Multiculturalism and National Identity - Peter Kivisto
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 лют 2015
- Source - serious-science.org
Augustana College professor, Peter Kivisto, on perceived problems with multiculturalism, what countries can gain from a multicultural population, and how multiculturalism may impact national identity - Наука та технологія
It dosnt work.
"Where we find terrorist act its usually because multiculturalism isn't present"
Actually terrorism tends to occur in all the most multicultural countries. Britain, France, Australia etc.
The Zeitgeist I think he is arguing that multiculturalism is not just the presence of multiple cultures. He is saying that a country is multicultural to the extent to which people from different backgrounds can make claims on the state. The better this is claims making by various elements in society is established, the better a country can be deemed multicultural. He would, I presume, also make the argument that groups which are prevented from making claims on the state are less vested in the country’s success and thus less resistant to the use of violence against the state and its people
Multicultural countrie is just utopia and never be occur
Terrorism occurs everywhere, but people fail to address it as terrorism until its perpetuated by someone foreign and of a different race.
@@YesIlikebananasSo Oh yeah where are the Jihadi terrorist attacks jn Japan?
@@YesIlikebananasSo Oh the old 'he is only a terrorist ahen he's brown argument. Which is bullshit
In 2007 my street was populated with only local families. By 2022 the are several 'refugee' families with large numbers of children. In another 20 years all the locals will be be gone. Don't tell me that this isn't 'population replacement'...
What could be the solution
If they will be gone then by definition they will not be locals anymore.
I live in France. I worked in an engineering company and we sometimes employed temps if there were very short deadlines for a project. One day a young Muslim draughtsman came to work on an assignment, and after a couple of days some of the male workers came to see the boss for they could no longer use the male toilets for when they wanted to use the "loo", they often found the young Muslim guy, either washing his feet in the washbasin or with his mat rolled out with him kneeling down praying and turned around.Before praying, Muslims have to perform a purification ritual called Wudu, requiring that they wash their face, hands, arms, and feet. They pray 5 times a day. What one has to remember is this, France is a secular country and has been since 1905. Meaning separation of church and state. All religions are accepted but in the private sphere and not in the workplace. The thing is, in the company there were other Muslim colleagues who never did this and were just as annoyed as the non-Muslim staff, they thought he was being provocative for Islam makes provisions if people can't pray at the specific times. I talked to the young man on a few occasions, and his views on how some of the women staff were dressed were to say the least very derogative. The boss didn't renew his contract and told the temp agency why. They told him that he wasn't the first employer to complain. I say this, if you settle in a country whose culture, religion, traditions are different from your own, you are the one who has to adapt and not the other way round.
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
It's like entering somebody's home and telling The Owner, what should they do And do not.
Ouch! Seems to me that Germany and UK are very multicultural yet they have plenty of conflict!
@Vladimir Putin Multicuralism does not reduce conflict! Get it?!
@@merc340sr You are right, it doesn't reduce conflict. It only adds yet another dimension in which to fight over. Land, resources, and reproductive access are the age old points of interest competing tribes, groups, and individuals fight to possess to perpetuate and secure their existence, in the same way that business and companies compete with their competitors on lines of competing interest. Resources and the world itself is finite so what you secure for yourself in the land of other peoples may be to your benefit but it is a net loss for those you are acquiring resources from. So equality in representation is a convenient way of dressing up the undermining of competing group interest to one's own. Sharing and giving more to those that are outbreeding you will not secure peace, only appeasement whilst one is outbreeding the other. When China begins to 'multiculturalise' Africa the African peoples will soon be complaining about immigration, as people only complain about something when they are affected detrimentally, and downplay what they do when they affect others detrimentally. Its called selective confirmation bias.
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black people who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
Anyone with any sense can see that it has failed
So multiculturalism doesn't work if the majority in the country doesn't want multiculturalism but still has a multicultural society.
Nobody wants multicultralism, never voted about that.
Suppose two people are randomly allocated the same accommodation. One wants noise all day, and the other wants quiet all day. Will they be able to co-exist in the same accommodation? I doubt it.
What you forgot is that compromising exists,if both parties (immigrants and the country they immigrate to) normally benefit from this system , they will be able to find a compromise.The same goes for your exapmle, they could agree on having noises 50 %of the time and having it quite on the other 50 % of the time, in this way every partie should be satisfied and not satisfied with what they want on the same level. You may ask "what if both parties insist on 100% satisfaction of their will" , well of course this is not possible, BUT if you live together and have no other choise (f.ex. because you are dependent from one and other) your best and maybe only way to live together (and keep the benefits this co-existence provides) is to make compromises.
IT is NOT the left and multiculturalism that imports inmigrants (cheaper workers from abroad). It is the free market trying to get cheaper workers. Free market does not care about saving your culture. Making the most profit is all that matters.
Yes!!!! First time I ever heard that coming out of someone else's mouth.
if your economy doesnt do well, then your national security is at risk, its simple reality
most on the left promote immigration and right to asylum tho
He is basically saying how it would be good if everybody would be as cosmopolite as he is, but what does he suggest to do with people who don't want to? i think i've heard it before, as far as i remember it was called gulag
his arguments are also ridiculous - people get bombed and molested, and he talks about how sikh need to wear special religious hats
go to Japan and tell them how good Europe is living because of multiculturalism
thanks for harassing, leftist. i also don't see how your statement is connected to the question, except your genocidal thoughts of turning all nations into one african-like
so you are referring to the communist regime. but did you thought of people that just want to live together, regardless of what ethnicy others have? sure, communist went all wrong how to make things better in social areas for everyone, but what about the idea behind it? the idea behind it is that everyone should be equal and so to achieve that, they thought that everybody needs to be a worker. of course, this does not work, but when we say everyone is equal, I think that also implies everyone needs to respect everybody else. And excuse me, just calling things leftism because you don't like leftists doesnt solve the thing here. and saying that you can't be an open person to other cultures, is just straight up stupidity. there is a solution, and its not some nationalist or conservative thinking that you show here. and such solutions can be found through listening to other peoples arguments, and not just saying his arguments are ridiclous. He's telling you that we should respect other culture, which actually is your multiculturalism. However, that does not apply to things like oppressing women. or that islam should have some kind of violent mission. and most people coming to europe don't actually see it that way, and many times there children in the end can accept being a muslim aswell as having the european human rights for everybody. multiculturalism is something that evolves, its not forcing people. if you feel to be forced to live next to other cultures, you should not be such a grumpy and you should start to think a little bit more open minded. because in the end, it doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, there are actually dickheads in every religion but also nice people, there are assholes in other cultures but also friendly people. and you cannot see it as a solution to not live together. getting this diversity for me as an improvement of my life, because I don't think my grandpa had the same opportunity to experience these other thoughts and conclusions of other cultures.
@@onion_turtle are you dumb?
Meanwhile when what people walk around heavily armed with guns and shoot out school or perform acid attacks, it’s not terrorism? Molesting and violence isn’t exclusive to foreign groups.
Japan? its suffering because its policy makers are all like you and would rather suffer and deteriorate in order to save national prestige and put their hands over their eyes.
Interesting, I feel that different conclusions may be found now in 2022.The rise of migrants over the last 2-3 years in UK has reached a critical percentage, one which is changing the ethnic landscape and there is now a real threat. I doubt if a country as large as America, will have the same problem, or at least not anytime soon. While many migrants integrate well, and also their cultures, the numbers of some have quietly grown to such huge proportions and are gathered in specific areas. UK, for example now has Shariah Law in many places. Anyone in that area, including historical, native British, MUST obey Shariah law. Doesn't matter if it's against UK Law.
If people migrating to a country do not develop any love or commitment to that country: (that's increasingly become the case in the UK, where whole streets, areas, villages and towns no longer have native British populations), then real clashes of culture occur, especially where the Law of the land is involved. This isn't leading anywhere good. I hope that the huge Land mass and much larger populations of US and Canada will prevent the same thing happening.
The usa as all really reach that critical mass in certain states in 2010. If feel at times you are in third world country for certain border states like Texas. It why we so political divided. Only difference is that latinos are more western than middle Easterners. So cultural change is les dramatic.
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black people who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
The UK has shariah law in many places? Name one place?
Humorous.. The most homogeneous societies rank as some of the highest functioning societies. While several other homogeneous societies rank high on the “happiness” scale. Look at Denmark and go north.
Japan and Korea are both extremely homogenous as well.
multiculturalism aka a failed social experiment that has plenty of of shameful examples like Yugoslavia and Lebanon.
even India after the British left has resulted into the creation of modern India and Pakistan.
and today in Europe, Catalonia want independence from Spain. and Scotland wants it from UK.
Belgium has such a cool multiculturalism that the French and Dutch live in their own completely segregated communities.
this stupid sociologist professor of multiculturalism is a total clown that probably lives in a 95% white neighbourhood.
Im danish. We are the highest consumers of anti depressants.
@@anonym-bd1jpYou think you surpass American consumption of SSRI's???
@@allopez33 you cant compare since america has a larger population. Denmark only has around 5.5 million people.
Also japan has a very high suicide rate
France did not construct it's identity on immigration as did the US but rather on a very long history (relative to the US). So it has a harder time dealing with assimilation of immigrants with widely differing cultures, specifically, Muslims. Moreover, up to 20% of Muslim people in France consider that the French values of secularism, freedom of expression (including the right to offend), tolerance, and generally following the national motto of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" (Freedom, equality, fraternity) are incompatible with their religious beliefs. This has culminated in the "Charlie Hebdo" murders and more recently in the beheading of a school teacher trying to teach the significance of freedom of expression and tolerance to his class. How do we deal with this problem?
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
The most marginalized group in the world is the individual.
Nope. It's whites.
@@myrealnamewontfi7289 , there we go
If immigrants in Canada prefer multiculturalism to hockey, I am not sure they integrate so well :P.
Hmm ... So terrorist actions happen in nations where multiculturalism is NOT present, huh? I don't think so -
I always thought terrorism occurs because the people involved in such acts have no respect for the nation which has willingly adopted them.
Many such people believe they can force the nation which has taken them in to become accustomed to their culture, when the real attitude of such people should be that any person who wants to form part of another nation must recognize that the nation as a WHOLE comes first, before recognizing particular individuals within the whole. Isn't this the so-called "melting pot" idea? THIS is what the current Marxist Democrat party hopes to achieve, in order to DESTROY the identity of the melting pot, and force a sort of conformity to ZERO conformity. That is why we are now constantly at each other's throats.
A lack of multiculturalism is I believe based on ONE thing only: A lack of tolerance for individuals who are different from you. The ones who commit such terrorist acts are the ones who refuse to adopt the culture of the nation which took them in - NOT the other way around. And when the "natives" commit terrorist acts, it is only those whose goal is the destruction of the nation as founded, based on blatant lies which they create regarding their very own nation -
For example, citizens who eagerly adopt the ideas of Critical Race Theory, and several other similar ideologies.
Not all cultures ask for exemptions. Those I find inimical to peaceful co-existence are the cultures that demand exemptions within the public sphere..
Very insightful, a very good presentation
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
This is like a 15 minute South Park skit.
What I understood of multiculturalism is by just putting different cultures together, doesn't necessarily mean multiculturalism, this is more like a physical change. However, the real multiculturalism is a chemical change.
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
A lot of you saying multiculturalism doesn't work have never lived in a monocultural country or even state. It's not all rainbows and unicorns. There's a lot more pressure to conform and if you don't, the social forces have a much stronger hand to crush you.
Less likely to be stabbed or bombed tho.
how do u categorise the demand of sharia impostion
At the end they are gonna reinvent the nation state .
Balance/merge the Heavenly with the Primal
= parts Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
and "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"
With a healthy dose of "What you do is your business, what I do is my business"
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
I don't care that the Sikh wear an helmet or not (they are the one who would get injured) but I care about their kirpan. They didn't lost at Supreme court in Canada. They are allowed to wear an knife at school (even elementary). While I don't care about the helmet, but I care a lot about their knife. The Supreme Court judgement is here: 2006 SCC 6 (CanLII) | Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys | CanLII
I was under the impression that they wore fake knifes that were sewn into their holsters, is that not true?
@@bastianjones2046 Their knifes are not fake but I don't think they use them, or perhaps only in extreme situations.
@@missj.4760 That may have been school policy in California, I don't remember. Though a fake knife or knife shaped object would be a good compromise.
Since it's my understanding that the objects that Sikh carry are symbolic and not functional.
@@bastianjones2046 They want to carry their traditional knife (kirpan), which is not only symbolic. A fake knife won't do.
Canada is very selective on who can immigrate, of course there subsequent earth of naturalization would be high. Try open borders, high rates of immigration with vastly different cultures, robust welfare systems, with not enough career jobs for everyone- then let’s revisit the studies
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
13:34 this should be a short answer
One example of multiculturalism is India - Where by having a linguistic based states led to protection of sense of cultural distinctiveness (which was very closely related to language) and it actually helped in creating a multi-linguistic based sense of nationality.
And horrific violence from border to border. India is a perfect example of a nation that is hurt by multiculturalism. This is well known and it is a big reason why the British and French divided the middle east the way they did. It was to mix the cultures so as to occupy the people with civil strife so that the nations wouldn't continue to war with other nations.
Even Europe being homogeneous how many war were fought by each other. Being homogeneous doesn't means unity. Since of self acceptance are needed try to respect one another.
@@ironsmith9769 Europe did not have Wars 😂😂😂😂
@@powerzoldyck5670 "europe" is as homogenous as the middle east is.
@@aiswaryabersan7983 Europe is as homgeneous as the middle east is. culture is far more than race. culture is most often about tradition, language, political views, and religion. to think that culture=race is idiotic.
when exception starts to challenge the very basis of native society is different things sir.
Not been likeable to it? Do you have an idea *how much* they try to be good people and like it?
Yeah but that's that dosn't adress the question of how can you make something feel yourself Not against your person in a deep sense how can you stop being disgusted how can you make yourself like it If even trying as hard as you humanly can has broken done a Bit
This was really interesting, thank you. Never the less when people speak of multiculturalism they often simply mean the existence of people of another culture or even more vaguely of people who just look like they might have another culture, in their country. The kind of multi culturalism that Kivisto talks about here is a more active one I would say. The kind that is advocated by movements and organisations of different sorts.Just a reflection.
In the US, racist whites are bad, so are the many racist black ppl who glare and insult and assault other races. Happens way too often. America is being destroyed by racial division. China is taking over the world. China shows that one culture (race) is much stronger than trying to make many races live together. Multiculturism is slow suicide.
Honor killings?
Are cultural. if they occur in a western country they should be charged as would in a western country, but they aren’t the only part of said cultures, and many people do not even believe in them. I’m not sure why that solely would affect the possibility of having immigrants in a country, there are citizens in all countries that commit murer too.
Multiculturalism is an amazing tool to assimilate French-Canadians, and it is likely the main reason why PE Trudeau put this policy in place.
There is a huge difference between on one side Native American (who were there before) and Black Americans (who descend from slavery) and on the other side, immigrants who choose to come in a given country knowing that it is a different culture.
Native americans are also immigrants they crossed over from russia when the ive bridge was still there
@@anonym-bd1jp True but it was like 15,000 ago. If you go with that way of thinking, all humans outside of Africa are immigrants too. That was clearly not the topic of this video.
@Beauty Pink I don't want them to assimilate. I just want them to integrate. It is not the same.
There’s no culture to assimilate to, USA is multicultural.
@@booboobunny5655 That is ok (or not depending of your point of you). But it does not change my point: immigrants choose to come while Black Americans did not,and First Nations have been there for a very long time.
Great explanation
Nice English-sounding name. Are you from London by any chance?
I believe that Kivisto should live in France before saying that French are adverse to multiculturalism. Rural parts may be, just like in the UK however this does not translate well with urban areas. Like everywhere else where MC exists, tensions arise which does not mean that the overall population is adverse. I lived there many years.
As it turns out, Peter doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Multiculturalism doesn’t work. It destroys countries. Simple
It doesn’t take a phd in sociology to see how miserable multiculturalism has failed. Now we all have to live with the repercussions of this failed ideology
Who else is here because of school?
Racism, basically, but also a lack of _public investment_ in education in modern & colonial history _and_ in public spaces where people can pass by each other _and_ in public events.
They know that multiculturalism being thrust upon us is wrong and yet they continue to make excuses as to why it don't work.
It don't work because we're not intended to mix our customs and cultures to those outside of our European neighbors.
Bringing peoples, customs and cultures from other continents to Europe does those European countries a great disservice.
I find these kinds of people very irritating with their smug demeanor and arrogant personalities. They go off visiting other countries, enjoying that country's customs and cultures, soon coming back they not only want to bring with them the customs and culture, no, they want to bring the people along with them.
We're then forced to accept who ever it is they've brought into our countries, as if it don't or will not have an effect on our customs or culture.
I have a very serious question for people like him, why is this experiment only being conducted in European countries?
Why are we being forced to accept outsiders into our countries?
I have yet to hear anyone from these countries say hey, come join us in our country, you're more than welcome. Oh, and bring your customs and culture along with you.
I'd rather live in an homogenous society than this anything and everything cesspool that's being forced upon us.
Multiculturalism is motivated by identity politics and cultural Marxism. People of color are the new proletariat. This means that each separate group of people of color want to define their own space but that also means that they are no longer interested in the common national good. This will tend to annihilate any loyalty to the nation. Multiculturalism relocates nationhood within the ethnic group. In a state that is multi-ethnic, that will tend to balkanize the state into warring camps of ethnic groups that now see themselves as nations. Multiculturalists want to make states into federations of nations. This is a perfect recipe for eventual civil war.
I believe that the point of multiculturalism is not to make new ethnic groups within established contries. I believe it is to accomodate cultures, yes, but also to convince people not to look upon the world in the "us and them" mentality but to open their hearts and minds to diversity, looking to eradicate hate and discrimination. This way we could look past our differences and prosper as humans, not as ethnicity groups which keep stepping on each other's toes.
I also believe every custom should be revised through the simple logic of: does it hurt anyone? In this case forced marriage, which is of great importance in some cultures, is forbiden while wearing a hijab, which consequently hurts no one, is allowed.
@@mikimodiq8263 Multiculturalism only adds yet another dimension in which to fight over. Land, resources, and reproductive access are the age old points of interest competing tribes, groups, and individuals fight to possess to perpetuate and secure their existence, in the same way that business and companies compete with their competitors on lines of competing interest. Resources and the world itself is finite so what you secure for yourself in the land of other peoples may be to your benefit but it is a net loss for those you are acquiring resources from. So equality in representation is a convenient way of dressing up the undermining of competing group interest to one's own. Sharing and giving more to those that are outbreeding you will not secure peace, only appeasement whilst one is outbreeding the other. When China begins to 'multiculturalise' Africa the African peoples will soon be complaining about immigration, as people only complain about something when they are affected detrimentally, and downplay what they do when they affect others detrimentally. Its called selective confirmation bias.
@@azothothdestroyerofworlds1910 I wasn't aware that we live in the stone age, where we have to fight for resources to the death. You think people are not capable of doing better? Not everyone sees their ethnicity as the prime of their being, so they wouldn't really call it "outbreeding" because, we're all people. Your way of thinking only perpetuates xenophobia and is trying to rationalise the "us vs them" mentality.
@@mikimodiq8263 Pointing out how people are operating as opposed to how we might rather things be is not rationalising a behaviour, it is pointing out that there are underlying motivators that drive the wish to perpetuate oneself even over others in a finite world. How you wish to dress this up and moralise the value of those that expose this nature is in of itself an us vs them rationalisation. The main difference is in your aspersion towards the conclusions I've made, which are backed by evolutionary psychological mechanisms that is implicit in our behaviour, you are to the effect 'othering' me from those who would then be in a position to agree when made aware of this realisation, that might work to the effect of pushing back against the exploitation of the current morality westerners have. White Europeans never have had to be subject to pluralising their own group interests, whilst others clearly are expanding their identity over lands and acting so as a group, not as a globe of individuals. That is a deliberate obfuscation of the situation and I believe you know it; otherwise there would be no need to defend this behaviour. Cannot defend colonialism, whilst also indulging in another form of it when convenient that yields to similar results albeit more permanent, no matter how we dress it. Identity and peoples are not interchangeable, and those who often argue this do not do so when their own identity is in question, so there is a level of self interest that motivates this argument, whether people deny it or not. Its a cop out argument that fails to address the reality that we even on an individual level are competing for land resources and the means of perpetuating the self through those means. Culture people and nations are ultimately constrained to limitations of land resource and the means of self perpetuations, so no matter how we dress it the more difference is created in a nation the more people will find a way to divide themselves according to those differences as some of those divisions are innate and less ideological is basis. That is why trying to resolve such differences without securing ones own interests will inevitably result in conflict as is the case when they tried to overlook the racial element and likely motivation in the grooming gangs that were disproportionately targeting white British girls for their respective demographic size. Self interest motivates people to indulge in action that frames judgement towards others in such a way that benefits the self. Hence the use of the world racist, xenophobic and other terminologies are often used to deflect criticism as opposed to be honest and self critical of the actual wrongdoing and imposition we have on other nations through our own racial and cultural expansion. This logic goes both ways so to argue against it at this point would be hypocritical for anyone who ever intends to criticise their opposition for expanding themselves whilst downplaying their expansion into the territories of others whilst they demonise the self interest and reaction to this of that nation as racist, .xenophobic etc.
@@mikimodiq8263 Also, we don't need to 'live in the stone age' to notice that people fight for land resources and reproductive access to the death. These three elements have been historically shown to be the primary motivator of war; otherwise, you would have to argue that the Western invasions are unrelated to a greed for the resources of others because as you have asserted, we are not living in the stone age. People already kill/ostracise each other over ideological disagreements, or what they believe to be heresy against social practices they disagree with, whilst willingly engaging in the suppression of interests other than their own. Your use of such rhetoric when arguing against my self interest with yours verifies this. Hypocrisy is largely motivated by an overreach of self-interest, to the point it detriments others, and concealing wrongdoing, whilst deflecting blame to others. Hence a lot of these vacuous accusations we see, directed at those expressing their concerns regarding how their self interest is being undermined, are not based on actual behaviour they are instigating that can be pointed to concretely in terms of 'moral' wrongdoing, but moralised aspersions that 'other' those whose interests are dissimilar to ones own out of a conflict of interest that has been created by those divergent interests and sense of personal identity. Which if we are talking about pluralism and a multicultural society, there are no arbiters who have monopoly on judgement if that is the prerogative of those that push multiculturalism. Because of the constant use of double-speak when matters surrounding multiculturalism are brought up, I'm fairly certain many would not regard for instance the immigration waves happening in Europe as colonialism, and so do not feel the need to hear the 'rationalisation' of others that have self evidently proven my point by engaging in the same behaviour I have outlined as being the crux of the problem that results in this conflict. By your own standard you are making a 'rationalisation' when asserting the apparent observations made are 'only perpetuating xenophobia', without actually for one pointing out the illegitimacy of that concern, as the term in of itself means an irrational fear of the expansion of foreign entities in ones own nation, before then explaining why you are ironically using a form of othering to justify the expansion of one people over another at those who are against racial expansionism in all instances. There is clear motive that has fuelled the need to selectively characterise the concerns of others that has routinely been downplayed, which has ultimately proven my point through the self-evident behaviour such individuals and groups are expressing to those whose interests conflict with their own when they are over-extending their identity so as to encroach upon other people whose interests are different to one's own. There are clear motivations that guide people in their judgement and selective portrayal of others, such as you have attempted to do when using the notion of vaguely using terms such as 'perpetuates xenophobia' to do just that.
I play Mexican style music everyday in every country 🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🎤🎤🎤🎤 Mexico has # 1 singers in the world
Opinion
Thats because you have no respect
I've never heard a good Mexican singer.
You’re not helping yourself 😂
You can listen to your favorite song but not impose it to other people, inside or outside Mexico.
Why don’t you just create multiethnic zoning
so the ethnic native people can have a protected area while keeping multiethnocism (this world is dumb).
It is unwise for the British to have chosen Muslim over the three million Hong Kongers who are tamed and educated under British rule.
The end result is the same: Population Replacement.
Ur just racist
Also anyone can be a Muslim that isn’t a ethnicity
@@shen4361 It correlates 99% to ethnicity.
It work to some extend to Canada because anglophone culture in North America is so strong that people assimilate. But multiculturalism work a lot against French--Canadians and Quebecker. Even in Montreal, french culture and language is endangered as immigrants prefer the anglophone culture. I guess we are not part of Canadian culture because we hate multiculturalism. That doesn't mean we hate immigration and immigrants, but just like the French people, we expect them to integrate and to share some commun values. Otherwise, in Toronto half of the population was born outside Canada so I assume they are happy with multiculturalism.
What an unintelligent man
IVDEN
Come to India if you really want to witness multiculturalism in action. We have our fair share of controversies and conflicts but I myself don't know how are we still have single national identity. The whole world is village for us. I hope to see vanishing of the national boundaries in my lifetime. It would pretty cool to roam around the world without the headache of passport and visas.
The British have given you your independence and now you want to leave your country and go to theirs?
Yes, your "Multcultural" society is 99% made up of people from South Asia - what India needs is the sort of multicult that is forced on Western countries, maybe start with 100 million people from across Africa, another 100 million from China, another 100 million from the Middle East, the sots of numbers that will make Indians a minority in parts of India, only then it will be a truely multiculti paradise that the West has been blessed with.
Sience is based on scientific method,Somebody writes a book about his opinion about "social construct" this book does not have any scientific data just ideologic propaganda this is exactly what "social sience" are based on, this video suggest that it`s good to have multiculturalism but if you mix all cultures you have none, if you have multiple cultures only living in different places will be preserved.seems not serious science to me!
Peter Kvisto seems to claim to know what multiculturalism is. That it has to do with claims, that is correct. He names what happens. But doesnt name it has to do with rights. Who was somewhere first ? To whom does or did the land belong ? Who inherits from whom, why and where ? And if people have 2 nationalities why is that ? They have rights in 2 countries !! in contrary to their new fellow countrymen who cant escape. I suppose you never worked with muslims (not practical) because they have their ramadan, dont drink alcohol, the women dont come along to bars, and out with colleagues. The thing people long for: the new country, a free or white blonde woman, their children to better schools, safe etc have a price !! namely: races fade (we will all look the same isnt that boring ?? , and they all want to be as white as possible - look at India, the West, Africa), and the values of the biggest group will be the new standard.
So: if you let 5th columns in you better beware how large they get !! The only ones benefitting from internationalism and multiculturalism are the ones in power and the ones can can move freely in the world (like Peter Kvisto). Glad i dont live in Canada btw
This was a lot of fluff talk and rhetoric.
Multiculturalism *is not a euphemism* for "different skin colors." Watch the video. Germanic Amish people form a separate culture. Got it? There are Christian, Buddhist and Muslim "Asians" in our USA. "Asian" is not a Culture. Don't simplify. Watch the video. Learn to use big words carefully.
A lot of people think it is
They are white Germans and really the only thing that makes them different from regular white christians is that they don't use electric. I don't consider them really any different from me and I'm not "Amish". Their culture, race, heritage align with mine. "Asian" is absolutely a different race, culture, people.
@@wolfsoldier5105 Asian is NOT "a culture." Asia is a landmass that extends from Turkey to Japan. There are far more English speakers in Pakistan today than there are in England. The history, languages, narratives, religions, farmlands and cuisines of Indochina are completely different from those in India or China. There are now over 2 times as many Anglican Christians in Nigeria as there are in England. So "Anglicanism" is not "white" or "English" and the English language is not "white" or "ethnically English." What real world self-grouping (not "identifying") real people in real places DO is far more important than what they imagine they "are." What YOU "consider" is simply irrelevant. Nobody will ever care. What you DO is relevant. If your flesh is all you have to babble about, you have less than nothing at all. Think of all the "German Americans" who shot Nazi German soldiers in the head. I once worked for the US Army. These are not idle abstractions. Think of all the "English Americans" who shot English Red Coat soldiers. Ponder all that fleshy reality.
The Englsh language originated in England, therefore it is European and English, regardless of how widely it's spoken and whether there's more English speakers in another country.
Where did all these Jordan Peterson fanatics come from? It really seems like they are the vocal minority here, given the like dislike ratio
@Aryan 1% more every decade? And strictness of immigration is a 50/50 issue across the world. Though I doubt you poltards care about democracy.
They came from common sense.
Oh look: a ContraPoints fan(atic)!
We dont owe you ANYTHING