What are the pros and cons of multiracial multicultural society?

crockholm

Shenshen wrote: »

Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, but most of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, for example, are not "native" by any stretch of the definition.
Yet I wouldn't consider any of there to be "crime-ridden and poor".

Btw, Brazil is the 7th strongest economy in the world, and one of the fastest growing at the moment. I'm not saying they've got all their social problems sorted, but I expect they will tackle them before too long.

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "Canadian" "Australian",are you talking about the first peoples and aboriginies, or Canadian,as in a W.A.S.P.?

Grayson

crockholm wrote: »

It was,but it aint the brown folks at the top table either. Swedes success was down to Swedes,and to a lesser extent,the Finns.Any area that has a large non-native population is a by-word for crime-ridden and poor.And it doesn't change the fact that more and more Swedes are looking at the option of a far- right party to do something about the unwanted multiculturism

Sweden has crime. I've said it's not perfect. But to compare it with brazil is silly. And to say both of their problems stem from multiculturalism is silly.
Right wing parties always blame outsiders, be they immigrants, gypsies, jews etc... And they're pretty much never right (As in correct, not as in right-wing )
Right wing people will always get support for their policies from those that have a grudge.
If you want to look at the causes of these issues, you have to look at the overall picture. Just because you look at a troubled area and see black or brown faces, does not mean those issues are caused by black or brown people. Sometimes they are. Like paris. The french made very few efforts to help people integrate. They didn't want people coming in from outside. So you ended up with two distinct groups. Added to the fact that one is poor and you end up with the ghetto like areas in paris which riot occasionally. The thing is, the immigrants ended up there because they were poor anyway and those areas were cheaper.
This is now a social issue, not a cultural one. The way to tackle it is to increase law enforcement and lower the social imbalance.

But take tallaght and finglas. They weren't the friendliest areas beforehand. But they were cheaper. So a lot of immigrants ended up there. Now there are people saying the troubles there are caused because of all the immigrants. Thing is, they were bad areas before.

Shenshen

crockholm wrote: »

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "Canadian" "Australian",are you talking about the first peoples and aboriginies, or Canadian,as in a W.A.S.P.?

Having lived in Canada, I would bet you a good deal of money that the majority of the population doesn't have exclusively Canadian ancestors for the last 3 generations even. There will be more recent immigrants in nearly all family trees.

af_thefragile

Shenshen wrote: »

Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, but most of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, for example, are not "native" by any stretch of the definition.
Yet I wouldn't consider any of there to be "crime-ridden and poor".

Btw, Brazil is the 7th strongest economy in the world, and one of the fastest growing at the moment. I'm not saying they've got all their social problems sorted, but I expect they will tackle them before too long.

Australia had an appalling apartheid regieme up until the 90s. Even today there's lots of racism and crime in the country. Its a rich country with a healthy economy which is why crime isn't rampant.
NewZealnd tends to treat the natives and immigrants much better. Again its a rich country with a small population and lots of land and wealth to go around so everyone's happy. Same with Canada. Strong economy, plenty of space for everyone, everyone's happy.

Brazil is largely a poor country. The crime is more a result of poverty than of multicultural conflicts.

Bottom line is when there is enough money and space, most people will live happy regardless if its Iceland or New York.
When things go ****, people start blaming others for why things are **** and poverty leads to crime.
And finally some/many just don't like to see strange foreign folk spoiling their nice societies with their strange foreign ways. Some instances its justified, while most other times people need to get over their racist and bigoted ways and accept they don't have a monopoly over certain lands.

crockholm

Grayson wrote: »

Sweden has crime. I've said it's not perfect. But to compare it with brazil is silly. And to say both of their problems stem from multiculturalism is silly.
Right wing parties always blame outsiders, be they immigrants, gypsies, jews etc... And they're pretty much never right (As in correct, not as in right-wing )
Right wing people will always get support for their policies from those that have a grudge.
If you want to look at the causes of these issues, you have to look at the overall picture. Just because you look at a troubled area and see black or brown faces, does not mean those issues are caused by black or brown people. Sometimes they are. Like paris. The french made very few efforts to help people integrate. They didn't want people coming in from outside. So you ended up with two distinct groups. Added to the fact that one is poor and you end up with the ghetto like areas in paris which riot occasionally. The thing is, the immigrants ended up there because they were poor anyway and those areas were cheaper.
This is now a social issue, not a cultural one. The way to tackle it is to increase law enforcement and lower the social imbalance.

But take tallaght and finglas. They weren't the friendliest areas beforehand. But they were cheaper. So a lot of immigrants ended up there. Now there are people saying the troubles there are caused because of all the immigrants. Thing is, they were bad areas before.

I'm not comparing them either!The only connection that I can think of is Scania trucks are built in both countries.But here is the problem in Sweden,the aforementioned areas were all areas that Swedes lived in previously,before they became ghetto's, Rosengård was a model village/town when it was built for industrial workers it didnt become the sh!thole it is now until the Swedes moved out! Ditto with Rinkeby,ditto with Södertälje,ronna,tensta,fittja.And to go back to the point,more and more Swedes are becoming disillusioned with the notion of multiculturism, therefore,it's not a great example to use.

af_thefragile

crockholm wrote: »

I'm not comparing them either!The only connection that I can think of is Scania trucks are built in both countries.But here is the problem in Sweden,the aforementioned areas were all areas that Swedes lived in previously,before they became ghetto's, Rosengård was a model village/town when it was built for industrial workers it didnt become the sh!thole it is now until the Swedes moved out! Ditto with Rinkeby,ditto with Södertälje,ronna,tensta,fittja.And to go back to the point,more and more Swedes are becoming disillusioned with the notion of multiculturism, therefore,it's not a great example to use.

As garyson noted , its mostly the poor and uneducated that settle in the poorer areas because they're cheaper. The swedes then move out because they don't wanna live in an area surrounded by poor blue collar immigrants. That drives the house prices even lower and eventually the place becomes a ghetto. Its how ghettos form anywhere.

It isn't multiculturalism that has lead to the crime because you'll find loads of immigrants who are professionals like doctors, lawyers etc who like peacefully and happily alongside Swedish folk in the decent areas. Its the poor working class folk that cause this problem and the reason for that isn't because they're "foreign and therefore cannot assimilate" but because they're poor, uneducated and have been marginalised. Education and social reform is what these people need now the right-wing " kick them all out of our beautiful land!" rhetoric.

woodoo

crockholm wrote: »

The fastest growing party and currently 3rd most popular party in the country is an anti-immigration party. Imagine if the BNP had 13% of the vote,thats what it's like here. Swedes do not seem to like multi-culti as much as you think.

And that is a perfectly valid position to take. The problem is it doesn't fit with the current liberal orthodoxy. Many people don't like the idea of runaway immigration and the possibility of their culture/race/identity becoming a minority in their country. Many people do like it. Thats their choice but we mustn't just shout down those who are against it as hysterical racists.

crockholm

af_thefragile wrote: »

As garyson noted , its mostly the poor and uneducated that settle in the poorer areas because they're cheaper. The swedes then move out because they don't wanna live in an area surrounded by poor blue collar immigrants. That drives the house prices even lower and eventually the place becomes a ghetto. Its how ghettos form anywhere.

It isn't multiculturalism that has lead to the crime because you'll find loads of immigrants who are professionals like doctors, lawyers etc who like peacefully and happily alongside Swedish folk in the decent areas. Its the poor working class folk that cause this problem and the reason for that isn't because they're "foreign and therefore cannot assimilate" but because they're poor, uneducated and have been marginalised. Education and social reform is what these people need now the right-wing " kick them all out of our beautiful land!" rhetoric.

Places like rosengård were built for the blue collar workers,as were many of the other areas mentioned,they were built often with the factory worker in mind,and as the factories brought in workers from other countries to man the jobs.Swedes moved out because of the trouble associated with the second generation immigrants,many are bitter because they feel as if the have been forced out.


The second part of your point,I can agree with,take in the professionals that are needed,these are more likely to educate their kids properly and less chances of ending up in a gang. Alas,what we are getting from Moghadishu at the minute, would not be regarded as highly trained professionals.

jack_rambo

while middle class liberals tend to be the ones who legislate for increased immigration , its usually working class folk who end up competing for jobs and housing with those same immigrants , i see plenty of foreign people working in low paying retail possitions but very few GP,s or higher executive officer civil servants who hail from that community , racism tends to be a problem in working class areas for very real reasons , that its usually middle class types who then lecture the working class on being intollerant is what really grates

crockholm

woodoo wrote: »

And that is a perfectly valid position to take. The problem is it doesn't fit with the current liberal orthodoxy. Many people don't like the idea of runaway immigration and the possibility of their culture/race/identity becoming a minority in their country. Many people do like it. Thats their choice but we mustn't just shout down those who are against it as hysterical racists.

People from both left and right are voting in Sverigedemokraterna(SD) because the 2 main parties are ignoring their concerns over immigration.Thats why they are now no. 3

woodoo

Grayson wrote: »

If you want to look at the causes of these issues, you have to look at the overall picture. Just because you look at a troubled area and see black or brown faces, does not mean those issues are caused by black or brown people. Sometimes they are. Like paris. The french made very few efforts to help people integrate. They didn't want people coming in from outside. So you ended up with two distinct groups. Added to the fact that one is poor and you end up with the ghetto like areas in paris which riot occasionally. The thing is, the immigrants ended up there because they were poor anyway and those areas were cheaper.
This is now a social issue, not a cultural one. The way to tackle it is to increase law enforcement and lower the social imbalance.

What if it turns out that people are largely tribal and gravitate to their own race and cultural background even as immigrants in new countries. We are just assuming that people will just integrate and mix. Where is the proof that this happens naturally.

We could end up with ever growing populations within a country that haven't integrated and shun the western values. Look 100 years down the line. In America in the 1950's 90% of the population was of white european ancestry. By 2050 it is possible that that population will be a minority. Nobody is discussing whether that will be a good thing or bad thing for those people. Why not? It seems people are just hoping it all works out.

Death and Taxes

crockholm wrote: »

People from both left and right are voting in Sverigedemokraterna(SD) because the 2 main parties are ignoring their concerns over immigration.Thats why they are now no. 3

They still represent only about 1 in 8 voters, 87% dont agree with them or their nazi policies. Dont those 87% have rights too?

jack_rambo

woodoo wrote: »

What if it turns out that people are largely tribal and gravitate to their own race and cultural background even as immigrants in new countries. We are just assuming that people will just integrate and mix. Where is the proof that this happens naturally.

We could end up with ever growing populations within a country that haven't integrated and shun the western values. Look 100 years down the line. In America in the 1950's 90% of the population was of white european ancestry. By 2050 it is possible that that population will be a minority. Nobody is discussing whether that will be a good thing or bad thing for those people. Why not? It seems people are just hoping it all works out.

liberals largely control media discourse when it comes to the area of immigration , apart from kevin myers , i cant think of a single journalist who ever commented on the enormous change in demographics in this country since around 1995

Shenshen

jack_rambo wrote: »

while middle class liberals tend to be the ones who legislate for increased immigration , its usually working class folk who end up competing for jobs and housing with those same immigrants , i see plenty of foreign people working in low paying retail possitions but very few GP,s or higher executive officer civil servants who hail from that community , racism tends to be a problem in working class areas for very real reasons , that its usually middle class types who then lecture the working class on being intollerant is what really grates

As for GPs, I understand that in the UK at least a significant number of them would be of Asian origin these days.

Regarding the civil service executive officers, most countries stipulate that in order to enter the civil service, you need to have citizenship, something few immigrants have when they first arrive.

As for the competition in working class areas, I would not call myself working class, I work in a graduate position in the office of an international IT company.
And easily half the staff in our office is not native Irish, including myself. So I don't honestly think that it's only low-paid jobs that immigrants go for, and that it's the middle class way of inflicting misery on the working classes.
I like multi-cultural societies particularly because I get to work with people from so many interesting, different backgrounds.

Herb Powell

kuntboy wrote: »

DEY TUK UR JABS!

Never quite got that one though. Is it supposed to mean that anyone who (rightly) stated that immigrants were undercutting or taking their jobs, is a racist?

Because it is racist bolloccks, perhaps?

Really, the only cons I can see stem from elements of the native population showing their true colours as the tribal bigots they are. It's really sad. Societies change, cultures blend. Can we not learn from history, and see that people are basically the same, and end this European arrogance?

I do understand the reason that racism is more prevelant in working-class areas, but it's still misguided. From my experience, most young Irish people seem thankfully tolerant and welcoming, and have friends from many different backgrounds. Some of the views I see posted on here sometimes genuinely scare me-it's usually the more subtley expressed opinions which strike me as more dangerous, because they can sway people who might be on the fence.

gurramok

Grayson wrote: »

But take tallaght and finglas. They weren't the friendliest areas beforehand. But they were cheaper. So a lot of immigrants ended up there. Now there are people saying the troubles there are caused because of all the immigrants. Thing is, they were bad areas before.

Are you making this up?

Finglas has one of the highest if not the highest concentration of Irish nationals in Dublin. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0614/90074-migrants/

Stinicker

There is no point debating the topic on boards as it has been shown time and again that anybody with even a hint of a questioning towards the subject matter is automatically classified as a racist by those with a liberal agenda. Society always aligns itself by race and religion and you only need look towards Prison systems to see how they pan out.

If unrestrained immigration continues into Europe then it will be only a matter of time before the natives will become marginalised and ultimately fight back and in times of crisis people will flock to these parties and it is highly likely that within the next 20-30 years that another Hitler like figure will emerge and it is only a matter of time before a racial war will be fought on European soil.

When society breaks down political correctness goes out the window and the tribal herd mentality takes over.

crockholm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They still represent only about 1 in 8 voters, 87% dont agree with them or their nazi policies. Dont those 87% have rights too?

thats quite a paradigm shift there WC, couple it with the party that proposed open borders has now about 3% of the vote.The big parties see what way the wind is blowing,hence, a lot of tough talk by the government party about being tougher on immigration.And the number is growing,fast.

Shenshen

woodoo wrote: »

What if it turns out that people are largely tribal and gravitate to their own race and cultural background even as immigrants in new countries. We are just assuming that people will just integrate and mix. Where is the proof that this happens naturally.

We could end up with ever growing populations within a country that haven't integrated and shun the western values. Look 100 years down the line. In America in the 1950's 90% of the population was of white european ancestry. By 2050 it is possible that that population will be a minority. Nobody is discussing whether that will be a good thing or bad thing for those people. Why not? It seems people are just hoping it all works out.

I think naturally, people don't gravitate towards their own race; but then I don't think they naturally want to assimilate 100% to the new society, either.

People are inherently curious, it's one of the most obvious traits of humanity.
At the same time, people always have fears as well.
So successful integration policy needs to work with these two - it needs to encourage the curiosity on both sides, and it needs to remove the fear of the unknown as much as possible.
Simply bringing people into the country and leaving them to their own devices is not advisable, it's not going to work out. France is a good example of this. There needs to be an effort to help both the people already living in the country and the newcomers to "meet and greet", if you like. There need to be programs to educate the newcomers on who and what the society they arrived in is about, and there needs to be contact with the general population to avoid the rise of prejudices based on ignorance (in the sense of "not knowing about") and fear.

The reason I think why nobody is asking the question of "will it be a good thing or a bad thing" is because it will be whatever we make of it.
It's too simple a question for too complex a situation.

pabloh999

Why import poorly educated low skilled workers in a recession?
Doesn't seem to make any sense.. Unless you are an employer of course

Shenshen

pabloh999 wrote: »

Why import poorly educated low skilled workers in a recession?
Doesn't seem to make any sense.. Unless you are an employer of course

Yes, cause immigrants always are poorly educated and low skilled....
None of us have university degrees and skills not otherwise found much in the country.

Galwayguy35

I don't think Ireland is a racist country, countries like Poland and Germany and even Britain seem to have a much bigger problem with racism.

I haven't seen any neo nazi gangs in Ireland yet.

pabloh999

Shenshen wrote: »

Yes, cause immigrants always are poorly educated and low skilled....
None of us have university degrees and skills not otherwise found much in the country.

Who said all immigrants are poorly educated? I didn't.

Give us all your highly skilled entrepreneurs please, wherever they come from.

Terry1985

multicuturalism is a political idea to share people across nations it doesn't work in practice.
You have Africans attacking Irish people in gangs in Temple bar, then no report on their sentancing when they were caught.
A lot of rapes and attempted rapes by non nationals.
The people bring with them all the bad elements of others cultures.

A lot of Africans relationships break up and you'll see a rise in African aggression here too, from angry teenagers of broken families. If they're escaping from a culture of violence then it's s culture they're bringing over here. I know, I was attacked in a full bus by one.

Some cultures are civilised and fit in without problems, like Indian and Chinese, but African and certain Eastern European elements don't.

opti0nal

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't think Ireland is a racist country, countries like Poland and Germany and even Britain seem to have a much bigger problem with racism. I haven't seen any neo nazi gangs in Ireland yet.

How about sectarianism? Orange marches? Republicans in sunglasses and berets?

Herb Powell

Terry1985 wrote: »

multicuturalism is a political idea to share people across nations it doesn't work in practice.
You have Africans attacking Irish people in gangs in Temple bar, then no report on their sentancing when they were caught.
A lot of rapes and attempted rapes by non nationals.
The people bring with them all the bad elements of others cultures.

A lot of Africans relationships break up and you'll see a rise in African aggression here too, from angry teenagers of broken families. If they're escaping from a culture of violence then it's s culture they're bringing over here. I know, I was attacked in a full bus by one.

Some cultures are civilised and fit in without problems, like Indian and Chinese, but African and certain Eastern European elements don't.

Hilarious that you cite rape gangs as a phenomenon of non-nationals, and at the same time proclaim Indians to be a 'civilised culture'. Have you had your head in the sand the past few months?

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

Are you making this up?

Finglas has one of the highest if not the highest concentration of Irish nationals in Dublin. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0614/90074-migrants/

Ecuador is an extreme left country, with a law that states a company must employ 5 native citizens for every foreign citizen.
Are they racist? I certainly don't think so. Looking after their citizens first.
Cuba doesn't have an open door policy for poor blacks infiltrating from Haiti.They send them back on the same day.
Are they racist? No. They're looking after their citizens first.
If some party were to suggest Ecuadorians work legislation as a runner, they'd be called a "right wing racist extremist", yet it's a policy enabled by non-racist leftists in Latin America.
People use the fear-mongering factor to stifle debate.
They don't want to mention that rising immigration in a low-employment era is a bad idea. It's racist to even think so.

Killer Wench

It has been a good week since we have had a thread about multi-racial/multi-cultural society, hasn't it? It's about time for a new one!

Grayson

gurramok wrote: »

Are you making this up?

Finglas has one of the highest if not the highest concentration of Irish nationals in Dublin. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0614/90074-migrants/

I've seen threads here stating otherwise. Describing Finglas as a ghetto.

I guess that's what i get for believing anything a right wing nutjob says.

stoneill

Cons - loads of people from countries you don't like.
Pros - loads of sexy eastern european women.