Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah

[elder999]

Assimilation makes us all better, but, yeah, how do you force it?

NO IT DOESN'T.

In fact, in a few of the circles I run in, it's a goddam dirty word. Our government tried forcing "assimilation" on the people who were here first.The fact of the matter is, that where people in this country are permitted to preserve and celebrate their differences, while pursuing their "American dream," there's a balance and true fitting in that doesn't always happen in other places.

Doesn't always happen here, but it happens more often.

 

[K-man]

So what you're saying is...uh, what? People should want to assimilate, but if they don't want to, we can't make them? Sounds like a problem with no solution, then. Is that what you're saying?

Assimilation is not the problem. That generally occurs over several generations. The problem I see is where we are witnessing the rise of radical Islam in our own, non-Islamic nations. Where this is threatening our security or the security of our allies, I am concerned.

A radical Australian cleric drew widespread condemnation Thursday over videos in which he encourages children to become martyrs for Islam and ridicules Jews as pigs.


Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Center in western Sydney, made the remarks on a series of videotaped lectures for sale in Australia and overseas.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3353909,00.html

We can identify the problem but managing it is far more difficult to achieve.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the tenor of the original post is correct.

The solution is what, exactly?

Having defined the problem, I would like to know what the proposed solution might be.

The author of the original piece had some ideas. Let's see...



If this is true, what is the solution? And I will apply this to the USA, since I don't live in Canada.

We in the USA allow people who are here legally to live wherever they please. Am I to understand that the solution is for the government to dictate where legal immigrants may live?

We have freedom of religion here. Am I to understand that we are supposed to outlaw the preaching of "Islamic values" in the USA? Please someone explain to me under what Constitutional theory this can be done legally.

We have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience here as well. Am I to understand that we must outlaw 'hatred of America'? So it will be illegal to speak ill of the USA or to live in this country and hate it?

All I am asking is this - if the things that the author mentioned are true, what is the solution? He said that there was a problem with allowing certain groups to live together. So we change the laws to not allow certain groups to live together? He said they preach "Islamic values." So we do away with freedom of religion? He said they practice hatred of the country they live in. So we require what, loyalty oaths or outlaw hate speech or outlaw the feelings a person harbors in their own minds?

Someone explain to me what it is we're supposed to do here. Assuming the argument is true, that is.

I actually think that this is a softball question.

The answer is to control the flow of immigration into the country, including naturalization. There is no need to limit the rights of any citizen in order to do so.

If immigration were reduced, it would necessarily mean that immigrants, in order to prosper and improve their lot in life, would need to integrate into the larger community. Now, admittedly, this would not be true for every single person. But most wouldn't be able to sit isolationist in a small geographical area.

Now that is also not to say that they would lose all vestiges of their original culture, nor should they. What I think we are seeing in this day and age, however, is that one need not integrate to enjoy the fruits of the American dream. The influx is so large that they can create massive communities for themselves, shut out the larger population, and continue on their way.

Not only that, but they demand consessions based on their cultural preferences, and they get them, both in the private and public sector. And if they don't get them, the person denying them is lambasted as being racist, which prevents any reasonable discussion on the matter.

Just look at Los Angeles, for crying out loud. *LOL*

And to me, this isn't just about terrorism or immigration. It also includes citizens of this country. I have black people telling me I'm trying to be "white". I got white people who tell me I act "black". I like to tell them I'm acting like an American.

Suk is right, the U.S. is a new country, which now, if ever, has no sense of itself. Can anyone here tell me what it means culturally to say that you are an American. I know what I think it means, but for as many people that there are in this country, you will get a different answer. And that is why we keep having these problems. It is also why other countries, with the huge influx of foreigners in one generation, are now having to ask themselves, or fight for what they believe is, their culture.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Assimilation is not the problem. That generally occurs over several generations. The problem I see is where we are witnessing the rise of radical Islam in our own, non-Islamic nations. Where this is threatening our security or the security of our allies, I am concerned.

So what you're saying is that the author of the article is incorrect. OK, but again, not the question I asked. The author identified lack of assimilation (among other things) as a problem affecting our (Canada in his case, USA in mine) security. If he is correct, what is the solution?

We can identify the problem but managing it is far more difficult to achieve.

Not an answer. I accept that it's difficult. So what is the difficult answer?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I actually think that this is a softball question.

No, my question is simple. If X is the problem, then what is the solution to X?

All I'm hearing so far is the solution is to not let so much X into the country. That doesn't affect the X already here, or people who become X after they're here, which was the problem described by the original author. Again, if the problem is X, what is the solution to problem X?

The answer is to control the flow of immigration into the country, including naturalization. There is no need to limit the rights of any citizen in order to do so.

I agree that it does not affect the rights of any citizen to control immigration into the USA. I also stated very clearly that this does not affect anyone already here, or those born here, or those whose views change after they get here legally.

I asked what you intend to do about them? I am getting no answer.

If immigration were reduced, it would necessarily mean that immigrants, in order to prosper and improve their lot in life, would need to integrate into the larger community. Now, admittedly, this would not be true for every single person. But most wouldn't be able to sit isolationist in a small geographical area.

That's an unsupported assumption. Really unsupported. I don't even know where to begin with that one. The Chinese Exclusion Act resulted in the flow of Chinese migrants to California to come to a complete halt; the result was Chinatown areas in many urban areas. Seems to me that it worked the opposite way.

Now that is also not to say that they would lose all vestiges of their original culture, nor should they. What I think we are seeing in this day and age, however, is that one need not integrate to enjoy the fruits of the American dream. The influx is so large that they can create massive communities for themselves, shut out the larger population, and continue on their way.

Because that is happening...uh where again? I mean, I live in the metro Detroit area, and Dearborn is home to the largest Middle-Eastern-origin population outside of the Middle East. Aside from a woman who was running for Congress last term stating that Dearborn was run by Sharia Law (which was quite a surprise to us, let me tell you), what evidence have you that Muslims or Middle-Easterners have 'shut out' anyone in Dearborn? I mean, we're talking about a really really big Middle Eastern population here; I'm just not seeing any shutout, though...

Not only that, but they demand consessions based on their cultural preferences, and they get them, both in the private and public sector. And if they don't get them, the person denying them is lambasted as being racist, which prevents any reasonable discussion on the matter.

Wait a minute here. You mean that when a community's residents vote for something ('demanding it' in your parlance) and they get it, that's wrong? I must be unclear on this Democracy thing.

Just look at Los Angeles, for crying out loud. *LOL*

And to me, this isn't just about terrorism or immigration. It also includes citizens of this country. I have black people telling me I'm trying to be "white". I got white people who tell me I act "black". I like to tell them I'm acting like an American.

Suk is right, the U.S. is a new country, which now, if ever, has no sense of itself. Can anyone here tell me what it means culturally to say that you are an American. I know what I think it means, but for as many people that there are in this country, you will get a different answer. And that is why we keep having these problems. It is also why other countries, with the huge influx of foreigners in one generation, are now having to ask themselves, or fight for what they believe is, their culture.

A very interesting mini-rant, and you might find I even have some common ground with you in there somewhere, but all quite aside from the question I asked.

The author of the article stated that there was a problem with non-assimilation. If that is true, what is the solution? I see nothing in your statements above that address that. Nice try at a side-step, though.

 

[Xue Sheng]

But to be honest...I'm not worried as long HE'S around

And for the record my house is rather multicultural and doing just fine thank you

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have posted these comments before, but I'll do so again now.

A word about 'culture'...

In the USA, as has been pointed out, we don't have a thousand-year history of being any one thing. Our ancestors came from all kinds of places fairly recently. We brought with us many customs, traditions, heritages, languages, and everything. We didn't come here en masse, we came in waves, and often driven by economic necessity or a desire for a better life or to escape repression of one sort or another, real or perceived. Some came as slaves, some as indentured servants. Very few of us are actually descended of indigenous peoples of North America.

As our ancestors came here, some assimilated into the majority population quickly; some less so. Some found quick acceptance and were welcomed into the majority population and some did not. Some were excluded due to their religion, their skin color, or their traditions, which were seen as not a close enough fit to the majority to be allowed to join the mainstream. Some chose to exclude themselves for various reasons, including a desire to remain culturally intact, to preserve their language, religion, skin color, or other reasons. This was a continual ebb and flow, and was different in different parts of the country, and in different times as the nation grew.

America is often described as a 'melting pot', but it is not. Melting pots make things that are homogeneous. A melting pot of carbon and iron makes steel; and all the steel in that pot is the same. Anything that is different is 'slag' and is removed.

We are not a melting pot. We are a pastiche. We are a tapestry, a gumbo, a stew. Some things are blended, some retain their individuality to a greater or lesser extent. Some lose their individuality entirely and become just part of the larger mass, indistinguishable from anything else, but other things keep an identity that is flavored by the rest, and lends its flavor to the rest, but still remains distinct and identifiable.

From time to time, usually during times of distress, cries arise for us to return to our cultural roots, our group heritage, our basis. But we don't have one, as many have pointed out. We never had one. We are mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly this or that, but we are not any one thing and we never were.

What is often meant by these cries for a return to a base state is that the person making the demand wants a return to the state THEY are most familiar with. If they are white, Christian, middle class, have a spouse and two kids and a mortgage, they might find a lot of people nodding their heads in agreement with them; but they do not represent everyone. And while they will pay lip service to certain concepts of individuality, pride in origin, or even civil liberties, essentially they are willing to sacrifice those things in order to calm their fears that their culture is going to be destroyed. Note that I said their culture, not our culture. Because it is theirs, not the nation's. The nation doesn't have a culture.

And ultimately, when it is pointed out that there are many insular segments of society whose culture differs greatly from their own, yet they do not complain about those groups, the person making the complaint will explain that they only mean those groups that refuse to assimilate with the rest of us who mean us harm. How they can distinguish those who mean us harm from those who do not and extinguish the civil liberties of only those groups seems to escape them... The only such attempts that have been made in our history have uniformly been things we have come to be ashamed of later, such as anti-Catholic, anti-German, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-Jewish, and anti-whatever laws meant to 'force integration' or 'put down a threat' to our claimed mutual heritage. Each time we do it, though, we ignore history and pretend that this time is different. Yes, it was bad to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. But no, putting Muslim-Americans in such a camp isn't a bad thing because they really represent a threat to all of us.

They will say they are in favor of democracy; but if a community somehow manages to gain a majority of citizens who are of a different belief or race or religion or ethnicity or cultural heritage and then manages to pass laws that reflect this, they are against it. If they believe in democracy, they should not be.

Take for example the notion that at a certain point in time, the majority of people in the United States will have an Hispanic heritage and speak Spanish as well as (or instead of) English. Even if true, the notion of democracy would support this; what is the difference if the National Anthem is sung in English or Spanish, so long as it is sung, and the rule of law based on our Constitution continues?

Certainly, laws can be put into place by the majority now to attempt to slow or stop changes such as these from taking place. But limiting immigration or requiring English as the national language or restricting 'dangerous' religions or 'hate speech' can only stop perceived threats from outside; it cannot stop changes that come from those who were born here, those who change their views after they get here, or those who are simply thought of as representing a threat.

We are not a single culture. We have a majority, but that doesn't make it the only culture, the only history, the only outlook, the only religion, the only way. We do face threats, but the solution to such threats to our liberties doesn't seem to me to be to dismantle those liberties in the name of saving them. What unites us not the degree to which we assimilate, but the degree to which we defend the precepts of liberty and the structure our nation is based upon. Worship whomever you like; speak whatever language you want; eat whatever foods you prefer; sing whatever songs you find entertaining; dance your own dance, wear your own clothes. Just live within the framework of laws and liberties that make us the USA. That's what being part of our culture means, and that's pretty much all it means.

There have been cultures that defined themselves as a 'melting pot' and then tried to be a single homogeneous thing - one brand of steel, for example, instead of a crazy-quilt of different cultures. Do we want to be like the most recent nation that tried that?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not all threats are from outside and/or from other cultures... we would all like to think they are though... it is easier that way

 

[Archangel M]

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. (T. Roosevelt)

Im with Teddy on this one.

 

[Tez3]

Billchihak, your name thing, it depends entirely on what paper you read what names is the most popular.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/27/oliver-olivia-popular-baby-names

Most popular names of 2010 are still 'English' ones.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/naming/babycentre-top-names-2010/ 1-50 no Mohammed there I'm afraid.

This is one of the things about trying to discuss things like this that certain media will try to scaremonger and influence peoples perceptions. Where I live there it's thought that there is no problem either with immigrantion or multiculturism...because there isn't where we live. The only black people people see here are soldiers, same with Asians. It is predominantly and visibly a very white English area.

Perhaps with Britain though and people demanding that we live according to their laws etc as in Sharia, it might be because we went to their countries and demanded they live according to our ways and laws. There's a long tangled history to cope with for us and how much we owe former colonies.

 

[billc]

The article connected to the list talks about the discrepancy by stating if you take the 12 variations of the name, and put them together, that is what makes the name the number one boys name:

---The official list, which covers all births in 2009 in England and Wales, has *Mohammed at number 16 but this does not include the many different spellings, which are all ranked separately.
When they are added in, Mohammed zooms all the way up to top spot for the first time.
In order of popularity, the variant *spellings used during the year were: Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhamad, Mahammed and Mohmmed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html#ixzz1DTu4k8tK

That may explain the differences in the lists.
​

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. (T. Roosevelt)

Im with Teddy on this one.

I like Teddy Roosevelt, but I always disagree with this stance.

Tell me what an "American and nothing else" is, please. I need a definition.

 

[Tez3]

The article connected to the list talks about the discrepancy by stating if you take the 12 variations of the name, and put them together, that is what makes the name the number one boys name:

---The official list, which covers all births in 2009 in England and Wales, has *Mohammed at number 16 but this does not include the many different spellings, which are all ranked separately.
When they are added in, Mohammed zooms all the way up to top spot for the first time.
In order of popularity, the variant *spellings used during the year were: Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhamad, Mahammed and Mohmmed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html#ixzz1DTu4k8tK​

That may explain the differences in the lists.​

Look the Daily Mail is known as a scare mongering Right Wing newspaper opposed to immigration, multi culturism.... you name it and they are against it.

The only list I found on Googling that mentioned Mohammed and it's varients was from the Daily Mail, now I don't intend to bog this discussion down with a huge list of lists but you are giving the wrong impression, it's misleading as no doubt the Daily Mail intended it to be.

While there are problems associated with Islam here I don't think the estimated Islamic population of 2.4 million is going to be overtaking the British population of 62 million any time soon.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

While there are problems associated with Islam here I don't think the estimated Islamic population of 2.4 million is going to be overtaking the British population of 62 million any time soon.

Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we had a periodic similar debate in the USA regarding people of Hispanic descent.

There are some facts, some theories, and a lot of hyperbole.

For example, the average birth rate among people of Hispanic descent in the USA is higher than among non-Hispanic families. The average percentage of Hispanic-origin households that speak Spanish as a primary language at home is higher than that of people of other national origins.

The conclusion - Hispanic-origin citizens (and illegal aliens, since that's always in the mix) are out-reproducing "American" citizens and in X number of years, we'll all be speaking Spanish and have skin that is browner than it is now.

Of course, that's always presented as if it is a bad thing. And it is always presented without any solution given. Like, if (and let's presume legal) citizens happen to be Hispanic and have more kids than other families, do we limit their reproductive rights? Do we who are not Hispanic have more kids in response? Do we mandate English as a national language or forbid the speaking of other languages in the home? What are the cures to this dread disease? Well, we never get that. It's just hinted at. And the hints given are usually dark and ominous and have ghosts of jackboots and leather trenchcoats in them.

If the number 1 most popular baby boy's name in England was indeed Mohamed, a) how is that a problem, and b) what is to be done about it? We never get to that part, do we? It's always anger and bombast and fist-pounding and 'Something Must Be Done', but none of these brave souls are willing to state exactly WHAT it is that must be done (to preserve the glorious white, er, I mean English-speaking, er, I mean Christian, er, I mean people like us race).

What, precisely, I ask these people, must be done? They tell us what the problem is, what is the solution?

 

[Tez3]

Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we had a periodic similar debate in the USA regarding people of Hispanic descent.

There are some facts, some theories, and a lot of hyperbole.

For example, the average birth rate among people of Hispanic descent in the USA is higher than among non-Hispanic families. The average percentage of Hispanic-origin households that speak Spanish as a primary language at home is higher than that of people of other national origins.

The conclusion - Hispanic-origin citizens (and illegal aliens, since that's always in the mix) are out-reproducing "American" citizens and in X number of years, we'll all be speaking Spanish and have skin that is browner than it is now.

Of course, that's always presented as if it is a bad thing. And it is always presented without any solution given. Like, if (and let's presume legal) citizens happen to be Hispanic and have more kids than other families, do we limit their reproductive rights? Do we who are not Hispanic have more kids in response? Do we mandate English as a national language or forbid the speaking of other languages in the home? What are the cures to this dread disease? Well, we never get that. It's just hinted at. And the hints given are usually dark and ominous and have ghosts of jackboots and leather trenchcoats in them.

If the number 1 most popular baby boy's name in England was indeed Mohamed, a) how is that a problem, and b) what is to be done about it? We never get to that part, do we? It's always anger and bombast and fist-pounding and 'Something Must Be Done', but none of these brave souls are willing to state exactly WHAT it is that must be done (to preserve the glorious white, er, I mean English-speaking, er, I mean Christian, er, I mean people like us race).

What, precisely, I ask these people, must be done? They tell us what the problem is, what is the solution?

The usual answer to what must be done is either 'Ban it/them' and 'it must be stopped' or 'the government must stop it'! Rarely is a solution proposed other than the far right one of either throwing them out of the country or espousing Nazi beliefs and killing people.


The idea behind saying that Mohammed is the most popular name in the UK is to instill a fear that Islam is growing so fast that we will all be overtaken and forced to be Muslims. the Mail is very good at this sort of thing, it also does it with crime figures, teenage pregnancies and anything to do with the Labour Party, these are indeed all BAD THINGS according to them and as you said they scream their headlines out 'something must be done'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1044789/White-Americans-minority-2042.html

 

[CanuckMA]

And it's mohamed combined with all variant soellings. Outranking Jack. Hoe about all of the variant spellings and derivations of Jack then. John, jon, yan, ian, etc?

 

[elder999]

And it's mohamed combined with all variant soellings. Outranking Jack. Hoe about all of the variant spellings and derivations of Jack then. John, jon, yan, ian, etc?

Yeah, you beat me to it:John, Jack, Ian, Ivan,Sean, Shawn, etc........"yahya:, even-that's Arabic for "John." :lol:

 

[Archangel M]

I like Teddy Roosevelt, but I always disagree with this stance.

Tell me what an "American and nothing else" is, please. I need a definition.

Easy. Teddy defined it:

Someone who does not...

at heart feel more sympathy with Europeans (or other nation/culture) of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic

And someone who adheres to our laws and not some other cultural/religious system of law.

 

[Sukerkin]

Now, sadly, eloquent as Bill is and as much as I agree with him, it is precisely that stance that is a problem in it's own right.

People have as much right to defend what they see as their way of life, in their own land, as others have to be free from oppression and dispossession.

Sadly, if you happen to be White (TM), then any attempt to voice disquiet at something that concerns you is automatically catapulted into the "Oh, you must be a Nazi then" ballpark.

That is not healthy. The bottling up of what may well be quite genuine, even if unfounded concerns, fosters more ill-feeling and the creation of resentment amongst people who are otherwise 'ordinary'.

The British around this neck of the woods are a case in point. Whilst the overall ratio of immigrant to indiginous population might not be too high, there are pockets where that ratio is inverted. When that happens, the 'locals' are the ones that feel forced out of their ancestral lands and feel as if their rights are being trampled to make way for the incomers.

Just because they're Stokies and not Red Indians and it is the moral high-ground to say that that doesn't matter does not make it any the easier to swallow for those to whom it happens.

The British are one of the most mongrel races on the planet - we are made up of many different stocks that came to these shores in waves over the centuries. That's why I am part Angle, part Saxon, part Celt, part Viking (Norwegian and Norman varieties) part Lord knows what else. We are used to having 'visitors from overseas' who decide to stay.

But when those visitors do not want to take on the culture of the country but want to retain and spread their own, then, historically, that is when the trouble starts. Thankfully we're a bit further on socio-politically than we used to be, so we haven't jumped to the burning-and-putting-to-the-sword stage of proceedings and I don't think we will.

However, as I've ever argued whenever we've touched upon this subject, the pace of change has to be managed - it is reckless to leave things to their own devices when you are putting the stability of your society on the table.

Of course, a question that is begged by the comments made in this thread is why is it assumed to be a given that other people have a right to move into the country of someone else? My opinion is that they don't - that's why most sensible countries have immigration policies after all.

 

[Tez3]

I don't know if this occurs in the States but forenames here are used by people to judge what class you are from, not just what religion. You can usually tell how old someone is by just hearing their first name as well as working out how much money they have or are benefits! it's no mistake that The Daily Mail used a survey of names to make it's point.