Multicultural Nations!

[Opening Batsman]

I have seen a fair few people recently stating that multicultural nations simply do not work. I was amazed at that, considering I live in an enourmously multicultural nation and I can see for myself that it is undoubtedly the best country on Earth. One of our strengths is the way the cultures, customs and religions all blend together to make a new culture unique to any other nation. I want to see why people think it does or doesn't work.

-------

More than Fifty Years of Post-war Migration

Since 1945, over six million people have come to Australia as new settlers. Their arrival has had a marked influence on all aspects of our society.

The trigger for a large-scale migration program was the end of World War II.

In Europe, millions of people were stranded outside their homelands, unable to return. In Australia, there was a desperate shortage of labour and a belief that substantial population growth was essential for the country's future.

These factors led to the creation of a federal immigration portfolio in 1945.

By 1947, a post-war immigration boom was under way, with a large and growing number of arrivals of both government-assisted and other immigrants.

Agreements were reached with the United Kingdom, some European countries and the International Refugee Organisation (IRO) to encourage migrants, including displaced persons from war-torn Europe, to come to Australia. Between October 1945-and June 1960 1.7 million people arrived.

A million more migrants arrived in each of the following four decades. Today, nearly one in four of Australia's almost 20 million people were born overseas. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are the largest source countries for migrants, but other regions - notably Asia - have become more significant.

Early migration waves

The date of the first human occupation in Australia remains an open question, but evidence exists that humans have been on the continent for at least 40,000 years. Consequently, Aboriginals are regarded as the indigenous people of Australia.

Criminals were the basis of the first migration from Britain and Ireland. Starting in 1788, some 160,000 were transported to the Australian colonies.

Convicts, along with the officials of the penal system, were joined by free immigrants from the early 1790s.

The 1820s saw a marked increase in the migration of free people from the United Kingdom.

Early migration peaked between 1851 and 1860, when arrival levels were around 50,000 people a year. During this gold rush era, Chinese immigrants were the largest non-British group. Over the years, immigration has reflected the economic or social conditions in Australia and elsewhere. For example, a population imbalance resulted in deliberate efforts to attract women (1860 - 1920). Specialised workers came to Australia to meet early industry's needs. For instance, Afghan camel drivers were brought in with their animals in the second half of the 19th century to open up the continent's interior; and Japanese divers were introduced to work in the pearling industry in the late 19th century.

The two world wars also influenced immigration to Australia. The resettling of ex-servicemen, refugees and young people were significant chapters in Australian immigration history.

Post-war developments

The most ambitious part of Australia's migration program followed the end of World War II. Australia negotiated agreements with other governments and international organisations to help achieve high migration targets.

The agreements included:

* a system of free or assisted passages for United Kingdom residents
* an assisted passage scheme for the British Empire and United States ex-servicemen, later extended to ex-servicemen or resistance fighters from The Netherlands, Norway, France, Belgium and Denmark
* an agreement with the IRO to settle at least 12,000 displaced people a year from camps in Europe
* formal migration agreements, often involving the grant of assisted passage, with the United Kingdom, Malta, The Netherlands, Italy, West Germany, Turkey and Yugoslavia, and
* informal migration agreements with Austria, Greece, Spain, Belgium and other countries.

These agreements are no longer in force.

Economic and humanitarian events around the world subsequently influenced the size and source countries of the Australian program. At various times in the 1950s and 1960s, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia were important migrant source countries.

There were also significant intakes:

* of Hungarian and Czech refugees following unrest in those countries in 1956 and 1968 respectively
* from Chile following the overthrow of the Allende Government in 1973
* from Indochina after the end of the Vietnam war in 1975, and
* from Poland after martial law was declared in December 1981.

Today the migration program is global, using one set of criteria for applicants anywhere in the world. Humanitarian migrants come to Australia under the Humanitarian Program (see Fact Sheet 60, Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program for details).

Today's migration program

In 2002-03 the migration program was set for four years with a range of 100,000 to 110,000 migrants, plus a contingency reserve of 4,000 places for parent applicants, per annum. In 2002-03 the program outcome was 108,070 of which approximately 60 per cent came under the Skilled Stream and 40 per cent the Family Stream. On average, almost 99,000 people receive temporary entry visas to Australia each year, to undertake specific work or business, entertain, play sport or for a working holiday. In addition to these numbers, around 12,000 humanitarian entrants will also travel to Australia each year to rebuild their lives, having fled persecution or suffering.

The impact of immigration

The post-war immigration program has benefited Australian life in many ways.

Economic

Immigration affects the demand side of Australia's economy through:

* migrants' own spending (food, housing and leisure activities)
* business expansion (investment to produce extra goods and services), and
* expansion of government services (health, education and welfare).

It also affects the supply side of the economy through:

* labour, skills and capital introduced into Australia
* new businesses developed by migrants
* migrant contributions to technology, and
* adding productive diversity through knowledge of international business markets.

Migrants pay taxes too, and receive benefits and goods and services from, government. Research shows that, overall, migrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and goods and services. As a result migrants generate surpluses for government.

The contribution of migrants to supply and demand and their indirect contribution to government surpluses (or smaller deficits) enhance Australia's economic growth.

Demographic

The 2001 Census showed the composition of people in Australia, who were born overseas as follows: UK and Ireland 26 per cent, Europe (excluding UK and Ireland) 26 per cent, North Africa and the Middle East 12 per cent, Asia 12 per cent, Oceania 11 per cent, the Americas 4 per cent and Sub-Saharan Africa 3.5 per cent.

Population

Natural increase has been the main source of population growth over the past hundred years, contributing two-thirds of the increase in population between 1901 and 2001. Immigration has also been a significant contributor to Australia's population growth but has been more volatile. In 1992-93, for example, it contributed about 17.8 per cent to population growth while in 1988-89, it contributed 54.4 per cent. Immigration's contribution to population growth is likely to increase during the next 30 years as the ageing of Australia's population leads to the annual number of deaths exceeding births. It is possible that sometime in the 2030s, immigration may become the only source of growth in population.
At the end of World War II, Australia's population was just over 7 million, with around 90 per cent born in Australia. Today, the population is 20 million, with slightly more than 75 per cent born in Australia.

Statistical summary

Since planned post-war migration started:

* about 3.2 million males, and 2.9 million females have arrived in Australia;
* more than 599 000 people have arrived under humanitarian programs, initially as displaced persons and more recently as refugees, and
* the population has risen from about seven million to nearly 20 million.

In the last financial year there has been:

* 66 748 new settler arrivals
* 9 569 arrivals under the humanitarian program
* an additional 175 264 people, including 88 758 working holiday makers, receive temporary residence visas, and
* 3.23 million visitor visas granted, along with 162 575 student visas.

Fact Sheet 4. Produced by the Public Affairs Section, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra. Revised 24 November 2003.

Source (http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/04fifty.htm)

[BigBaribal]

A view from Britain:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/11/ixportal.html



Britain has been in denial for too long
By Mark Steyn


Personally, I thought the Queen's Christmas message was rather old hat, or old crown. She's been peddling the old let-us-celebrate-the-strength-of-our-diversity guff for a good 30 years in her Canadian speeches.

Of course, they're written for her by her Canadian ministers, and one had hoped that she might be reading the multiculti boilerplate through at least partially clenched teeth. But the Christmas message is the one speech she writes without the advice of her governments, so one must assume she means it.

In which case, it seems an odd theme at a time when the internal contradictions of the multicultural society are ever more evident.

For example, last week the Guardian forced itself to consider the awkward fact that many young black males are "homophobic". This would be a disadvantage if one were hoping to make a career in the modern Tory party, but, on the other hand, if one's ambitions incline more to becoming a big-time gangsta rapper, it's a goldmine. Don't blame Jamaican men, though.

After all, who made them homophobic? The "vilification of Jamaican homophobia", says Decca Aitkenhead, is just an attempt to distract from the real culprit: "It's a failure to recognise 400 years of Jamaican history, starting with the sodomy of male slaves by their white owners as a means of humiliation.

"Slavery laid the foundations of homophobia," writes Miss Aitkenhead. "For us to vilify Jamaicans for an attitude of which we were the architects is shameful. Jamaicans weren't the architects of their ideas about homo******ity; we were."

I should have known. It's our fault: yours, mine, the great white Queen's, for all her shameless attempts to climb aboard the diversity bandwagon.

If we hadn't enslaved these fellows and taken them to the West Indies to be our playthings under the Caribbean moon, they'd have stayed in Africa and grown up as relaxed live-and-let-live types like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, who's accused Tony Blair of a plan to impose homo******ity throughout the Commonwealth; or Kenya's Daniel arap Moi, who attacked the "gay scourge" sweeping Africa; or Zambia's Frederick Chiluba, who has said gays do not have "a right to be abnormal"; or Namibia's Sam Nujoma, who accused African homo******s of being closet "Europeans" trying to destroy his country through the spread of "gayism"; or Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, who proposed the arrest of all homo******s, though he subsequently moderated his position and called for a return to the good old days when "these few individuals were either ignored or speared and killed by their parents".

But no doubt Decca Aitkenhead would respond that African homophobia is also the malign legacy of British colonialism. Who taught them to spear gays, eh?

By refusing to enslave them and take them to our Caribbean plantations and sodomise them every night, we left them with feelings of rejection and humiliation that laid the foundations of their homophobic architecture. The point to remember is, as the Guardian headline writer put it, cutting to the chase, "Their homophobia is our fault".

And it always will be. It's 40 years since Jamaican independence, but in 400 years, if there are any Englishmen left (which is demographically doubtful), Guardian columnists will still be sticking it to them for the psychological damage of colonialism.

How heartening to know that, at a time when so many quaint old British traditions are being abolished - foxhunting, free speech, national sovereignty - the traditional British Leftist colonial guilt complex is alive and well. Even with hardly any colonies.

When, say, Mahmoud Bakri of the Egyptian weekly al-Usbu, writes that the tsunamis were caused by Zionist nuclear testing, we roll our eyes.

But, in the mass derangement stakes, blaming everything on the Jews is, if anything, marginally less loopy than blaming everything on yourself. One thing you notice, for example, in the Indian Ocean is that the countries making up the core group co-ordinating relief efforts - America, Australia, India, Japan - are three-quarters British-derived.

The same can be said of the most effective second-tier nations involved, such as Singapore and Malaysia. A healthy culture should be able to weigh the pros and cons of the Britannic inheritance in a balanced way. But the wilful perverseness of Miss Aitkenhead's argument suggests that, if anything, it's the mother country that's been psychologically damaged by imperialism.

As for the notion that even the randiest plantation owner could sodomise so many male slaves that he could inculcate an ingrained homophobia enduring for centuries, that's a bit of a stretch even for advanced Western self-loathers.

Colin Powell, the son of Jamaicans, recalls it rather differently: "The British ended slavery in the Caribbean in 1833, well over a generation before America did. And after abolition, the lingering weight of servitude did not persist as long.

The British were mostly absentee landlords, and West Indians were mostly left on their own. After the British ended slavery, they told my ancestors that they were now British citizens with all the rights of any subject of the Crown. That was an exaggeration; still, the British did establish good schools and made attendance mandatory. They filled the lower ranks of the civil service with blacks. Consequently, West Indians had an opportunity to develop attitudes of independence, self-responsibility and self-worth."

Can absentee landlords be absentee sodomites? I'll leave that one for Guardian columnists. But, before her next intervention in this area, the Queen might like to ponder the motives underlying all the sappy diversity blather. The British have always been open to other cultures: that's one reason they made much better imperialists than the French or the Belgians.

But "multiculturalism" is really a suicide cult conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures, but to deny their own. And that's particularly unworthy of the British, whose language, culture and law have been the single greatest force for good in this world.

This isn't merely a question for the history books, but the issue that underpins all the others facing the country today, not least the European Constitution: at a time when the benefits of the Britannic inheritance are more and more apparent everywhere else, how come Britain has no use for them?

[Kitsune]

What about Canada? Quebec may secede any time?

Well then, what about Switzerland? The "Helvetian Confederation" consists of three different ehtnical groups of different size within one nation. German, French and Italian languages are used. even within the ethnical regions, each Canton has a significant liberty as far as law making is concerned (one of them has not even introduced the right of women to vote AFAIK. While that may not be laudable it shows how far each canton can detemine its own laws).
Nonetheless, Switzerland has developed a society that is downright famous for its stability.

So all who say "the EU can't work" should look to Switzerland. It works.

Wether Muslims can be sucessfully integrated might be another problem however. But more than 60% of Frances Muslims have been integrated quite well: They are feeling as normal citizens of France and have become secular people who visit a mosque not much more often than many French Chrisitans visit a church. So this seems to be possible, too.
We will see.

[achilles]

So all who say "the EU can't work" should look to Switzerland. It works.

It sure does and is a very good model of democratic, decentralized administration at work.

The 'EU can't work' strand of thought is funny, especially when coming from Americans whose country epitomizes cultural diversity but works very well. The distinctive element between US and EU is that the US has managed to 'digest' cultures whereas the EU will need to 'digest' fully structured nations and whatever sort of ethnic diversity comes with it.

Its not gonna be easy but the EU will work p-)

[sp2c]

I live in Holland, which is definately a multicultural nation and it works well imo.

the current problems in our country imo isn't the multicultural society but the radical islamists filtering through their religious system ... stop that and the problems with multiculturalism (or something like that) will go away as well imo.

We've had foreigners in our country for hundreds of years and only now it starts going bad ... well what happened in the last couple of decades?
could that be the sudden influx of muslims?
yes it could because before that we didn't really have any but in the early years there were no problems so it can't be their religion that's clashing with our society ... the first generation is a hard working group generally it's the later generations that cause most of the problems, their children who were born here and think mr Laden is a moviestar or something because the preacher tells them so ... that's what we need to sort out bad

[Raistlin]

I have seen a fair few people recently stating that multicultural nations simply do not work.
You mean like USA?

[oldsoak]

Is colonisation multicultarism ?I would argue that the term multicultural needs defining ie what do we understand it to mean ? does colonisation or creating an enclave in a host nation/culture qualify ? Or is it integration with the host nation/culture ?

[toki]

So all who say "the EU can't work" should look to Switzerland. It works.

Wether Muslims can be sucessfully integrated might be another problem however. But more than 60% of Frances Muslims have been integrated quite well: They are feeling as normal citizens of France and have become secular people who visit a mosque not much more often than many French Chrisitans visit a church. So this seems to be possible, too.
We will see.

That's the point. We should not mix "multicultural Societies" like switzerland in terms of language and local differencies, that grew over hundreds of years, even before the time of "nations" with the immigration of millions into a society in historically short terms. F.e. Guestworkers.
Integration is the word. Freedom of individuality should exist, but what helps it if you don't speak the official language of the country that you're living in. Example: muslim "ghettos" in western european societies. Policy was to leave the freedom to live in your own culture. But that divides societies. It's not the fault of the immigrants it's the fault of bad integration and educational policy for years. There are turkish women in germany, who live here for 30 years and don't speak a word german. They don't even need to. They stay home or go shopping in the turkish places.
Just an example. It should not be like that. People could be living together.
It could work, but bad policy screwed it up.

[BigBaribal]

What about Canada? Quebec may secede any time?

Well then, what about Switzerland? The "Helvetian Confederation" consists of three different ehtnical groups of different size within one nation. German, French and Italian languages are used. even within the ethnical regions, each Canton has a significant liberty as far as law making is concerned (one of them has not even introduced the right of women to vote AFAIK. While that may not be laudable it shows how far each canton can detemine its own laws).
Nonetheless, Switzerland has developed a society that is downright famous for its stability.

So all who say "the EU can't work" should look to Switzerland. It works.

Wether Muslims can be sucessfully integrated might be another problem however. But more than 60% of Frances Muslims have been integrated quite well: They are feeling as normal citizens of France and have become secular people who visit a mosque not much more often than many French Chrisitans visit a church. So this seems to be possible, too.
We will see.



I'm Swiss and I can tell you that all this argumentation about ethnicity in Switzerland is total BS!

There are not three ethnical groups in Switzerland, as we, German, French, Italian or Rumatsch Swiss native citizen do share the same racial origin (german-alpin) and the same religion and the same way of thinking, with only minor differences according to the different regions.

And yes, if Switzerland has developed a country famous for his stability, it's really because we share all, from the different parts of the country, the same spirit and the same ethnicity.

And this is why we do see the "multiculturalist" concept as a real threat to our strongly-ethnocentric country.

So, please don't take Switzerland as an example of "multiculturalism", it's quite the opposite!





Btw, Swiss is not a "nation", but a confederation of cantons. A sytem which allows the local differences to be held very smoothly, but once again this has nothing to do with "multiculturalism".

If there is "multuralism" in Switzerland, it's only between the real Swiss and the alien immigration.

[BigBaribal]

I live in Holland, which is definately a multicultural nation and it works well imo.

http://dutchreport.blogspot.com/

[Hullebullen]

What about Israel? Of course they share being jewish, but other from that they come from all over the place...

[BigBaribal]

Just look at the Roman empire collapse.

It began to sink down after Emperor Caracalla gave roman citizenship to aliens inhabitants of the Empire and after Rome was forced to get in his army barbarians troops to defend herself against the invasions from the North (just like the USA now). So, the real Roman ethnicity faded progressively and the Empire disappeared.

[cut]

BigBaribal is only against multiculturalism whehn arabs are included.

[CG51]

What about Israel? Of course they share being jewish, but other from that they come from all over the place...

theres your answer bro...they are Jews from all over the earth...they share a common bond...and struggle...

[Raistlin]

What about Israel? Of course they share being jewish, but other from that they come from all over the place...
Actually, integration into Israeli society is a very important of Israeli immigration policy. I and my parents had to go through that myself. Russian immigrants who fail to integrate usually find themselves in bad positions (I speak for them because I know large Israeli Russian community quite well). From me observation the same happens with Israeli arabs.

[Nugsta]

it gets tough when you have ppl coming into australia with a military background ... like war torn countries.

[BigBaribal]

BigBaribal is only against multiculturalism whehn arabs are included.

No, I've nothing against arabs, even in my country, but I'm against massive immigration of any sort.

On the contrary, I've nothing against progressive assimilation of small amounts of aliens (for instance, we have in Switzerland a small communauty of tamouls who are very decent people and who give no problem at all)

But massive and too fast immigration only produce communautarism and possible clashes.

[SHAM]

What about Israel? Of course they share being jewish, but other from that they come from all over the place...

theres your answer bro...they are Jews from all over the earth...they share a common bond...and struggle...

I dont think it fits multicultural...multi-nationality before they arrive yes.

[MCdG]

Hey! Some of this stuff is really good!

The posts about Holland and Switzerland are very enlightening.

OK... what about this to encourage peaceful integration/transition-to-multiculturalism?
- Voluntary federal service... with a catch:
no service = reduced electoral power
(If you serve (military or otherwise), you get TWO votes.
If you don't, you get whatever your status would normally give you.)
- When you volunteer, you volunteer for a period WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS
(pacifist... sorry... You might be called upon to carry arms...
carnivore... sorry... You might be called upon to prepare vegan meals...)

Those who complete the service can at least agree on how bad the food was, how ugly the uniforms were, how lumpy the cots were... If you don't have commonalities, BUILD them.

Whatcha think?

[Kitsune]

@BigBaribal:


There are not three ethnical groups in Switzerland, as we, German, French, Italian or Rumatsch Swiss native citizen do share the same racial origin (german-alpin) and the same religion and the same way of thinking, with only minor differences according to the different regions.

Well, I know Switzerland quite well, and as far as I know the French and Italian Swiss are not "german alpin". I mean, if they were of Germanic decent they would speak some Germanic language like German, Dutch, Danish and so on. AFAIK the French Swiss come from more Celtic stock, the Italian ones from, well...Italic stock. (Its not that there were some Germanic guys who suddenly started to speak French or Italian, people normally do not do something like this.)
Now one can say of course: these peoples have lived neighbouring each other for hundreds of years, have intermixed and can't distinguished anymore fro each other...buts thats true to a certain degree for other European nations neighbouring each other as well.
Thing is: a language is a part of ones culture, right? And different languages are a dividing factor, right? And the Swiss have solidly overcome that, haven't they?
And that is what makes them a possible rolemodel in my eyes. I maybe wrong of course.




And yes, if Switzerland has developed a country famous for his stability, it's really because we share all, from the different parts of the country, the same spirit and the same ethnicity.

And this is why we do see the "multiculturalist" concept as a real threat to our strongly-ethnocentric country.

So, please don't take Switzerland as an example of "multiculturalism", it's quite the opposite!
Depends on how you define "multiculturalism". I don't meant to say that there aren't cultural differences that are simply to great to be overcome. And I do not doubt that there weren't similarities between the different mountain tribes even hundreds of years back, that made co-existence possible in the frist place. And of course: the Swiss now have a Confederation (I did use that word in my article, seen it?) that has a certain identity and is not "mulitculturalistic" in the sense that they are open to everyone and all. One million Indian inhabitants would be seen as foreigners by all the Swiss...and would not feel themselves very well at home either.
But if you want to answer the question wether, lets say, France and Germany could function, not as nation, but as a Confederation, I would take the very existence of Switzerland as a positive sign that it could be done. Now its anyones guess when the cultural strech of such a European Confederation gets to great. I one includes the Netherlands? Italy? Britain? Poland? ....Turkey? Opinions here differ. But the Swiss prove that a certain amount of cultural differences, even different languages, can be bridged. Tat's what I wanted to say, nothing more.


P.S. You almost seemed offended. Take it easy, pal. Didn't mean to. :D

[Raistlin]

Thing is: a language is a part of ones culture, right? And different languages are a dividing factor, right? And the Swiss have solidly overcome that, haven't they? And that is what makes them a possible rolemodel in my eyes. I maybe wrong of course.
Maybe. I think language just by itself is a very superficial difference.

[mountainbear]

What about Canada? Quebec may secede any time?

Well then, what about Switzerland? The "Helvetian Confederation" consists of three different ehtnical groups of different size within one nation. German, French and Italian languages are used. even within the ethnical regions, each Canton has a significant liberty as far as law making is concerned (one of them has not even introduced the right of women to vote AFAIK. While that may not be laudable it shows how far each canton can detemine its own laws).
Nonetheless, Switzerland has developed a society that is downright famous for its stability.

So all who say "the EU can't work" should look to Switzerland. It works.

Wether Muslims can be sucessfully integrated might be another problem however. But more than 60% of Frances Muslims have been integrated quite well: They are feeling as normal citizens of France and have become secular people who visit a mosque not much more often than many French Chrisitans visit a church. So this seems to be possible, too.
We will see.



I'm Swiss and I can tell you that all this argumentation about ethnicity in Switzerland is total BS!

There are not three ethnical groups in Switzerland, as we, German, French, Italian or Rumatsch Swiss native citizen do share the same racial origin (german-alpin) and the same religion and the same way of thinking, with only minor differences according to the different regions.

And yes, if Switzerland has developed a country famous for his stability, it's really because we share all, from the different parts of the country, the same spirit and the same ethnicity.

And this is why we do see the "multiculturalist" concept as a real threat to our strongly-ethnocentric country.

So, please don't take Switzerland as an example of "multiculturalism", it's quite the opposite!





Btw, Swiss is not a "nation", but a confederation of cantons. A sytem which allows the local differences to be held very smoothly, but once again this has nothing to do with "multiculturalism".

If there is "multuralism" in Switzerland, it's only between the real Swiss and the alien immigration.
First off all I am only 50% Swiss blooded.

For the Switzerland of the early days, ethnicity was similar like you said, (a mixture of German, Alpin and Gallo-Roman) but culturally the differences where already there. The City and mountain societies were different, more than today. The community of values and interest made the union possible between the counties.

Multiculturalism in Switzerland had brought many good things. Denying it would be wrong. Think about all the Italians that arrived in the beginning of last century. There hands build our roads, our railways and our tunnels. Think about the Portuguese the Spanish, who arrived during the post WW II economic boom, to take the place in the Industries the Swiss peoples where leaving to work in the services sector. Think about these professors like this Vietnam guy, I don’t remember his name, which is a world top class scientist for nuclear fusion and works at the Federal Polytechnic school of Lausanne. The integration of these peoples is really well done and their adhesion to Swiss values is done.
Now it’s true that we have problem whit some groups of emigrants. The integration of the Muslims is problematic but I am shore we will manage it, if we stay shore of our values.


Just look at the Roman empire collapse.

It began to sink down after Emperor Caracalla gave roman citizenship to aliens inhabitants of the Empire and after Rome was forced to get in his army barbarians troops to defend herself against the invasions from the North (just like the USA now). So, the real Roman ethnicity faded progressively and the Empire disappeared.

Lot of Roman citizens were not Roman blooded before Caracalla’s decision. The reason for the fall of the Roman Empire is economical. Firstly Rome was importing more than it could export so the funding became lower and lower. Secondly the middle class disappeared because of the unchallengeable competition of the slavery system which also led to a lack of funding and also to the loss of the Roman army basis class.

[mountainbear]

BigBaribal is only against multiculturalism whehn arabs are included.

No, I've nothing against arabs, even in my country, but I'm against massive immigration of any sort.

On the contrary, I've nothing against progressive assimilation of small amounts of aliens (for instance, we have in Switzerland a small communauty of tamouls who are very decent people and who give no problem at all)

But massive and too fast immigration only produce communautarism and possible clashes.
I can agree whit this but in some situation, like for the Italians, whit massive arrival the assimilation is possible.

[Durandal]

Is colonisation multicultarism ?I would argue that the term multicultural needs defining ie what do we understand it to mean ? does colonisation or creating an enclave in a host nation/culture qualify ? Or is it integration with the host nation/culture ?

Is there more than one culture within the confines of a geo-political border?

If so then your question is answered.

South Africa would be a perfect example of what you are looking for.

A more important question would be cultural influence rather than a separate ethnic or cultural subset. Like say, American culture in Japan is large in its influence but the population of American's that live there as Japanese citizens (em/immigrated) is VERY small.

[Durandal]

I would have to say that the largest multi-cultural nation on this Earth is obviously the United States. It seems to be working for us quite fine.

There is some adoption of a now blended American culture by new immigrants, but no one seems to completely throw away their culture.

Yet, we all get along (relatively speaking, there is always that "group" that hates this group or that group, but nothing large enough to worry about at a national level).

Cheers!

[Kitsune]

Durandal wrote:
I would have to say that the largest multi-cultural nation on this Earth is obviously the United States.
Well, in terms of population India should be the largest multicultural nation. Except for China, which also has more than one culture although the Han people are by far the majority so one could rule it out here. But in Indias case there isn't one clearly dominating ethnical group. India still hasn't worked the resulting problems out.

[Opening Batsman]

I think the reason Australia came out as a succesful multicultural nation is the way our history panned out. We were opened up for immigration at a very late stage compared to others, at a stage where everybody from around the world had the means to get there. And then there were gold rushes in the 1800s which saw people flocking to Australia from all around the world from every continent (except Antarctica, but then again you never know). By this time we really started building up our nation and as a result so many people from other cultures who had recently immigrated worked together to develop the nation. People couldn't afford to stay within their own cultures and not mingle with everybody else because the population was so small and it was simply necessary to be involved with others to survive. So it wasn't just one culture that built the entire thing in the first place, as it is in most beginnings. Many different people working together laid the foundations for the ethnic diversity we have today.

[Redux]

there will always be problems in multiculuralism, but not to the point that you can't live with one another peacefully.

[Durandal]

Durandal wrote:
I would have to say that the largest multi-cultural nation on this Earth is obviously the United States.
Well, in terms of population India should be the largest multicultural nation. Except for China, which also has more than one culture although the Han people are by far the majority so one could rule it out here. But in Indias case there isn't one clearly dominating ethnical group. India still hasn't worked the resulting problems out.

Actually, I was speaking in terms of actually DIVERSITY. Not sheer numbers. Considering the racism and xenophobia in China to some degree India (not so much xenophobic as ethnic and religious issues).

Take every sub group in China and India and we have 'em.

[LazerLordz]

Singapore is relatively successful too. :)

[machupichu]

i tell you why america is "the best nation int he world" (according to you):

its the same reason they made a difference in the two world wars:

m a n p o w e r


they may not have the quality, but they sure have the quantity, thats all there is.

[Raistlin]

So if they go against China or India, US lose?

[machupichu]

So if they go against China or India, US lose?
yes. itll be a vietnam-like defeat at best.


*hehehe you got me. but i added another small sentence :)

[Raistlin]

I like it how you changed 4 sentences into "yes" ;)

[sp2c]

I live in Holland, which is definately a multicultural nation and it works well imo.

http://dutchreport.blogspot.com/

exactly how does this dispute anything I've said?

[BigBaribal]

BigBaribal is only against multiculturalism whehn arabs are included.

No, I've nothing against arabs, even in my country, but I'm against massive immigration of any sort.

On the contrary, I've nothing against progressive assimilation of small amounts of aliens (for instance, we have in Switzerland a small communauty of tamouls who are very decent people and who give no problem at all)

But massive and too fast immigration only produce communautarism and possible clashes.
I can agree whit this but in some situation, like for the Italians, whit massive arrival the assimilation is possible.

You're right, the Italian assimilation in Switzerland (and more extensively the latin assimiation: Portugal, Spain) is very positive. In fact, there are now some naturalized Italians who are more Swiss than many Swiss.

In fact, it's simple: we are basically compatible people, ethnically and culturally. In my canton for instance, we have had strong relations with Italy since centuries.

[Gyles84]

Here in the UK weve had our fair share of problems, but on the whole, I think weve benefited from it. London's prolly one of the most 'multicultural' places on Earth.

[machupichu]

Here in the UK weve had our fair share of problems, but on the whole, I think weve benefited from it.
i dont think you will find many brits to agree on your conclusion.

[Gyles84]

Well, I come from a mixed race family so maybe im a tad biased. :)

My fathers half English half Nigerian (Christian family)

My mothers half Egyptian, half Sudanese. (Muslim family)

Im still fairly conservative on the matter. We can't have a a wide open border, but immigrants/ ethnic faces are just part of the scenery where im from.

[BigBaribal]

Here in the UK weve had our fair share of problems, but on the whole, I think weve benefited from it.
i dont think you will find many brits to agree on your conclusion.

Exact, more precisely 75% of the brits don't agree with this conclusion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/10/nimmi10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/10/ixhome.html

[Gyles84]

Labour has pursued an increasingly "open door" policy, with David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, saying he saw ''no obvious limit'' to the numbers Britain can take.

Theres your problem right there. Like I said we do need imigration, but there need to be limits. My compassion for illigals has waned lately. Then there's legal immigration. Put simply, I see few moral or ethical issues with setting a limit on the number of people we allow to become British citizens based on the country's needs and wants. After all, every country's first duty is to the people who are already its citizens, not to foreigners who want to become citizens.

[sp2c]

well I don't think we really need it but I don't think it can really hurt either.

just not too much and don't treat them like children, that was our mistake here in Holland. When someone comes here we give him a house and cash and ask him if he'd like to be a Dutchman ... and they refuse!

imo if they want to come here fine, but they need to be able to support themselves or we should ship them right back were they came from (not counting refugees from warzones and the likes)

[machupichu]

infact, no european country wants immigration. they may need migrants to compensate aging population and they want foreign geniuses. the current situation of migration will become more and more unacceptable over the years because the old ethnics see their culture endangered.
the politicians are working on plans to replace immigration with birth control like policy.

[Gyles84]

the politicians are working on plans to replace immigration with birth control like policy.

Doubt that'll go far. Big families are too expensive.

[machupichu]

Big families are too expensive.
thats exactly what the politicians are working on ;)

[BigBaribal]

I hope too.

Immigration is not needed at all, but encouragment for local birth increase is strongly needed.

[the_janitor]

I hope too.

Immigration is not needed at all, but encouragment for local birth increase is strongly needed.

x2

[BigBaribal]

For instance, Putin government (Russia has a big problem with birth/death ratio) gives fiscal and nature advantages (for housing for instance) to young Russian couples for facilitating them to have children.