re: Can a single leftist explain how multiculturalism is supposed to work?

quote:

---

I stopped here. Multicultural = varying education levels. Holy shite.

---

You keep shifting goal posts so this is beyond exhausting.

Language wasn't enough for you when most sociologists regard it as one of the biggest aspects of cultural influences.

Religion wasn't enough for you when religion drives values and ethics for a significant number of people.

Values on education aren't enough for you - the point I was making is that cultural attitudes towards the role of women led to different levels of literacy.

quote:

---

A commonplace in highly agrarian societies. Sons and daughters become ranchhands and eventually take over the homestead.

---

Yes, and in France, different areas of the country had different ideas on whether women should be educated or not.

This is an example of a big cultural difference in values.


Values on education aren't enough for you - the point I was making is that the different cultural attitudes by region towards the role of women led to different levels of literacy.

The French government clearly thought France was muliti-cultural enough to the point where they practically forced there to be a national government. I'm not sure how you can say France was not multicultural in the 19th century when their government thought so.

quote:

---

You keep shifting goal posts so this is beyond exhausting.

---

You keep playing dumb about what sorts of issues posters here are calling out. They're not talking about income disparities. They're not talking about education levels. They're talking about how fundamental Muslim values strongly conflict with Western values.

It's almost like someone is complaining about how they don't like living around wild beasts, and then you pull out a dictionary, tell that person that the definition of beast includes "animals" then proceed to tell them that it's impossible for them to not live around wild beasts because there are ants and spiders and shite in their 1/8th acre suburban yard.

They were talking about bears and wolves and mountain lions... Stop playing dumb.

quote:

---

Language wasn't enough for you when most sociologists regard it as one of the biggest aspects of cultural influences.

---

No, because I'm contesting the differences were as great as you're claiming.

quote:

---

Religion wasn't enough for you when religion drives values and ethics for a significant number of people.

---

Bro, France was 98% Catholic in the 19th century...

I questioned your religion angle in Singapore because religion in the 21st century tells us a lot less about someone's values than it did 200 years ago. For example, about 45% of American Christians support gay marriage.

What percentage of American Christians do you think supported gay marriage in 1823?

quote:

---

Values on education aren't enough for you - the point I was making is that cultural attitudes towards the role of women led to different levels of literacy.

---

I can't respond to points you don't type out. Your comment on education was "Parents would refuse to send their kids to school in certain areas because they were afraid their kids would learn French and move to Paris."

Again, that's common in agrarian societies were the children traditionally grew up to be farmhands.

Whether or not Charles decided to go to the city to obtain a formal education aren't the cultural differences people on this board are talking about. You will not find a single thread here bitching about such things. So why bring it up?

quote:

---

The French government clearly thought France was muliti-cultural enough to the point where they practically forced there to be a national government.

---

If national governments = anti-multiculturalism, what does that say about Singapore's government?

quote:

---

You keep playing dumb about what sorts of issues posters here are calling out. They're not talking about income disparities. They're not talking about education levels. They're talking about how fundamental Muslim values strongly conflict with Western values.

---

Nowhere does the initial post say this or mention Muslims.

The OP just brings up multiculturalism by itself. There's no reference to Muslim values conflicting with Western values, just about how Multiculturalism can't work.

quote:

---

No, because I'm contesting the differences were as great as you're claiming.

---

Having a completely different language leading to a situation where different groups a few miles from each other can't communicate with each other IS an incredibly big cultural difference.

I disagree because most sociologists would say that's a pretty big cultural difference.

quote:

---

I questioned your religion angle in Singapore because religion in the 21st century tells us a lot less about someone's values than it did 200 years ago. For example, about 45% of American Christians support gay marriage.

---

I've linked to a poll in another comment where Muslims in Singapore support Sharia Law and are against gay marriage (while Buddhists and Hindus support it). The point I was making is that different religious groups have different cultures within the same country and make it work.

quote:

---

Whether or not Charles decided to go to the city to obtain a formal education aren't the cultural differences people on this board are talking about. You will not find a single thread here bitching about such things. So why bring it up?

---

People regularly bitch about the school performance in certain inner city areas?

But again, the OP did not mention any of this. All they said was for a leftist to explain how multiculturalism is supposed to work.

quote:

---

If national governments = anti-multiculturalism, what does that say about Singapore's government?

---

That the Singaporean government wants multiculturalism?

But you keep on going on about the negatives of multiculturalism. OP's comment has not mentioned anything about Muslims, Muslim values or any specific failures.

He just asked for a 'leftist' to bring up a society where multiculturalism has worked. And that applies to both 19th century France and 21st century Singapore.

quote:

---

OP didn't mention... OP didn't mention... OP didn't mention...

---

Late edit on one of my posts, so maybe you missed it. But it's almost like someone complained about how they didn't want to live around wild beasts, then you pulled out a dictionary and told them that beasts can simply refer to animals, that insects are animals, and that they cannot escape wild beasts because even their 1/4th acre suburban yard has ants and spiders.

Then the rest of the room laughs because it was clear the person was talking about wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc.

EDIT: Food is an element of culture. Do you think the OP was suggesting that a society that is split on whether to grill or fry chicken cannot stand?

quote:

---

France was actually a VERY multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation until Napoleon. Only about 15% of the population spoke the language that we now call "French," and that had been the case for hundreds of years.

---

Only an idiot would try and justify forced immigration disguised as "multiculturalism" by comparing pre-Napoleonic France to today.

quote:

---

The current zeitgeist in America seems to be pushing a very gay, neo-liberal, marxist global culture that despises the traditional American Christian heritage.

---

I hate to be that guy but you can’t be both neo-liberal (which implies support for free markets) and a Marxist (where there’s no private property and a centrally planned economy.

The two belief systems tend to overlap on social issues but for different, though ultimately similar reasons. Neo liberals don’t believe that things like religion, ethnic identity, national identity, etc. actually matter because as long as people are making money they are happy and because all people are ultimately reducible to their inputs and outputs in the economy. If you are just looking at it from a market point of view, an engineer is an engineer no matter where they are from and what they believe or whom the sleep with. Sincere Marxists also believe these divisions are arbitrary and that class consciousness is the only true consciousness. Ie a working class white baptist in Alabama is the same as a working class Hindu in India and are subject to the same oppression by the same people (wealthy capitalists) and the fact that they don’t see themselves that way is more a product of historical accident and deliberate attempts by the wealthy to keep them from banding together and seizing the means of production.

There are also bad actors, who usually are Marxist or at least feel some allegiance to the old Soviet Union who think globalization and multiculturalism hurt the United States and weaken it, but push it anyway because that’s exactly the point.

When you are talking to these people, you can sus out why the first two think the way they think by getting their opinions on non-culture war issues. Even something like the response to Israel is a tell. Neo-liberals 100% support the Israeli government and Marxists, even Jewish ones, tend to support Palestine liberation, sometimes going as far as to actively cheer on Hamas.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if someone is sincere or what outcome they’d ideally want from a practical perspective. Their ideas about what people actually care about are wrong

quote:

---

How can something be “neo-liberal” and “Marxist”???

---

How can liberals be ok with telling girls who play sports to “work harder” when boys masquerading as girls beats them… but still cry about women making less than men?

Apparently there is room for all in this world.

quote:

---

Explaining how their ideas work is not really a leftist’s “thing”.

---

"You're just racist" is about as far as the explanation goes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have anything beyond small linguistic differences between regions of a nation during a time when human mobility was extremely limited to show how France was "VERY multi-ethnic and multi-cultural"?

---

This is satire, right? France was famous for being 'multicultural' in the 19th century and before. France was a highly multicultural society in the 19th century. The French government tried to stamp out local cultures in favor of a national one in the 19th century - if France wasn't multicultural in the 19th century, the French government wouldn't have repeatedly attempted to wipe out the different cultures. (trimmed for brevity)

---

Excellent post. I just raised the point, but you expanded it very, very well.

Lots of people do not understand that there were STILL places in France that didn't speak French as a primary language at the start of WW1.

Though the lack of knowledge of French history IS especially ironic on a Cajun-based forum.