who dared to suggest that people could study and understand the world without acknowledging god or dogma. European progress during the Renaissance owes a massive debt to the example, and products, of Islam's Golden Age. So you see that Muslims are not instinctively predisposed to brutality. There goes your PC brainwashing theory.

You are a hypocrite. I already know how quick you are to write off the many crimes committed by Christians under the banner of Christianity as incidental. You might consider extending Islam that same courtesy.

It is not incongruent for a Muslim to fight or subjugate the infidel (at the expense of human lives) in the same way it is incongruent for a person to claim to be a follower of Christ and do the same sort of thing. It doesn't make somebody a hypocrite if they point this fact out. I find it hard to believe you're still using this "Christians do it too" kind of argument.

You may not like it, but you come across as bitter towards Christianity.

Edgewise, I defy you to find a single post that indicates that I support or deny atrocities committed in the name of Jesus Christ. The fact that I'm not fooled by the public image that people try to present of a moderate Islam doesn't mean that I in any way sanction actions that have been done by people who profess Christ.

The involvement that I have with Amnesty International reveals the truth of modern Islam to me.

Woolly headed visions of a new global golden age are going to lead to a lot of disappointment when those who are fooled by this realise that the people who are the main players, with all that motivates them, are still the same.

Can I ask you guys a question. What is the reaction of citizens in the UK to this?



We in Canada are a multicultural society, but this sort of speech would not be tolerated and I tend to agree that multiculturalism is a failed experiment.

Generally these arguments seem to run across religious lines, whereas a Christianity or Jewish comparison is almost always the rebuttal.

Islam has a deep rooted problem with extremism and I would say that lack of education is one of the largest reasons for this particular faith to be so far behind the rest of modern society.

There are still pockets of resistance in all faiths that do not want to come into the 21st century, but by and far Islam has a huge issue that is growing rapidly and perpetuated by Western denial.

What do you guys think? Am I shilling for the other faiths? Am I a racist? Paranoid?

Originally Posted by MJ Preston

What is the reaction of citizens in the UK to this?

I think the majority don't like it, but feel helpless and are helpless. I think the majority of politicians don't like it, feel helpless, and so they generally keep quiet.

Cameron's party don't have so many votes to lose from migrants (so they can be a bit noisier about it). I read that, once eligable to vote, 88% of migrants vote for the other party (labour, the rest perhaps LibDem). But Cameron surely still feels helpless. Before the general election nearly a year ago, immigration (not just muslim but across the board) was touted in the media as the number one concern, before the subject of cutbacks took over the campaign. That could be because none of the parties could say 'No more immigration.'

Originally Posted by MJ Preston

What do you guys think? Am I shilling for the other faiths? Am I a racist? Paranoid?

I read wikipedia a while back that spoke of how mohummed '...united the tribes of...' (such and such) and remembered a book I read 20 years ago that spoke of it very differently as in slaughtering his enemies, well that's one way of uniting people!

I don't think you're a racist though a politician saying this may be called one in order to shut him up. I think most people are generally tribalist, as in a pack animal rather than a herd, one.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

Islamic culture between 700 and 1300 was a beacon of light during the barbarity of the European Dark Ages. The Church of the same period hardly encouraged the sort of scientific and philosophical exploration that was going on in regions under Islamic purview. In fact they actively discouraged free thought, often by flaying alive or burning at the stake any poor schmuck who dared to suggest that people could study and understand the world without acknowledging god or dogma. European progress during the Renaissance owes a massive debt to the example, and products, of Islam's Golden Age. So you see that Muslims are not instinctively predisposed to brutality. There goes your PC brainwashing theory.

You are a hypocrite. I already know how quick you are to write off the many crimes committed by Christians under the banner of Christianity as incidental. You might consider extending Islam that same courtesy.

That's not true, Edgewise. My Christian name is after St. Justin Martyr. Prior to the collapse of Rome by my barbarian Germanic ancestors the Church had plenty of scholarly person... especially drawn out of North Africa like St. Augustin (a prolific author at a time when writing required a lot of arm muscle due to the materials used).

One of the Popes during that period you gave was in fact the top scientist in Europe at the time. He learned from the Islamic East that spread into Spain. But understand the Islamic East drew a lot of their learning from the Christian Copts and Nesotorians of the East as well as from various Hindu sects. Some of the people attributed as Islamic medical scientists were in fact Syrian speaking Nesotorians.

But I'll agree with you that during the period you gave the Islamic East (and Christian and Hindu East) surpassed the Western Christian world in science and learning.

Civilizations rise and fall. Look at Egypt today. The Mayans before the Europeans arrived was already a declined civilization with abandoned towns. However, my Germanic ancestors were civilized by the Catholic Church (which produced their written language) and not by pagan Rome (not entirely un-barbaric itself given the gladiator, circus events, and scale of urban slavery not surpassed until the building of Rio de Janeiro).


InsideCatholic.com | The Scientist Pope of the "Dark Ages" | MyBlog | MyBlog

The popular picture of the Dark Ages is wrong. The earth wasn’t flat. People weren’t terrified that the world would end at midnight on December 31, 999. Christians did not believe Muslims and Jews were the enemy. The Church wasn’t anti-science.
In the Dark Ages, contrary to what most people think, science was central to the lives of monks, kings, emperors, and even popes. It was the mark of true nobility and the highest form of worship of God.

As for Pope Sylvester II himself (formerly, Gerbert of Aurillac):
A professor at a cathedral school for most of his career, Gerbert of Aurillac was the first Christian known to teach math using the nine Arabic numerals and zero. He devised an abacus, or counting board, that mimics the algorithms we use today for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. It has been called the first counting device in Europe to function digitally -- even the first computer. In a chronology of computer history, Gerbert’s abacus is one of only four innovations mentioned between 3000 BC and the invention of the slide rule in 1622.

Like a modern scientist, Gerbert questioned authority. He experimented. To learn which of two rules best calculated the area of an equilateral triangle, he cut out square inches of parchment and measured the triangle with them. To learn why organ pipes do not behave acoustically like strings, he built models and devised an equation. (A modern physicist who checked his result calls it ingenious, if labor-intensive.)

Gerbert made sighting tubes to observe the stars and constructed globes on which their positions were recorded relative to lines of celestial longitude and latitude. He (or more likely his best student) wrote a book on the astrolabe, an instrument for telling time and making measurements by the sun or stars. You could even use it to calculate the circumference of the earth, which Gerbert and his peers knew very well was not flat like a disc but round as an apple.

Interview with the author: Everything You Think You Know About the Dark Ages is Wrong | RD10Q | Religion Dispatches

People to this very day project Catholics and Priests as unlearned people barely able to read a complete sentence. This in an era when the Church has numerous hospitals and universities and her secondary level schools frequently make secular public schools (secondary level) look backwards.

My brother is currently a teacher in MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools). It's mind boggling to him. Like a movie he says (e.g., kids rolling dice gambling, others on cell phones, and others at the boards writing gang graffiti, and others beating on desks and raping). Almost no disciplinary action is allowed in the school even with the students jumping in the teachers faces threatening them. Some of his 18 year old students can barley read, "Today it has stormed outside." It takes them several minutes to pronounce the words and after they have they can't explain to you the meaning of what they read.

And when I was in remedial math courses at my community college I was in rooms with MPS dropouts. Let me tell you it was a sight to behold. I couldn't believe it. These people frequently acted at age 18 and 20 the worse than we (in Catholic high schools) did our freshman years.

So, I don't listen to the media or popular imagination of the Church coming from non-Catholics or anti-Catholic Catholics like Father Hans Kung.

Originally Posted by Baron

The involvement that I have with Amnesty International reveals the truth of modern Islam to me.

Yeah, I remember doing work with Amnesty in high school and uni that a lot of issues we were campaigning against were in Middle Eastern cultures.
I don’t agree with the apologist notion that Islam is really a misunderstood faith and is purely one of faith and goodness, but I do wonder if the current state of Islam has more to do with the history of economic and political instability of the region rather than just religious ideologies. After all, as Edgewise mentioned, Islam wasn’t always as religiously intolerant and scientifically stagnant as it is today.

Originally Posted by Patrick

It is not incongruent for a Muslim to fight or subjugate the infidel (at the expense of human lives) in the same way it is incongruent for a person to claim to be a follower of Christ and do the same sort of thing. It doesn't make somebody a hypocrite if they point this fact out. I find it hard to believe you're still using this "Christians do it too" kind of argument.

You may not like it, but you come across as bitter towards Christianity.

How do you account for the Sura in the Koran which admonish believers to be tolerant, especially towards fellow people of the book?

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

The point in my first post was that any religious idea can be misunderstood and even perverted, not that only Christianity as a religion can or has been perverted. Hopefully you find that to be less bitter.