posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:06 AM
Okay, I've read through all the replies and seen some interesting responses!
But no-one has said the obvious, so allow me to play the devil's advocate.
The benefit of allowing multiple cultures to immigrate to the West is altruism - if a country is able to provide safe refuge for refugees and those
escaping poverty, should they not share their wealth?
As the world becomes increasingly globalised with the advent of technology, will not having a multicultural society allow for better understanding and
relationships with foreign societies?
I don't personally agree with those points, I'm just mentioning them, devil's advocate etc etc.
In Australia, during the earlier part of the 20th Century, lots of people were complaining about all the Italians moving in. At first, the Italians
were a fairly tight knit group, but over the course of a few generations, they have integrated (someone mentioned that "assimilation" is a better term
- English is not my first language so any advice on which terms and language to use is welcome). They still retain their culture, but they are very
welcoming of non-Italians and happy to associate with everyone else. But will people from Muslim societies have the same success?
I focus on Muslims because of the unchanging nature of their faith, and because they're the hot topic of the day, although I do recognise that there
are several different sects of Islam and Muslims are comprised of a range of nationalities.
People keep mentioning food. Please stop it! It doesn't take a whole community of immigrants to open a restaurant. There is an Australian restaurant
in Moscow (at least there was, not sure if it's still there), but there are not many Aussies in Moscow. And it is so trivial. Will you die if you
can't get Thai take away? Will you truly suffer if you can't have Portuguese chicken? (although probably yes, Portuguese chicken is delicious).
So far nobody has given a solid reason for multiculturalism.
When I was living in Sydney, I tried to get a job. It was not long before I was offered a job by my Chinese housemate, working at a Chinese restaurant
for $10 an hour, cash in hand. This was an illegal job. The minimum wage in Australia is something like $22 an hour. I turned it down, thinking I
could easily find a better job, with people who speak English, for at least the legal minimum wage. I was dead wrong. The market was flooded by
Eastern immigrants networking together in cash in hand tax free far below minimum wage jobs. Bosses thought, well why pay someone $22 an hour when I
can just pay someone $10, and off the books at that? In the end, I had to link up with the small Russian community there, because I had to.
So you get this situation where even if immigrants want to assimilate/integrate (I am not sure which word is best but I hope you know what I mean),
they cannot, in order to get by they have to network with insular communities sharing their ethnicity and/or religion.
Some people have also mentioned, that it is primarily Western societies whose governments encourage significant ethnic enclaves who do not share
Western values. It proves divisive. In Adelaide I and some of my Aussie friends were treated with some first class racism, at the hands of some young
Sudanese men, whose families had come to Australia as refugees, and happily went around abusing Australians (they assumed I was Australian because I'm
white), despite them being the country who had provided them with a safe haven.
So, still I pose the question: why do Western societies need these insular communities united by ethnicity and/or religion, and remain separate from
Why is it considered so wrong to question it? And why do people always mention food? Can they really think of no other benefit?