A thought shortly after waking, that headache (and other more pleasant distractions) have kept me from researching (I'll STFW later) or pulling apart in depth in my head, so I'll toss it out with a "Warning: Half Baked" label on it as a reminder to get back to and in hope that folks'll find' it interesting enough to comment on and save me some effort:
Multiculturalism mostly works pretty well until too high a percentage of fundamentalists are in the mix, then the real difficulties start.
Thoughts?
(This comes from thinking about Canadian multiculturalism and what possibly flawed impressions I have of it from looking at it at this distance (I get the impression that the "whoops, here's a stumbling block we have to figure out how to work around" issues are mostly from Islamic fundamentalists) and where opposition to multiculturalism in the US seems to come from (Christian fundamentalists) ... and something I heard on the radio last night but no longer remember the details of. But I may be speaking from ignorance here; I'm not sure yet.)
(no subject)
I think we tend to take the bottom-up or market forces approach, with the exception of affirmative action policies, which have been controversial anyway and still don't ensure true multiculturalism (mutual understanding, awareness, and acceptance and all that good stuff). Whereas in the US television content, especially commercials, you see more Asians and Hispanics because they have become a target consumer group.
Although I agree with the implication that the narrowminded-ness of fundamentalists prevents them from truly understanding and accepting other cultures, or on the flip side being assimilated into the mainstream. I'm not sure it's a question of percentages however, because a minority can still yield political influence.
Anyway, it's a good start, and you might want to bake it some more. :)
(no subject)
(1) It seems to me that multiculturalism works well when it is based on tolerance and respect. When ANYONE (fundamentalist or otherwise) gets away with preaching intolerance or disrespect, and they gain influence, that might be when the trouble starts.
(2) Highly visible fundamentalism might be a symptom rather than a cause.
(no subject)
The greedy, the selfish, the intolerant, and the bullies will find a way to use whatever social, economic or legal system available to them as a "game" to get their ends. That is why I am *constantly* unimpressed by what I call "The Rewells". More often than not, instead of solving the *problem* the "The Rewells" are just one more tool of those who like to hurt, bully, oppress, take, etc.
This is what inspired the line "Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss!"
So when I see such people and such behaviour, I feel NO guilt about dealing with them very harshly and even "unfairly" (as judged by the 'rewells' anyway)- precisely because these people ARE the problem.
And I say so- to their faces.
When I finally had enough of one of the Trolls in my social circle and forcibly evicted him from a gathering at my house, despite the so called "validity" of his complaint, I was met with overwhelming disapproval. But my friends by and large got over it, because except for that incident, I've continued to be basically a nice guy- nicer in fact without the constant PIMA. What's more I can now point directly to the improved quality of my life without him and the continued carnage he sows wherever he's tolerated now and know that I did the right thing.