Some posters earlier cited the Austro-Hungarian Empire as an example of failed multi-culturalism. In my view that is complete bollocks. That empire didn't fail because of its many cultures (at least not primarily), but because of a lack of change and adaptation. The Austrian ruling classes had one vision of their Austria, that of a monarchy dominated by German-Austrians, ruling over a multitude of people. When nationalism developed, that vision was no longer viable and so it was replaced by a different Austria. Of course it took two World Wars and some rolling heads to get there, which leaves you wondering if the same could not have been achieved with a bit more self awareness.
On some aspects, it's important for a culture to "progress" and "adapt", but how far? How far until that country is only the same country by name? It retains none of its founding principles or beliefs, to the point where it changed entirely... it is no longer the same country. It has been effectively dissolved, despite potentially having the same name.
I believe practicing incest and selling patent medicines was part of US culture back then? Binge smoking was also the trend back in 1960s. Why don't people wear wigs anymore like George Washington did? And OMG, why do people nowadays take bath so often? Why do they follow the British fashion? Why don't they wear 7/8 pants nowadays as formal dress?
So are you suggesting that cultural progress should only be dictated by WASP (the kinds of people that supposedly found the USA)?
If someone were to bring Sharia Law to the States, and demand the right to practice their culture under the First Amendment, that's where we would have a problem. That's clear mutation and perversion of US culture and the legal system. Don't get me wrong, it's not Islam alone which I have a problem with.
Now of course there could be nutjobs trying to instate Sharia law or what have you, but unless they are able to amass enough political influence to actually do that in a democratic system, there is no reason to do anything but laugh at them and make sure they dont blow up anything important. And if there is indeed a majority who supports such views, democracy is doomed anyway, because it cannot function if a majority of people don't support it, as seen in the Weimar Republic.
Right, where is the boundaries? People should be able to practice what they believe in. But when they started to disturb other people's freedom, how do you call it?
Let's say, the nutjobs doesn't have a political will. He is just staying in a wealthy country, so they can get all the benefits and high-paying jobs. But on everyday basis, he will yell on your woman (mostly highschool girls), shouting despicable misogynistic remarks because their clothing aren't up to their standards of decency.
In Australia, they say it is a "cultural clash," but it is too far and politically incorrect. There are many attempts to integrate with their society. Including not avoiding social interaction with them. But one day, two schoolgirls got a friendly conversations with a bunch of their boys in a train on their way back home. It escalated into a gang-rape case. The girls were asked to join a friendly chit-chat in a nearby cafe, they happily comply. But instead, they were brought into some obscure alley, and got raped by a bunch of boys from various age (some are younger). Each of them subdued the girl, while throwing insults specifically aiming at that "cultural clash" thing, because a standard Australian highschool girls uniform is slutty according to them.
Do you think:
A) It is fair for the rape victim of a cultural experimentation to have their case dismissed, because we are trying to achieve greater goal of integration?
B) It is an equal payback for the rapists, because they were often portrayed negatively by the society, thus this is just one of their act to vent it out?
BTW, this is a real event, and the newspaper that published the article didn't even bother to censure the insults thrown at the girls based on their testimony as victims to the police.
I have to say, there is a lack of respect here. The immigrants are facing cultural shock during their adaptation effort, which could only ended in either admire or despise the host culture. Some people might say, yes, one culture is "Superior" to others, because they can accommodate a lot, while the others simply doesn't.
The very obvious example is British motoring show "Top Gear," which produces a lot of controversies. The main host, Jeremy Clarkson is notorious for making politically incorrect remarks, which is also the source of many running gags and jokes that highlights the show. His antiques including bringing Britain's historical conflicts with France and Germany, whenever both countries come into the subject. He and the other hosts also relies on cultural stereotypes as joke material.
This was not a serious issue in many culturally open countries. But when they hit India, Mexico, Malaysia, things escalated quickly. Now, how can you create equal grounds if they demand special treatment as a subject of mockery? He said Americans are fat, incest-prone, gives you friendly fire, US cars are rubbish, etc, yet no Americans cried wolf. But when he said India has a toilet problem, Mexicans are lazy and flatulent, Malaysians can't make cars because they live in jungle with no roads, it becomes a diplomatic incident. Keep in mind, that he also admitted that he is "quite idiotic." Now this begs begs the question: why anyone takes the guy seriously unless you fail to understand either British English or his cheap humor sense?
