Riots in Sweeden

[TubbaBlubba]

Zigg is using the old 'pick two' format used to illustrate how three characteristics are very rarely encountered together or that three characteristics that can't coexist together because any combo of two works against the third. The latter is what I think he was getting at. It isn't that multiculturalism causes the riots directly but that you can't have all three without issues.


Examples.
'Women. Intelligent, beautiful, sane. Pick two.'
'Cars. Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two.'
'Jobs. Well paying, rewarding, legal. Pick two.'

Yes, I know. This not only misses establishing a connection between the riots and multiculturalism, but also the fact that nobody agrees on what multiculturalism means. It's just a buzzword.

 

[Giz]

What's wrong with the old melting pot approach? It seems to have worked the best out of all the approaches that have been tried...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What's wrong with the old melting pot approach? It seems to have worked the best out of all the approaches that have been tried...

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment - but as someone who has followed the public debate here on this issue on and off for the last few years, the discussion is... confused.

It's just not clear what "multiculturalist" means or how it differs from a melting pot approach. Nobody agrees on what it means at all.

That's why, in my opinion, any discussion that is to get anywhere must take a step down from the conceptual and ideological, and discuss specifics - laws, policies, and so on.

Just the other week I had a discussion on this with a former teacher of mine, one of the most profoundly intelligent people I have ever met. We essentially ended up agreeing that while Swedish society obviously must let people practice their cultural customs without opposition, it is not clear that we should actively endorse them unless there is a very wide popular interest; and most importantly we must not tolerate antidemocratic values, indeed actively working against them.

 

[Humes fork]

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment - but as someone who has followed the public debate here on this issue on and off for the last few years, the discussion is... confused.

It's just not clear what "multiculturalist" means or how it differs from a melting pot approach. Nobody agrees on what it means at all.

That's why, in my opinion, any discussion that is to get anywhere must take a step down from the conceptual and ideological, and discuss specifics - laws, policies, and so on.

Just the other week I had a discussion on this with a former teacher of mine, one of the most profoundly intelligent people I have ever met. We essentially ended up agreeing that while Swedish society obviously must let people practice their cultural customs without opposition, it is not clear that we should actively endorse them unless there is a very wide popular interest; and most importantly we must not tolerate antidemocratic values, indeed actively working against them.

In academic terms, assimilation/melting pot means that immigrants are made to adopt the culture and customs of the host society. Multiculturalism means to institutionalize the cultural differences, and that immigrants are made to keep their cultural identity.

I'll admit that I have a liberal/libertarian bent on this which may come across as naive, but here it goes:

There should be no policy either on assimilation or multiculturalism. There are laws, and as long as you don't break them, do as you wish. However, there are also consequences of actions. If you refuse to shake hands with people of the opposite gender, you may not get a job (and you are certainly not eligible for suing for discimination). Let a liberal market economy sort it out.

I'll also add that institutionalized multiculturalism is potentially a great evil. You might be aware that atheists with a Muslim background reject the notion that the various Islamic organizations represent them (as they claim to do). And it also undermines the liberal democratic ideal of one person, one vote, by its view of groups.

The Swedish debate on this issue is confused and clouded by ideological groups. If you ask Swedes if multiculturalism as an abstract, undefined term is good, a large majority will say yes, because they think it means tolerance and anti-racism or the like. If you ask about specific questions, such as if immigrants have a responsibility to adjust to Swedish culture and society (which multiculturalism as an academic concept rejects), a large majority will say yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. You've fine with making sweeping, vague and spurious assertions of how multiculturalism is connected to these riots in a negative manner, with absolutely no evidence of a connection, or for that manner a definition of multiculturalism.

Ahem.

"multiculturalism" (which really means permitting immigrants to live according to rules other than those governing the existing citizenry)

You can object to my definition, you can object to its accuracy in describing Sweden or anywhere else, but you don't get to pretend that I didn't give one. Hell, you even quoted that line just a few posts before this one, so it's not like it just got overlooked in the depths of this thread or forgotten with the passage of time. Really, if you can't even pay attention to what I say, why do you even bother?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Ahem.



You can object to my definition, you can object to its accuracy in describing Sweden or anywhere else, but you don't get to pretend that I didn't give one. Hell, you even quoted that line just a few posts before this one, so it's not like it just got overlooked in the depths of this thread or forgotten with the passage of time. Really, if you can't even pay attention to what I say, why do you even bother?

Another attempt at a diversion, eh?

My comments related to your initial post, which contained no such definition.

Not that any of this is material to my general point: that you've never connected the riots to multiculturalism

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In academic terms, assimilation/melting pot means that immigrants are made to adopt the culture and customs of the host society. Multiculturalism means to institutionalize the cultural differences, and that immigrants are made to keep their cultural identity.

I'll admit that I have a liberal/libertarian bent on this which may come across as naive, but here it goes:

There should be no policy either on assimilation or multiculturalism. There are laws, and as long as you don't break them, do as you wish. However, there are also consequences of actions. If you refuse to shake hands with people of the opposite gender, you may not get a job (and you are certainly not eligible for suing for discimination). Let a liberal market economy sort it out.

I've come to agree more and more to this point of view lately. Nevertheless, even though there is indeed an academic definition of multiculturalism, it is not prescriptive in terms of public policy, and it just isn't obvious what it means for the state to do.

As far as the shaking hands class of issues go, there is a slightly annoying problem there - if such tendencies lead to, or are an expression of, institutionalized racism, then that can have negative consequences for society - you may compare it to employers not wanting to hire black people because they scare the customers (or something).

I do think that refusals of basic rituals of friendliness should be grounds for rejecting employment, indeed even manners of dress should be such, but I do appreciate that it can have negative consequences.

The Swedish debate on this issue is confused and clouded by ideological groups. If you ask Swedes if multiculturalism as an abstract, undefined term is good, a large majority will say yes, because they think it means tolerance and anti-racism or the like. If you ask about specific questions, such as if immigrants have a responsibility to adjust to Swedish culture and society (which multiculturalism as an academic concept rejects), a large majority will say yes.

It doesn't help that opposition to such ideas essentially is the intellectual property of SD, either.

 

[Humes fork]

I've come to agree more and more to this point of view lately. Nevertheless, even though there is indeed an academic definition of multiculturalism, it is not prescriptive in terms of public policy, and it just isn't obvious what it means for the state to do.

I'm not sure if there is an academic definition of the implenentation. In any case, I guess the implementation could mean things like separate schools for separate ethnic/religious groups (it's probably vital if you want to resist assimilation of that group eventually). In the extreme case it could mean separate sets of laws for different groups (like Sharia law for Muslims).

As far as the shaking hands class of issues go, there is a slightly annoying problem there - if such tendencies lead to, or are an expression of, institutionalized racism, then that can have negative consequences for society - you may compare it to employers not wanting to hire black people because they scare the customers (or something).

Indeed. What if someone said that he/she won't shake hands with black people but assures that they are treated respectfully in all other ways, and are considered equal on the workplace?

I do think that refusals of basic rituals of friendliness should be grounds for rejecting employment, indeed even manners of dress should be such, but I do appreciate that it can have negative consequences.

In practice employers can employ people on whatever grounds they feel like.

You might recall the case where an McDonald's restaurant owener refused to hire a Muslim woman because she refused to use a short-sleeved shirt which was required by the company's hygienic standards. She tried to sue them, I don't know if it worked (hope not). How do you feel about that ground for rejecting someone as an employee?

It doesn't help that opposition to such ideas essentially is the intellectual property of SD, either.

Indeed it doesn't.