Is multiculturalism wanted??

Death and Taxes

Wibbs wrote: »

While mutual respect isn't, Multiculturalism with a capital M most certainly is.

Agreed, though Christianity and Islam are quite different in a number of respects. Christians(and others) have tended to see the commonalities between the faiths. The "ah sure it's like our thing", only in a few fundamental ways it's not. How? For a start the separation of church and state that exists in Christianity theologically(if not always in practice) simply doesn't exist in Islam and is written in stone as a tenet of faith. The caliphate model is the "ideal". Secondly Islam never had a reformation, followed by an enlightenment. The very notion of reformation can't happen. It's a more self protected ideology. Thirdly Islam is more a template for living from the top down, politically and socially than Christianity down to the minutiae of how many times and ways you wash yourself. Of course there are millions of a la carte Muslims, just like any faith out there, but the nutbags are increasingly getting more airtime particularly in developing nations.

Interestingly with regard to Islam in Europe and something you hear little about these days is that both the French and German govs actually promoted the faith in their immigrant populations in the 70's. Their reasoning being that more religious types would be less prone to social misbehaviour. There were far fewer headscarves in sight in Paris 1970, than in Paris 2000. Plus at the time Islam wasn't the boogyman it has become(for all sorts of reasons).

Good luck with that RR, though I'd love to see a cogent answer/argument to the question. Hey I'll pose the question again for shíts and giggles.

I think what many of the more hard line "right on" multiculturists miss is that some cultures that become part of a modern, progressive and equal society may not believe in or share the same views of modern, progressive and equal as the main society they find themselves in. Take more traditional cultures as examples. EG Many see sexual equality in very different ways. Ditto for social, religious and political equality. How can this be resolved in the philosophy that says modern, equal and progressive is the yardstick by which we judge our society, if we encourage by cultural relativism another culture who doesn't believe in this in the quest for diversity?

The bit in italics sums it up.

I take it the references to ****s and gigggles are directed at me, a tad uncivil imo.
To answer the question you posed, I am not so naive as to argue that by pursuing a policy of multiculturalism we are required to accept practices in our country (or indeed any country) which are an anathema to basic civil and human rights. For example I do not believe that it is incompatible with the multiculturalist society to refuse to allow certain groups within the Islamic community to practice Sharia law, nor do I believe that we should we accept that any group within our society has the right to remove or ignore the legal protections guarenteed by our constitution.
In a recent speech President Higgins made the point that multiculturalism is and must be a two way street, I agree wholeheratedly with that sentiment.
For any multicultural society to develop it requires that all parties are willing and open to change and compromise. When I talk about multiculturalism I do not talk of the idylic utopia, rather a society in which while difference is not only tolerated and welcomed, such welcome and toleration is limited by full regard to the human and civil rights not only of every citizen but also of society as a whole.

Blisterman

Wibbs wrote: »

I think what many of the more hard line "right on" multiculturists miss is that some cultures that become part of a modern, progressive and equal society may not believe in or share the same views of modern, progressive and equal as the main society they find themselves in. Take more traditional cultures as examples. EG Many see sexual equality in very different ways. Ditto for social, religious and political equality. How can this be resolved in the philosophy that says modern, equal and progressive is the yardstick by which we judge our society, if we encourage by cultural relativism another culture who doesn't believe in this in the quest for diversity?

The bit in italics sums it up.

I don't think there's any contradiction. You can respect differences in culture and opinion, while still expecting to receive the same respect in return.

And I don't think believing in equality between people means that you have to see all beliefs and opinions as equal.

Obviously, on a given issue, I'm going to respect the opinion of an expert with a PhD above that of a madman shouting on a street corner.

hooradiation

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Mocking the attitude of people who dislike multiculturalism as stupid people that hate foreigners. That's hilarious and it's never been done before has it?

After a while the same talking point of "change is happening, it's their fault and that's bad" gets tiresome.
I mean you could buck the trend and say something substantive and not based on "these people are 'real Londoners' cos i say so and these are not cos the same reasons"

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Interesting point, the proponents of multiculturalism get very angry with people that don't think it's such a great idea (which tends to be most people...yet it still goes on)!

Oh yes, the great silent majority that are so put upon by all these things, yet so silent they never say anything. Except, of course, through the chosen few who have the burden of "saying what everyone is thinking".
Bless you, for you are truly orating your opinions as if they were the thoughts of many. A noble pursuit.

Bambi wrote: »

London has a long history, show me when "this" last happened in london.

Given that change is a constant process, your request is nonsensical.
It's like asking someone to show you the last time that time moved forward at the rate of one second per second.

Death and Taxes

Bambi wrote: »

That's as good as you can get, "derived from religions"

Here, let me draw you a picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secularmap.PNG


See if you can spot the difference between western democracies and islamic states, then sit down and be quiet.

Cute way of totally ignoring the points and the evidence I already put to you this morning.
It is sad that you are unable to engage when provided with actual veidence that might contradict your points.

Blisterman

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I take it the references to ****s and gigggles are directed at me, a tad uncivil imo.
To answer the question you posed, I am not so naive as to argue that by pursuing a policy of multiculturalism we are required to accept practices in our country (or indeed any country) which are an anathema to basic civil and human rights. For example I do not believe that it is incompatible with the multiculturalist society to refuse to allow certain groups within the Islamic community to practice Sharia law, nor do I believe that we should we accept that any group within our society has the right to remove or ignore the legal protections guarenteed by our constitution.
In a recent speech President Higgins made the point that multiculturalism is and must be a two way street, I agree wholeheratedly with that sentiment.
For any multicultural society to develop it requires that all parties are willing and open to change and compromise. When I talk about multiculturalism I do not talk of the idylic utopia, rather a society in which while difference is not only tolerated and welcomed, such welcome and toleration is limited by full regard to the human and civil rights not only of every citizen but also of society as a whole.

I agree, but I think some people have an extremely high expectation of to what degree immigrants should assimilate. ie, they should only eat western food, they should never speak their native language or celebrate the feast days of the countries of which they're from.

I remember watching a TV show about a guy from London's East End who'd moved to Spain and set up an English pub. In the entire show you never once hear him interact with a Spanish person. He's hanging around the pub, playing pool with his English friends, eating a full English breakfast, watching Eastenders.

Then when asked why he left the east end, he said without a hint of irony "I don't mean to sound racist, but there's too many immigrants nowadays and they don't want to integrate with British culture."

Dyr

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Cute way of totally ignoring the points and the evidence I already put to you this morning.
It is sad that you are unable to engage when provided with actual veidence that might contradict your points.

Line your points up against the picture and see how they stand up.

Your points were comparisons of secular democracies to religious theocracies. Good luck with that.

Forest Demon

Its a scientific fact that if you take 10 people from any culture there are 2 or 3 sh1tebags amongst them.

So if you get 100,000 immigrants then you will have at least 20,000 foreign sh1tebags.

Irish sh1tebags are very sensitive to foreign sh1tebags.

No culture is enriched by sh1tebags irregardless of their origin.

This fact can be proven and witnessed on the Luas (red line )or in any cinema. There will always be sh1tebags. One or two sh1tebags can ruin a movie or excursion on the Luas for over 100 other decent people.

So in conclusion I say:

Less people = less sh1tebags

More people = more sh1tebags

Dyr

hooradiation wrote: »

Given that change is a constant process, your request is nonsensical.
It's like asking someone to show you the last time that time moved forward at the rate of one second per second.

Really, so the influx of non natives to London on the scale that has occurred post WW2 has been a constant process? Change can be measured so please do show us how this constant process was developing throughout londons modern history

Wibbs

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I take it the references to ****s and gigggles are directed at me, a tad uncivil imo.

Nope, it's OK you don't need to take offence it just another way of saying for the hell of it.

To answer the question you posed, I am not so naive as to argue that by pursuing a policy of multiculturalism we are required to accept practices in our country (or indeed any country) which are an anathema to basic civil and human rights. For example I do not believe that it is incompatible with the multiculturalist society to refuse to allow certain groups within the Islamic community to practice Sharia law, nor do I believe that we should we accept that any group within our society has the right to remove or ignore the legal protections guarenteed by our constitution.

That doesn't really answer the question. It kinda avoids it. OK since the Muslims(tm) are flavour/boggyman de jour, let's examine their cultural and religious attitude to sexual equality. Before "oh they're not of a single mind", I'm not saying they are, but overall sexual equality in most Muslim cultures is hardly a yardstick by which we would define it. Anyway, would you consider it anathema to our society that a woman, just by virtue of her sex, has to cover up because even the vaguest sight of her is considered arousing to men? Would you consider it anathema to our society that a woman, just by virtue of her sex, can't have the same opportunities of a man? You mentioned Sharia law and being OK with that among certain groups to practce, would you consider it anathema to our society that a woman, just by virtue of her sex, has fewer legal rights under that system?

When I talk about multiculturalism I do not talk of the idylic utopia, rather a society in which while difference is not only tolerated and welcomed, such welcome and toleration is limited by full regard to the human and civil rights not only of every citizen but also of society as a whole.

Even if some cultures welcomed into such a society don't hols those same human and civel rights as the host country?

Blisterman wrote: »

I don't think there's any contradiction. You can respect differences in culture and opinion, while still expecting to receive the same respect in return.

The latter is generally the problem.

And I don't think believing in equality between people means that you have to see all beliefs and opinions as equal.

Neither do I, however Multiculturalism with a capitol M, tends to do just that in the form of cultural relativism.

Blisterman

Forest Demon wrote: »

Its a scientific fact that if you take 10 people from any culture there are 2 or 3 sh1tebags amongst them.

So if you get 100,000 immigrants then you will have at least 20,000 foreign sh1tebags.

Irish sh1tebags are very sensitive to foreign sh1tebags.

No culture is enriched by sh1tebags irregardless of their origin.

This fact can be proven and witnessed on the Luas (red line )or in any cinema. There will always be sh1tebags. One or two sh1tebags can ruin a movie or excursion on the Luas for over 100 other decent people.

So in conclusion I say:

Less people = less sh1tebags

More people = more sh1tebags

That's true, but it's how people perceive it.

An Irish person causes trouble, people think "That guy is a scumbag"

A Nigerian person causes trouble, people think "Nigerians are scumbags".

The Road Runner

Blisterman wrote: »

I agree, but I think some people have an extremely high expectation of to what degree immigrants should assimilate. ie, they should only eat western food, they should never speak their native language or celebrate the feast days of the countries of which they're from.

Thats a bit of a silly post tbh. Outside of the obvious trolls i don't think anyone here is expecting any of that. Everyone i know is more than happy with the variety of new foods we've had over the last 20 years and most actively check them out. Infact food diversity is one of the great door openers when it comes to the mingling of cultures. No one i know believes that people shouldn't speak their native tongue or celebrate their own feast days. The chinese new year always gets a good innings every year here.

I just dont think its unreasonable to expect a shop worker or my taxi driver to be able to understand me when i speak english.

Blisterman

The Road Runner wrote: »

Thats a bit of a silly post tbh. Outside of the obvious trolls i don't think anyone here is expecting any of that. Everyone i know is more than happy with the variety of new foods we've had over the last 20 years and most actively check them out. Infact food diversity is one of the great door openers when it comes to the mingling of cultures. No one i know believes that people shouldn't speak their native tongue or celebrate their own feast days. The chinese new year always gets a good innings every year here.

I just dont think its unreasonable to expect a shop worker or my taxi driver to be able to understand me when i speak English.

No its not unreasonable, but I don;t know where this idea that there's loads of shop workers and taxi drivers who don't speak English comes from.

I've been to literally hundreds of shops throughout London, run by people of all sorts of nationalities, and I don't think I've ever once had any trouble being understood. And I have an Irish accent!

hooradiation

Bambi wrote: »

Really, so the influx of non natives to London on the scale that has occurred post WW2 has been a constant process?

Cultures change, this is a constant process, they are not static.
You seem to keep thinking this isn't the case, I can't imagine why.

Bambi wrote: »

Change can be measured so please do show us how this constant process was developing throughout londons modern history

Here's a better idea, you're advocating that the current changes are unprecedented and "eroding" British culture.
Feel free to deliver on the burden of proof you have placed on yourself.

Or don't, that's fine too.
I do understand that demonstrating something that isn't true is a very difficult task.

Wibbs

Blisterman wrote: »

I remember watching a TV show about a guy from London's East End who'd moved to Spain and set up an English pub. In the entire show you never once hear him interact with a Spanish person. He's hanging around the pub, playing pool with his English friends, eating a full English breakfast, watching Eastenders.

Then when asked why he left the east end, he said without a hint of irony "I don't mean to sound racist, but there's too many immigrants nowadays and they don't want to integrate with British culture."

Yep a bloody joke. I know a guy who moved to Marbella for a year and had no Spanish at the end of it. Went to English/Irish pubs and cafe's, got his hair cut by a Welsh barber, rarely strayed beyond the AngloHiberno enclave and was quite the disparaging eejit regarding the locals he observed at a distance. IMHO they shouldn't be welcomed in Spain. Go back to Torquay or Tallaght and plant a placcy palm tree in a sand pit if you want the effect.

The Road Runner

Blisterman wrote: »

No its not unreasonable, but I don;t know where this idea that there's loads of shop workers and taxi drivers who don't speak English comes from.

I've been to literally hundreds of shops throughout London, run by people of all sorts of nationalities, and I don't think I've ever once had any trouble being understood. And I have an Irish accent!

Well outside of offering anecdotal evidence i have from my own experiences i have nothing by way of offering proof on that. I just felt it was a bit disingenuous for you to make that point when the vast majority of people here don't feel that way.

It is a case of blame the system not the victim here really, and by victim i mean the guy who is given an opportunity to emigrate here but is enabled by the current system to not be able to converse with the host natives by not being equipped with the tongue to do so. If problems like this were nipped in the bud in the very early stages of assimilation it would go some way to not creating situations of ghettoization and a sense of separation for all involved.

Dyr

hooradiation wrote: »

Cultures change, this is a constant process, they are not static.
You seem to keep thinking this isn't the case, I can't imagine why.

Really? I've never said that culture is static. Straw man argument. Interesting that you still use the word "constant" though, as in "regular" or "not subject to change".

hooradiation wrote: »

Here's a better idea, you're advocating that the current changes are unprecedented and "eroding" British culture.
Feel free to deliver on the burden of proof you have placed on yourself.

Really? I never mentioned british culture being eroded. Again a straw man argument. Actually you should probably be just ignored after two straw man arguments

So given that, you have put forward a statement the onus is on you to back it up :

These are your statements

"This happens all the damn time, it's not ****ing horrible, it's life simply going on."

given that "this" is non native immigration on the scale that london has experienced post world war 2. The onus is on you to show that it has "happened all the damn time" in london.



"Given that change is a constant process, your request is nonsensical."

Firstly you're claiming that change cannot be measured which actually is nonsensical. Secondly, you're claiming that the demographic shift in london post world war 2 is part of a constant process. Show us the figures so to back that up. Show us how this constant ( i.e. regular or not subject to change) process was developing through londons modern history.

AlekSmart

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I note that nothing in above addresses your earlier rant accusing those of us who favour multiculturalism of being middle class nimbys who have adopted a cause , but are unprepared to to actual accept it in our own neighbourhoods or in our own lives.

Firstly,Wiley,I'm not accusing you,or anybody else,of anything.

If you constantly see other posters differing with your own views as combative or accusatory this perhaps points towards other issues not directly relevant to this thread ?

From your responses thus far,it appears you feel threatened by the mere (widely held) existance of an opinion contrary to your own,and react accordingly.

It's interesting that you see any contrary opinion as a "rant", apparently unworthy of responses other than to outline your own splendid embrace of Multiculturalism (Capital M).

I,for one,am impressed at your singularly impressive committment to the concept in the many ways you outline.

However,I remain of the view that broadening the focus back out to the remainder of the greater population,will reveal somewhat less of a popular desire to embrace it as you do.

And,just to reiterate for clarity,I believe that significant numbers of the population,not always native Irish either,do view the entire issue on a more simplistic level than yourself,which given our National preoccupation with all things property related,ensures that Property ownership and use,will always be a major element of the multiculturalism debate.

As you say yourself Wiley....

The intolerance of others is never a justification for intolerance by onself.

Death and Taxes

The Road Runner wrote: »

I just dont think its unreasonable to expect a shop worker or my taxi driver to be able to understand me when i speak english.

Absolutley. I really doubt that anyone is disagreeing with that.
For myself , I have never encountered a shop worker or taxi driver in Ireland who couldn't speak english, though there may be isolated incidents of it I suppose.

The Road Runner

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Absolutley. I really doubt that anyone is disagreeing with that.
For myself , I have never encountered a shop worker or taxi driver in Ireland who couldn't speak english, though there may be isolated incidents of it I suppose.

You've been lucky. its an awkward situation to be in.

Grand Moff Tarkin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Absolutley. I really doubt that anyone is disagreeing with that.
For myself , I have never encountered a shop worker or taxi driver in Ireland who couldn't speak english, though there may be isolated incidents of it I suppose.

You must live a very sheltered life.

Death and Taxes

AlekSmart wrote: »

Firstly,Wiley,I'm not accusing you,or anybody else,of anything.Actually you did , you made a broad brush ststement stating that those in favour of multicultralism were nimbys!

If you constantly see other posters differing with your own views as combative or accusatory this perhaps points towards other issues not directly relevant to this thread ? I dont see most poster as either accusatory unless there are quoting me and then making either misrepresentative comments or just being insulting (Not you I hasten to add)

From your responses thus far,it appears you feel threatened by the mere (widely held) existance of an opinion contrary to your own,and react accordingly.I certainly don't feel threatened by contrary opinions, but some of the opinions stated have been inflammatory imo.

It's interesting that you see any contrary opinion as a "rant", apparently unworthy of responses other than to outline your own splendid embrace of Multiculturalism (Capital M).The only time I used the word "rant" was in reference to myself, ending a post with "rant over"

I,for one,am impressed at your singularly impressive committment to the concept in the many ways you outline.

However,I remain of the view that broadening the focus back out to the remainder of the greater population,will reveal somewhat less of a popular desire to embrace it as you do.That does not mean that they are correct, though I accept that I may also not be. A majority or significant minority does not equate to right.

And,just to reiterate for clarity,I believe that significant numbers of the population,not always native Irish either,do view the entire issue on a more simplistic level than yourself,which given our National preoccupation with all things property related,ensures that Property ownership and use,will always be a major element of the multiculturalism debate. I doubt that as there is little evidence to support it.

As you say yourself Wiley....

Hi Alek,
I have tried to answer some of your points above.
My earlier remark re intolerance has more to do with those who veiw the subject of immigration in simplistic terms of assimilation, that is that these forners should give up all sembelance of their own culture because this is our country and they need to just accept that and sdo as we do.
It was not aimed at you.

The Road Runner

WileyCoyote wrote: »

My earlier remark re intolerance has more to do with those who veiw the subject of immigration in simplistic terms of assimilation, that is that these forners should give up all sembelance of their own culture because this is our country and they need to just accept that and sdo as we do.
It was not aimed at you.

Given that you made the statement in reply to P_1 in a post replying to me, i just want to clear up if it was 'aimed' at me or P_1?

hooradiation

Bambi wrote: »

Really? I've never said that culture is static. Straw man argument

Then your problem is....

Bambi wrote: »

Really? I never mentioned british culture being eroded. Again a straw man argument. Actually you should probably be just ignored after two straw man arguments

You're quite right, that was Hailee Wailing Microcomputer.
But if you'll insist on butting into conversation then this will happen, won't it?

But feel free to "ignore" me if you want.
Cowardice isn't uncommon.

Bambi wrote: »

"This happens all the damn time, it's not ****ing horrible, it's life simply going on."
given that "this" is non native immigration on the scale that london has experienced post world war 2. The onus is on you to show that it has "happened all the damn time" in london.

Wrong.
"This" in this sentence refers to cultures changing over time.
Isn't reading things properly fun!

Bambi wrote: »

"Given that change is a constant process, your request is nonsensical."

Firstly you're claiming that change cannot be measured which actually is nonsensical.

Wrong.
I'm saying that the process of change is a constant, asking me point to "where it's happening" is stupid.
There is no singular point in time that you can label as "this started here"

Bambi wrote: »

Secondly, you're claiming that the demographic shift in london post world war 2 is part of a constant process.
Show us the figures so to back that up. Show us how this constant ( i.e. regular or not subject to change) process was developing through londons modern history.

Wrong again, not the argument being made
You might want to read things a bit more thoroughly in future, correcting your simple mistakes is not something I enjoy.

Death and Taxes

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, it's OK you don't need to take offence it just another way of saying for the hell of it.
That doesn't really answer the question. It kinda avoids it. OK since the Muslims(tm) are flavour/boggyman de jour, let's examine their cultural and religious attitude to sexual equality. Before "oh they're not of a single mind", I'm not saying they are, but overall sexual equality in most Muslim cultures is hardly a yardstick by which we would define it. Anyway, would you consider it anathema to our society that a woman, just by virtue of her sex, has to cover up because even the vaguest sight of her is considered arousing to men? Would you consider it anathema to our society that a woman, just by virtue of her sex, can't have the same opportunities of a man? You mentioned Sharia law and being OK with that among certain groups to practce, would you consider it anathema to our society that a woman, just by virtue of her sex, has fewer legal rights under that system?
In fairness I did answer this, and no I wouldn't consider it acceptable that they be forced to, I did make it clear in my post that the right of any group to engage in their cultural practive has to be tempered by law and due and proper regard to human rights.

Even if some cultures welcomed into such a society don't hols those same human and civel rights as the host country?
For clarity, I am talking about Ireland and when I talk of Human and Civil rights I am talking about them in a European/Western context, so immigrants should be granted the same rights as our own citizens and should also be bound by those same rights and obligations.

The latter is generally the problem. I know, but we cannot allow one group to decide that subset within it will have less rights than the general population.

Neither do I, however Multiculturalism with a capitol M, tends to do just that in the form of cultural relativism.

That has happened, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What is a better way?
Certainly I would argue that assimilation cause worse problems than multiculturalism does. But i have no problem in saying that by welcoming new migrants and their culures to this country we are not obliged under multiculturalism to accept all of their cultural practices regardless how abhorrent they may be, we are not.
I hope that goes some way to giving you a coherent answer to the questions and issues you raised.:)

e_e

I would answer yes simply because I love culture itself. Such as language, food, literature, music, cinema and art in general.

What Irish culture is there anyway? diddly eye music, hurling, U2 and guinness? Does nothing for me and I resent the fact that I am supposed to like it just out of some nationalistic pride, it's bollocks.

Death and Taxes

e_e wrote: »

I would answer yes simply because I love culture itself. Such as language, food, literature, music, cinema and art in general.

What Irish culture is there anyway? diddly eye music, hurling, U2 and guinness? Does nothing for me and I resent the fact that I am supposed to like it just out of some nationalistic pride, it's bollocks.

Highly contadictory post!
you love culture but Irish culture is bollocks?????

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep a bloody joke. I know a guy who moved to Marbella for a year and had no Spanish at the end of it. Went to English/Irish pubs and cafe's, got his hair cut by a Welsh barber, rarely strayed beyond the AngloHiberno enclave and was quite the disparaging eejit regarding the locals he observed at a distance. IMHO they shouldn't be welcomed in Spain. Go back to Torquay or Tallaght and plant a placcy palm tree in a sand pit if you want the effect.

I know quite a few British expats here in Spain who complain incessantly about the Spanish. One middle-aged muppet I work with shouts and gesticulates at the Spanish as if they're morons because they can't understand English. She hasn't learned anything but 'hola'. She told me I shouldn't be teaching English because I have a slight Irish accent, while her own grammar is horrendous. She says things like 'more better'. These people are just eejits, regardless of nationality. I met plenty of people in Ireland, especially Eastern europeans, who openly looked down on the Irish and refused to integrate. What every country needs is an 'Are you a complete assh*le?' test for everyone who wants to move there.

pabloh999

AlekSmart

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Hi Alek,
I have tried to answer some of your points above.
My earlier remark re intolerance has more to do with those who veiw the subject of immigration in simplistic terms of assimilation, that is that these forners should give up all sembelance of their own culture because this is our country and they need to just accept that and sdo as we do.
It was not aimed at you.

The problem with folk,is that they tend to be simplistic...in so many ways,however this simplicity in Irish terms can mask a razor sharp ability to keep their own shop in good order.

John B Keane was very good at being able to show this particular trait in easily digested bites

As for "ranting",I would hold my hands up to never using one word when a dozen will do,but whether it amounts to ranting is moot,surely ?

The only time I used the word "rant" was in reference to myself, ending a post with "rant over"

I note that nothing in above addresses your earlier rant accusing those of us who favour multiculturalism of being middle class nimbys who have adopted a cause , but are unprepared to to actual accept it in our own neighbourhoods or in our own lives.

A bit of an oul Rant can sometimes be theraputic...;)

The issue of immigrants having to "give up all semblance of their own culture" is equally a bit disingenuous,although it does cut to the thrust in some ways.

That ability to assimilate voluntarily into the prevailing social and cultural norms can be the key to making the best use of one's new home.

Many years back I listened to an RTE Radio interview with Pat Grace of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame,where Pat outlined his early years as a young Irishman abroad.

He formed a realisation early on in London,that attempting to maintain a steely grasp of his traditional "Irishness" was getting him nowhere,except from one Irish Pub to another in search of work "On the Buildins".

When he moved elsewhere in the UK,he was directed into the same Irish haunts to meet with the same caricatures,all offering the same counsel....

Even later in the USA,it was New York and Boston to which he drifted,encountering the exact same scenarios as he had found in McAlpines UK waiting rooms.

It was'nt until he made a decision to consciously depart from the well trodden Irishness trail,that he discovered the Southern States and people who neither knew nor cared about Ireland or Irishness.

Sometimes the ingrained need to see ones own particular culture as in need of retention at all costs ends up contributing to the eventual destruction of that culture itself ?

Wibbs

WileyCoyote wrote: »

My earlier remark re intolerance has more to do with those who veiw the subject of immigration in simplistic terms of assimilation, that is that these forners should give up all sembelance of their own culture because this is our country and they need to just accept that and sdo as we do.

IMHO assimilation is a red herring on both sides of the argument and arguments/discussion over the degree of same tends to go in circles, from the "every culture is equally valid" to they better become [insert nationality here] or else".

On AS's property notion, it seems to have some legs. Certainly in nations where sub cultural enclaves spring up. There are many reasons for this. Wanting to be with one's own, sense of threat from the wider culture, but NIMBYism/"white flight" is a well known factor too(hence it has a catchy title). I don't see how that wouldn't apply to Ireland if or when some vague numerical tipping point occurs. There are the beginnings of it already in Dublin. North of O'Connell street is a growing area of popularity with some recent visitors to our shores. The area around the South Circular Road another. It's a small enough demographic shift of course, but one can see how such seeds are sown and can grow if larger scale demographic influx kicks off(which I doubt will happen here anyway. I reckon that high water mark has largely passed).

In fairness I did answer this, and no I wouldn't consider it acceptable that they be forced to, I did make it clear in my post that the right of any group to engage in their cultural practive has to be tempered by law and due and proper regard to human rights.

Again I don't think you have answered this and are still avoiding the point a little. Just on my example, under our laws and mores(and we still have some catchup to do) women are considered equal, don't have to cover up because of cultural pressure and have the same legal rights as men, so how can accept a set of cultural practices as OK, if you wouldn't accept them in your own culture? And further why should we tolerate such in our wider society for the sake of "diversity" or some such notion?

For clarity, I am talking about Ireland and when I talk of Human and Civil rights I am talking about them in a European/Western context, so immigrants should be granted the same rights as our own citizens and should also be bound by those same rights and obligations.

Again that's kinda avoiding the point. EG has say a "traditional" Pakistani Muslim woman living in Ireland the same practical rights, obligations and opportunities as a Galwegian woman living in Ireland? Clearly not. So why "import" that way of thinking in any number? I had this similar convo with a bloke from the Middle East and he was complaining about the westerners in his country acting the maggot and not respecting the local culture and while I don't agree with many of his cultures mores I most certainly agreed with him on that point. When in Rome etc. Indeed the Romans while oddballs at times generally pulled off the multicultural stuff pretty well. In ancient Rome what is noticeable is that there are very few ethnic enclaves. People from all over the empire and beyond lived cheek by jowl(often rich and poor did too). They may have been Spaniards or Jews or Greeks or Italians, but they were Roman first and went along with the Roman culture with flavours from their own. It can be argued one of the reasons the Christians pissed them off was that they saw themselves as somehow apart.