A neutral, independent community in which members debate issues related to social justice.
Multiculturalism, Assimilationism, and Moral Relativism
Multiculturalism is the tolerance and promotion of multiple cultures within a political entity, while assimilationism is the idea that those who are part of a minority culture come to adopt the characteristics of those of the majority culture. To put it more simply, it is the difference between a salad bowl and a melting pot.
Of course, as we all know, multiculturalism is under attack. Those who would restrict severely immigration from Latin America to the US and from the Middle East to Europe argue that multiculturalism, the over-acceptance of certain aspects of minority cultures, is responsible for thing such as the Rotherham child sex trafficking scandal, which was covered up allegedly because of a fear of being labeled Islamophobic, the Cologne sexual assaults, the presence of honor killings in European Muslim communities, radicalization/terrorist attacks, and, as it pertains to Latin American immigrants in the US, allegedly high crime rates in Latino-heavy areas, a supposed refusal to learn English which is accommodated by the government and by the education system, and a pride, supposedly, in one's status as an illegal immigrant.
In essence, they are arguing that some immigrants to their countries are bringing a culture of, in the case of Middle Eastern immigrants, misogyny, homophobia (e.g. Orlando shooting), and disrespect for secular institutions, and in the case of Latin American immigrants, a disrespect for laws and language conventions. They believe that problems like these are being ignored under the guise of multiculturalism and "respecting other cultures", even though those cultures have aspects to them that are, in their eyes, objectively wrong and offensive by universal standards.
Of course, I doubt the sincerity of those who make those points - the majority of Muslims in the West do not approve of terrorism, misogyny, sexual assault, or child abuse, nor do the majority of Hispanic/Latino immigrants glorify crime, their undocumented status if they are here illegally (and the majority of them aren't even illegal at all), or a refusal to learn the language. Many of those who criticism multiculturalism in this manner are part of cultures whose aspects have measurable harm of their own, such as conservative Christianity, the alt-right/neo-Nazism, or "stereotypical" blue-collar/working-class rural American culture. However, the fact that these incidents exist, in some cases out of proportion relative to those groups' percentage of population, and tend to happen in places where immigrants are not well-assimilated, do indicate that maybe absolute multiculturalism in which regressive attitudes are excused may not be for the best.
This brings me to the concept of moral relativism. Are there some things that cannot be justified by "culture"? Do cultures that are morally inferior exist? I would argue that to some extent, there are - things like human sacrifice (part of some ancient and not-so-ancient civilizations), slavery, murder, misogyny (whether the Christian, Islamic, or redpill form), homophobia (from any religion or purely based on personal disgust), racism, or abuse (I think of how "tiger parenting" in East/South Asian families is justified as "culture") should never be a part of any culture, anywhere in the world.
Perhaps my perspective is because as an immigrant I have been, on a personal level, an aggressive assimilationist. It's certainly earned me a lot of academic and social success, and I have made a personal decision to aggressively assimilate (people can call me "whitewashed" all day long but I regret absolutely nothing) myself because I feel as if I should respect the country and culture that I am in. Does this mean that I abandon customs, foods, etc. from my country of origin? No. But it means that I adopt the attitudes, language, dress, and customs of America as a priority.
I see nothing wrong with people retaining aspects of cultures from around the world - after all, being exposed to foods, traditions, peoples, customs, etc. from around the world has been one of my greatest joys of having a cosmopolitan upbringing. But I do believe that there are some parts of some (sub)cultures that should never be accepted, anywhere in the world, and if that makes me less of a moral relativist or less of a believer in the notion that there is no moral superiority or inferiority when it comes to culture, so be it. I also believe that some degree of assimilation helps social cohesion and makes it politically more palatable to accept immigrants and refugees. I think that there should be a mixture of both assimilation and multiculturalism - a model of cultural exchange in which immigrants and native-borns learn from each other and their cultures, with the understanding that there are universal codes of conduct that absolutely cannot be broken by anyone.
What is your take on this? What do you think we should demand of immigrants, if they have attitudes that are against social equality, as some do? Do you think making at least some level of assimilation demands of immigrants so that they are more in line with the customs of their host country may make scapegoating and xenophobic appeals less likely to work?




This is a tough subject to me, but I'll try to put it as simply as possible. We shouldn't have to accept anyone of any culture feeling that it's okay to hurt other people. As others in this post have pointed out, that is valuing the strong over the weak in those cultures. Accepting abusive parenting as a part of a culture is basically a "fuck you" to children of those cultures, who probably never consented to being treated that way.
The "harm principle" and the "golden rule" should be universal concepts that we accept, that each individual are entitled to basic fundamental human rights.
I'll start this out by saying that I very strongly disagree with the idea of normative moral relativism: the idea that we should accept the cultural mores of another society even if we consider them immoral. I find this wrongheaded for two reasons. The first is that cultural mores are generally set by the dominant groups in society, so moral relativism basically accepts the morality of the strong over the weak. In a society which accepts slavery, do you think the slaves are that keen on the whole thing? The second is that cultures are not fixed in stone. What it considers moral now may be considered repugnant later on. Saying "I guess if you think that way, we have to accept it" removes an impetus for positive change. If that makes me a cultural imperialist, well, so be it.
As for assimilation vs. multiculturalism. I think you need a bit of both. Immigrants to the US must come to see themselves as American. I'd rather the US not become like Europe, where immigrants segregate themselves into ethnic ghettos and do not assimilate into the national culture, even after several generations. But I don't think that's what is happening here in the US. Every study I've read on recent waves of immigrants (Asian and Latin American) show that they are assimilating quite well.
I think that there should be a set of rules that are universally agreed upon, such that no behavior which violates those rules can be justified as part of a culture. If a culture indeed condones those behaviors, then that part of the culture needs to go away. But within those rules, multiculturalism should be able to exist, in moderation - there should be an effort to learn the language, to get outside of ethnic enclaves and ghettos, and to integrate yourself within wider society. Just because you come from a different culture doesn't mean that you can't adopt the attitudes of the predominant one of the country you're in and prioritize it.
I happen to agree with Teddy Roosevelt, when he said in 1915 on immigration:
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all…The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic…There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."
It is at the same time both an endorsement of the value of immigration, but also the value of those same immigrants assimilating into American society. Again, do I think that immigrants should abandon their customs? No, but I do think that those immigrants should also adopt the customs of their host countries, and show some loyalty to their host country.
I agree that the vast majority of US immigrants assimilate very well. But somehow, there is a perception that they do not, at least Latin American ones. I'll illustrate some of the possible reasons:
One of the things that have always bugged me is in rallies supporting the rights of the children of illegal immigrants and birthright citizenship, Mexican (or other Latin American) flags are often flown. That, to me, is poor public relations and demonstrates a lack of loyalty - if you want the general public to sympathize with your (very legitimate) cause, you need to show that you see yourself as an American and that you would feel honored to stay in this country. They should be showing American flags only, especially if they want support and sympathy for their cause.
There is also the issue of "not learning English". I don't know what percentage of recent Latin American immigrants are competent at English, but it's perceived to be lower than that of earlier European immigrants.
I agree that the problem in Europe is much worse, and I fear that the right-wing nationalists will be able to take advantage of it for electoral gain.
Yeah, I agree. Superficial aspects of culture like language, food, etc. are fine to keep, and we should in fact celebrate such diversity. America would be a much more boring place if it wasn't a mixing pot of different cultures. But I think many aspects of American moral and political culture, especially its focus on the rights of the individual, are important to maintain.
As for assimilation or the perceived lack of it. A lot of that is due to those groups thought of as "not assimilating" being composed mostly of recent immigrants. First-generation immigrants, especially older ones, have always had more trouble assimilating. It is difficult to learn a new language and adapt to new cultural mores once you are past your more formative years. People forget that recent European immigrants had these same issues a century or two ago. You really have to look at their children, the second-generation immigrants, and see how they are assimilating. The following Pew report has some data on that.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/
Within each immigrant group, second-generation Americans have better indicators for educational attainment, income, and English language proficiency compared to their parents.
I say this a lot, but it's a two-way street. I also think it's worth mentioning that it's not as bad as it seems. The loudest voices get the most attention because it's sensational, but that doesn't make them a majority, or even a huge problem.
North Dakota is not known for diversity and is stereotyped as Bible-thumping redneck racists, guns and religion blah blah blah, but that's far from the truth. There are very few religious fundamentalists. The people that collect guns are hunters, and they eat what they kill. The one or two black families in town weren't rejected or made victims of racism at all. In school, those kids were among the most popular.
However, it would be an entirely different story if they brought stereotypical "thug" culture, or anything else seen as negative by the community, and then refused to the adapt to the environment. There are negatives in every culture and it takes a good faith effort from everyone to say, "I'm not that different from you" to start those conversations.
True, but their political and cultural views, if they voted for Trump, are formed with the assumption that most blacks are part of the inner-city "thug culture". They may be (on the surface, at least) friendly with the blacks they know, but they often see them as exceptions as opposed to the rule.
It's basically the "I have black friends" justification when it comes to them - it means that they are willing to make exceptions, but it does not mean that they do not hold negative stereotypes of blacks or Hispanics in general.
I would contend that most people in traditionally Republican states held their noses, voted party lines and weren't motivated at all by what he was saying. They're anti-Democrat, especially anti-Clinton, and shouldn't be automatically stereotyped as racist, xenophobic, etc.
In fact, one conversation with a Trump voter went like this:
Him: "Clinton is a power-hungry evil c*nt and you need to vote for Trump."
Me: "Yeah, but Trump is a really bad candidate, I wish the Republicans put up someone better."
Him: "Yeah, he sucks, but he's better than that evil bitch."
Of course, but this just means that they didn't value their minority friends when it came to the hard choice of voting party line for a racist vs. voting for someone else. They tolerated Trump's racism and xenophobia because of party loyalty which supersedes concern for their friends' welfare. I'm sure many did it to oppose Democrats and Clinton in particular as the primary reason, but given that people who vote for Trump tend to have extremely high levels of racial resentment and (for males) gender-related resentment, it's not implausible to say that prejudice at the macro level (as opposed to the individual level) enabled them to look past Trump's transgressions ("he's sorta got a point") instead of instantly deeming Trump as unacceptable. One need not show prejudice towards people in their lives to demonstrate prejudice when talking about a group in general.
Also, one need not be a Trump supporter to have the attitude of "my black friends are ok but blacks in general are criminals". It's pretty common in very ethnically homogenous areas, and not that uncommon even among other minority groups.
I think that overestimates how closely people paid attention, and overgeneralizes the values of large groups of people. I think it's likely that you and I read and watch almost everything we could because we are overly concerned about these things ... but that is far from the norm. Most people are driven by their day-to-day and don't give these things much thought. Life in rural America is also more difficult, increasingly so, than life in a metropolitan city, so they are even more driven by day-to-day. People make judgments from one minute segments on the news that panders to the lowest common denominator. People are not getting the information they need to make informed decisions, and there's not enough time to do the research themselves because daily life presents too many problems. There's a big difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. Most do not choose the latter.
I would argue that instead of first looking to the ideological aspects of multiculturalism in immigrants, it would be helpful to take a look at real world scenarios.
Research points to the fact that full biculturalism does in fact exist. A 2006 study conducted on Asian and Mexican American college students found that both groups of students strongly identified with both their heritage and social cultures. Besides that, it also asserts that the projection of a bicultural identity is implicit, and not something learned or forced. Multiple studies conducted on the psychological status of bicultural individuals determined that psychological distress can be caused by cognitive dissonance relating to conflicting cultural interests or views. One of the key factors in reducing bicultural dissonance and a "full" acceptance of bicultural identity was the ability to communicate.
Then of course, there is the issue of personal freedoms, and what constitutes fascism. I'm going to go ahead and assume that most of the posters here would agree that fascism isn't a good thing and move forward with that assumption. What is illegal and what is not is arguably the extent to which government should intervene in morality, be it social or otherwise. Therefore, the conversation of moral relativism is irrelevant in the discussion of immigration and assimilationism. If an immigrant can follow the law and contribute to a society, there is nothing inherent in his/her identity that should draw others to determine that he/she is a "bad immigrant". The expectations of an immigrant's responsibility to the country and culture which he/she joins is simply that.
What we can determine from these points, is that regardless of our own views on multiculturalism or assimilation, "cultural classes" or the like, will never play a large role in the adoption of mainstay cultures in immigrants. That isn't to say they are valueless. They may help new residents better understand the social norms and values that surround them, however a forced attendance of these classes would in fact be a manifestation of fascist ideals. If you couldn't pull a "dissenting" (culturally incompatible) natural-born citizen into one of these classes without raising moral flags, then the same should be said about immigrants.
Social equality is a great cultural development in Western countries. However, saying that immigrants are required to share the majority belief before being allowed into the country is to say that there are a set of government-mandated beliefs and values, rather than a set of laws in place to protect life, liberty and property. There is no way to control for this, either way. People could lie to get approved, it certainly wouldn't be the first time "gaming the system" is used for personal gain. We have laws in place to prevent them from acting on beliefs that would negatively impact the people around them. Sexually harassing your female coworkers? Deported. Spray painting the houses of gay couples? Deported. Thinking but not acting on these feelings? Something that we cannot and should not control.
Thus what we should expect from immigrants is this:
Shared cultural values will develop naturally from these conditions. It is important to note that this is strictly in the view of regularly occurring immigration and not extreme scenarios such as refugee immigration and the like.