debate | Kickoff debate

adalger posting in

So, now that we have some members, here's a topic:

Is "multiculturalism" truly beneficial?

I'll start off by taking the negative position.

Multiculturalism is a tool used by the establishment to prevent the unification of Americans into one common culture. It perpetuates inter-cultural tension by emphasizing the differences between Americans who come from different cultural heritages. The only true path to peace and unity is to abandon this continued segmentation to fulfill the promise of the Melting Pot.

Discuss. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

elf

First we must have a single language

I suppose you assume that language would be English, and the people who speak something else natively should be even more outcast than they are already. (In my office in downtown SF, English is the language we mostly communicate in. However, six other languages are spoken in the office.)

Which dialect of English would be the correct one?

then a single culture

Which culture are you advocating should be THE American culture?

This is not a "detail of integration;" it is the core question. Whose ancestral, religious, and familial history has to be set aside for the benefits of the "melting pot?"

Often, when this issue comes up, the answer is "all the non-white, non-Christian people should ignore their history, because USA is a white Christian nation and other cultures are suitable for background flavor only here." And given our history about dealing with non-white peoples, I don't think that's an acceptable approach to cultural clashes.

From:

adalger

Unfortunately, I believe you misunderstand the spirit of the debate. I have no strong emotional attachment to even the position I'm arguing, let alone the details of its implementation.

The core question is NOT, in fact, which culture should be adopted as the "correct" culture. The core question is, as I stated it, is there truly any benefit to perpetuating a plurality of cultures within one political entity, or is it harmful to our society as a whole?

If you want to debate that as a completely different topic, I'll pick one, but it's not this topic.

From:

elf

The core question is, as I stated it, is there truly any benefit to perpetuating a plurality of cultures within one political entity

Ah. Sorry; got distracted.

Yes, there is a benefit: the plurality of cultures is essential to respecting the diverse lives, freedoms, and histories of the individuals who are members of the political entity. Cultural plurality is required in order for the USA not to be an oppressive tyranny.

I consider this so obvious that I immediately jumped to a related issue: in what way is it harmful to end a plurality of cultures? And I suppose that was the question I was addressing, rather than the one you asked.

From:

adalger

I see where you went now. I'm going to restate your point slightly: Saying it is harmful to end the cultural plurality is semantically equivalent to saying it is beneficial to continue it. In this context, presenting specific ways in which it is harmful can be seen as directly related to the original point.

I'm going to further chime in on your side. I appear to have misstated my position as negative, when according to rules of debate it should be viewed as an affirmative case. I am proposing a change to the status quo, which places the burden of proof on me to show that the benefit is worth the cost. With the further clarification you've provided, I can now see your response as a statement that there is a cost to ending the existence of multiple concurrent cultures.

My case is that the existence of several cultures within the same political boundaries leads to unnecessary and harmful conflicts between members of cultures with opposing values. As one specific example, in some cultures homosexuality is considered unacceptable and dangerous, while in others it is considered normal, natural, and just part of life. The forced coexistence of these disparate cultural values leads to discrimination and hate crimes. Not all examples are so extreme, obviously, but the point is that these cultural disagreements exist precisely because we allow multiple sets of cultural values and beliefs to coexist.

The solution I propose is to stop catering to cultural differences within America. Because it is already the language in which our government's defining documents are written, American English should be the only language in which government services are offered or government functions are performed, and the only language any business is required to accept. As support for this position, I cite the tensions between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. The creation of two official languages has not helped integrate the culture of Canada; it has instead promoted secessionist feeling among the Quebecois. Do we really want Texas to have another reason to want to secede? Southern California?

All the different cultural and ethnic festivals and celebrations certainly share and promote the positive aspects of the various cultures. However, there are aspects of some of these cultures that directly oppose the values of some other cultures. We don't make any distinctions at these festivals to say we only accept certain parts of the culture. So, to continue the example above, we completely fail to condemn homophobia when we celebrate a culture that includes homophobic sentiment in the values it carries with it.

We really ought to have an organization that engages in public service advertising and marketing to promote common cultural values to all of our citizens, without attempting to perpetuate cultural differences. We do have campaigns that attempt to promote the cultural value that recreational drugs are bad, even though there are cultures within our boundaries that view them as anywhere from acceptable to sacred. Some rational basis to our cultural values and an attempt to make them universal is a viable long-term solution to many of the societal tensions we face.

From:

cyberjunkie

I do see what you are saying, but I do want to ask a question here...

Reading quotes such as "We don't make any distinctions at these festivals to say we only accept certain parts of the culture." and "Do we really want Texas to have another reason to want to secede?" left me with a thought... and part of it deals with my point of view due to my career choice in the education field.

So, in the USA we have 50 different states and a bunch of territories, etc., so we have 57 (if I recall Obama's slip-up correctly) different rules and regulations within our country alone. There is no overall National system for education, nor for how roads are built, or how money is spent by the state. Gay marriage is ok here, but not there. Earlier in history it was ok for an black-skinned person to be enslaved in one state but not necessarily in the state that borders it to the north.

In other countries, there are provinces, such as in Canada. But there, 10 provinces is still easier to deal with than 57 different areas. Other countries, like Israel have no issue with one way of dealing with education across the country. (and, yes, I know, it's the size of New Jersey or so, so the size comparison issue is way off, but still it's one Nation compared to many nations.) Having just pinged a friend in Israel, I was correct here -- most curriculum across Israel is the same, except obviously religious studies. (Although Jews, Arabs, and Catholics/Christians may go to the same schools, often they do not as the communities are far apart and separated by their differences.) However, all exams for science and math, for example, are the same across the entire country. Here in the USA, they might be the same across the State of NY, where all students in 4th grade take the same science test, but compared to Ohio, Florida, Iowa, or California, they will be greatly different, as there is no National curriculum, just the mandates that No Child (shall be) Left Behind.

So, I think that the whole idea of the melting pot was a great one when we had all the different cultures immigrating to the USA in the late 1800s/early 1900s, but I also believe that Cultural Blending overtook this idea long ago (or I think the social studies book back in jr. high called it the 'Cultural Mosaic' model). That each culture adds some facet/aspect to the mosaic, but all of the parts create the whole.

My personal opinion is that cultural differences are great to make people unique, but we need to keep it in check to make sure that it is part of the solution and not adding to the problem of segmenting the country's population. I love learning about new-to-me religions, cultures, languages, etc... But, I know I might be in the minority in the area in which I live. I keep to myself often, here, as to not stick out like a sore thumb. Why, you might ask? Because, I don't want to be ridiculed/tagged and looked at as an 'outsider' because I am different from the norm here. Some people, I have learned, are unfortunately very closed-minded.

Hopefully I didn't stray too much from the topic.

From:

adalger

Part of the problem is that each State is equivalent, constitutionally, to an independent country like France or Germany. The United States, as a national entity, is on the level of the European Union. Therefore, certain cultural differences are legally protected from state to state, while in other areas certain cultural consistencies are mandated (e.g., common currency and interstate respect for licenses and contracts). A point in support of my position is that there are occasional interstate tensions over cultural differences, particularly among Texans. ;)

The idea of the Cultural Mosaic model certainly is interesting, but appears to just assume that all those cultures do in fact function as parts of a whole. One trip through Chinatown should convince anyone they don't.

A plurality of cultures certainly makes for interesting and unique individuals, but a range of culturally accepted customs within a single cultural framework can, as well. Different languages are interesting to study, but serve little practical purpose; they primarily obstruct communication between different people.

As far as I can tell, you were entirely on-topic. :)

From:

cyberjunkie

I would throw in the suggestion of creating "Americanese".
We here in America have destroyed "English".

just don't suggest Ebonics.... that still gives me nightmares...