So, what are the benefits of a multicultural society?

[ioannis76]

Coming from a society which until relatively recently (early nineties) was a single culture society, I would like to ask people who have lived in multicultural societies longer than I have what positive things I can expect from our new multicultural society.
So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks. This violent crime has many times taken extreme forms (ie, invading old people's houses and killing them just to get a sum of 100 euros), or organized, large scale racist crime such as mass harassment on women in New Year's Eve festivities, similar to that seen in Cologne.
But, I am sure that the multicultural society has many positive aspects, and despite all those thousands of isolated incidents, we are sure to reap those fruits of the multikulti tree.

So, what are the positive sides? Please enlighten me.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Less old people I guess? That helps to ensure that there aren't that many old people putting pressure on the social system.
And Higher Pregnancy rate because of rapes, this will ensure that there are more young people to take care of the decreasing number of elders.

Damn The system works!

[removeduser_487563287433]

Coming from a society which until relatively recently (early nineties) was a single culture society, I would like to ask people who have lived in multicultural societies longer than I have what positive things I can expect from our new multicultural society.
So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks.

Please source this.

[Himster]

Coming from a society which until relatively recently (early nineties) was a single culture society, I would like to ask people who have lived in multicultural societies longer than I have what positive things I can expect from our new multicultural society.
So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks. This violent crime has many times taken extreme forms (ie, invading old people's houses and killing them just to get a sum of 100 euros), or organized, large scale racist crime such as mass harassment on women in New Year's Eve festivities, similar to that seen in Cologne.
But, I am sure that the multicultural society has many positive aspects, and despite all those thousands of isolated incidents, we are sure to reap those fruits of the multikulti tree.

So, what are the positive sides? Please enlighten me.

-Well number one is the economic benefit of having a caste of people willing to do the jobs the natives are less than willing to do. This is a necessity for developed and educated modern societies where birth-rates go down (because educated people obviously have fewer children) and those fewer children are better educated and feel entitled to a better job than McDonalds or binman or whatever. So that's the number one most important benefit.
-A wider variety of culinary styles will be injected into the culture as a whole (that's my favorite).
-Increased genetic diversity in the population reduces the chances of congenital diseases and other side effects that naturally result from the inherently incestual nature of an isolated nation-state.
-Cultural crossover: where one has the opportunity to learn about other cultures and perspectives and gain an understanding of human nature that is necessarily more accurate. Naturally this takes time to take effect on the society as a whole. But it is overall a massive shift and benefit in the collective human psyche.
-You can make fun of their silly accents.
-You can look down on them.
-You can hire them to do work for you.
-You could kidnap your drunk friend and hire a bunch of immigrants from the same country to pretend to be in their home country so that when your friend wakes up he'll think he's been taken to another country and is being ransomed and he'll pee his pants and stuff, it'd be hilarious.
-Multiculturalism is becoming more and more important for tourism: people go to London for instance to eat the best curry in the world. New York, I don't need to explain that one, just: New York, the whole thing, everything about it.
-You could use the discontent surrounding immigration and "enemy" alien as a means of gaining political power, like Hitler. That'd just be a benefit for you, not so much for your country or the countries who'd obviously declare war on your country.
-The world is becoming multicultural, one must compete by the standards of the day. The most successful countries in the world are also very multicultural (I'm not saying there's necessarily a causal link), it's clear that to show off the prestige of your nation one must embrace multiculturalism: if it's nothing else, multiculturalism is at least a symbol of prestige.
-People will be better looking thanks to less incest.

The increased crime rates are marginal at best and more importantly: temporary. Assimilation takes time, but everyone is better off as a consequence.
The media will only play on its two extremes: the right will insist that the brown people are raping and murdering at a rate of a billion times the number of the population, while the left will assert that these poor innocent people of color are being set upon unfairly by racists and Neo-Nazis, immigrants have never even hurt a fly, ever and like that. It's plain old partisanship that has utterly and irredeemably infected popular media.

[Muizer]

Coming from a society which until relatively recently (early nineties) was a single culture society, I would like to ask people who have lived in multicultural societies longer than I have what positive things I can expect from our new multicultural society.
So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks. This violent crime has many times taken extreme forms (ie, invading old people's houses and killing them just to get a sum of 100 euros), or organized, large scale racist crime such as mass harassment on women in New Year's Eve festivities, similar to that seen in Cologne.
But, I am sure that the multicultural society has many positive aspects, and despite all those thousands of isolated incidents, we are sure to reap those fruits of the multikulti tree.

So, what are the positive sides? Please enlighten me.

There's not much positive to mention. Not the issue though. Migration is pretty much a force of nature. You can't stop it. The only relevant question is how to mitigate the impact.

[ioannis76]

Interesting points.

There's not much positive to mention. Not the issue though. Migration is pretty much a force of nature. You can't stop it. The only relevant question is how to mitigate the impact.

Israel managed it, and it's right in the thick of it (due to geographic location). Why can't the west, that has seas and hundreds (at least) of mile separating it from the source countries?
Sometimes things are as simple as building a wall. Walls have protected populations for thousands of years.

number one is the economic benefit of having a caste of people willing to do the jobs the natives are less than willing to do.

Yet many people will argue that those "immigrants" are bleeding the health/social system by living off benefits.

This is a necessity for developed and educated modern societies where birth-rates go down (because educated people obviously have fewer children)

Huge point you make here. Do they make fewer children or are they encouraged to do so? We could talk about feminism and cultural marxism here, and their impact on complicating human relations, as well as the difficulty of getting a solid job (and thus starting a family) in modern western societies.

those fewer children are better educated and feel entitled to a better job than McDonalds or binman or whatever

Another huge point, the "special snowflake" children of the West. But this too can change. Why not harden the western natives?

ncreased genetic diversity in the population reduces the chances of congenital diseases and other side effects that naturally result from the inherently incestual nature of an isolated nation-state.

I have to question that. Swedish people for example were isolated, and still they produced some of the most beautiful individuals anywhere. Uniformly light coloured and blonde (which one might claim to be boring), but still I doubt they needed to introduce anything more to the gene pool.

where one has the opportunity to learn about other cultures and perspectives and gain an understanding of human nature that is necessarily more accurate.

It depends. If your culture is compatible to the culture you are introducing then perhaps you are right. But if you are introducing a backward culture that is completely alien to any western values (freedom of speech, women's rights, etc) then what will ensue will be violence, and a continuous war as said backward, I would go so far as to say purely evil culture will attempt to eradicate the culture in which it is introduced.

-You can make fun of their silly accents.
-You can look down on them.

but then SJWs will label you racist.

Multiculturalism is becoming more and more important for tourism: people go to London for instance to eat the best curry in the world. New York, I don't need to explain that one, just: New York, the whole thing, everything about it.

lol, they would just go to London to eat good fish and chips. It's funny, because Britain has no real cuisine to speak of, but I do believe that individuals would not really go to Britain to get good food.
Plus, risk of being a victim of crime/terrorism would deter more tourists than food would attract, I think.

The most successful countries in the world are also very multicultural (I'm not saying there's necessarily a causal link)

I accept your clarification about the causal link, because I was about to point out that many of them became successful long before they became multicultural.

[Love Mountain]

So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks. This violent crime has many times taken extreme forms (ie, invading old people's houses and killing them just to get a sum of 100 euros), or organized, large scale racist crime such as mass harassment on women in New Year's Eve festivities, similar to that seen in Cologne.

That's not an effect of a multicultural society. That's an effect of crime. Something that happens in all societies.

[Himster]

Yet many people will argue that those "immigrants" are bleeding the health/social system by living off benefits.
Huge point you make here. Do they make fewer children or are they encouraged to do so? We could talk about feminism and cultural marxism here, and their impact on complicating human relations, as well as the difficulty of getting a solid job (and thus starting a family) in modern western societies.
Another huge point, the "special snowflake" children of the West. But this too can change. Why not harden the western natives?
I have to question that. Swedish people for example were isolated, and still they produced some of the most beautiful individuals anywhere. Uniformly light coloured and blonde (which one might claim to be boring), but still I doubt they needed to introduce anything more to the gene pool.
It depends. If your culture is compatible to the culture you are introducing then perhaps you are right. But if you are introducing a backward culture that is completely alien to any western values (freedom of speech, women's rights, etc) then what will ensue will be violence, and a continuous war as said backward, I would go so far as to say purely evil culture will attempt to eradicate the culture in which it is introduced.
but then SJWs will label you racist.
lol, they would just go to London to eat good fish and chips. It's funny, because Britain has no real cuisine to speak of, but I do believe that individuals would not really go to Britain to get good food.
Plus, risk of being a victim of crime/terrorism would deter more tourists than food would attract, I think.
I accept your clarification about the causal link, because I was about to point out that many of them became successful long before they became multicultural.

Yeah, people "argue" that immigrants drain the economy by being on welfare and taking advantage of the healthcare system. But those same people typically argue that vaccines cause autism. Their arguments almost always fall apart under even the slightest scrutiny. It is usually unfairly difficult for even the hardest working immigrants getting their due welfare: I mean people who have paid their appropriate taxes that qualify one for benefits. As far as the scrutiny I have applied that seems to be a bigger issue. For the individuals taking advantage of the system that tends to be members of a particular class of native people. But I've been told that I shouldn't talk down to plebs so much, so I shan't.

Educated people tend to have more pressing passions and endeavors, so the production of children is a lesser concern. This has always been the case I believe, similar sentiments were raised in Plato's Symposium and a number of Cicero's letters (especially after his daughter died). Having said that, there is a certain pressure being of the educated class that one doesn't do that sort of thing (ie. have lots of babies). But I would categorize that as peer pressure, like any other. There is some implicit pressure from teachers and professors, I'm sure, but again that is an extension of their peer group. I wouldn't name that encouragement exactly: it's just the natural way of things. What is different to the classical case is that western society (or at least a huge portion of it) is analogous to the class of masters and aristocrats of ancient times, while foreigners are the hoi-poloi and slaves. In a very very rough sense, but one very evident sense is the effect on birthrates.

(I was mostly joking when I said you can look down on them: only do that if they're short )
Ah yeah, the special snowflakes and SJWs. They'll probably label you as a racist/rapist/sexist/etc. anyway. So why bother restraining yourself? Have a laugh and then laugh at the prissy who get mad and indulge in the nonsense of triggers and virtue signalling. I don't think they're soft or weak at all. I think it's mostly an act, this whole ascendancy of cry-bullying culture has gotten out of hand. I don't think toughening them up could do anything, normal people should just antagonize them and reveal their inherent hypocritical nature for all to see.

Swedish people were never really isolated, they were a far-reaching, raiding and empire building people for a thousand years. Not to mention the Saami natives to their north. The Scandinavian love of kidnapping attractive women is well documented: also look at the women of Ireland and Scotland. Obviously we must have had good looking women at some point, where'd they go? Scandinavia. I have conducted a number of raids into Scandinavian territory to hunt their females, so far my investigations have been inconclusive: further trips are required.

Cultural compatibility: This is a tricky one and I tend to flip-flop on it occasionally.
We are all human, we have the same basic needs. Even the most far flung goat herding savage has the same spark of humanity as anyone else. Like, with Islamic cultures: many of their cultural tenets seem to be utterly repugnant to western values, right? Well, they're still essentially individuals, capable of adaptation and many of them do adapt. Very few seem to adapt quickly, this seems to be true. But I've known quite a few, not just here in Ireland, but in Japan, America, Germany and even France. Although in France, my experiences with Muslims is mostly negative, but to be fair my experiences in Marseilles are always negative. The point is: individuals can almost always adapt with a little bit of time.
Groups on the other hand....... grr, I hate groups: pop-groups, religious groups, dance groups, einsatzgruppen: they're all the same. Tribalistic idiots feeding off of each other's stupidity.

Yeah, fecking Brits. I could rant all day about how terrible the Brits are: However, I'm going to be a good boy. London in particular (I'm not so sure about the other cities, but Edinburgh too) has amazing restaurants, some of the best restaurants in the world. It is the prime destination for true connoisseurs the world over, it has the highest number of Michelin-stars of any city in the world. This is truly a direct consequence of British multiculturalism, which has a far older and (begrudging) respectable history than basically any other country. But Dublin has far superior fish and chips, we specifically ship in Italian families for some reason to make our fish and chips, I have no idea why: but it makes fish and chips here so much better here.

Anyway: terrorism/crime and multiculturalism. Well yeah, there's not a lot we can do about that. They're forces of modernity they can hardly be controlled. But you asked for benefits: many benefits I have listed, the negatives are very apparent, they don't require additional exhortation in any direction.

Okay, I think that's everything.

[TheDarkKnight]

Taco trucks.

But that is an American thing, I guess.

[Iskar]

Coming from a society which until relatively recently (early nineties) was a single culture society, I would like to ask people who have lived in multicultural societies longer than I have what positive things I can expect from our new multicultural society.
So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks. This violent crime has many times taken extreme forms (ie, invading old people's houses and killing them just to get a sum of 100 euros), or organized, large scale racist crime such as mass harassment on women in New Year's Eve festivities, similar to that seen in Cologne.
But, I am sure that the multicultural society has many positive aspects, and despite all those thousands of isolated incidents, we are sure to reap those fruits of the multikulti tree.

So, what are the positive sides? Please enlighten me.

Which societies would you regard as multicultural? A few examples would help to get a clear picture of what you mean when you use that word.

"Culture" is a hazardous word and one should be very clear about what it means. If you use it to refer to a general set of underlying values and norms then most western countries are not multicultural, as they are pretty adamant about their set of values and norms (a.k.a. human rights, secularism, civic liberties, etc.). In that regard they are pretty monocultural.
If you use "culture" to refer to religion, skin colour, food, etc., then I do not see the problem, and all the benefits of "multiculturality" in those aspects have already been laid out quite eloquently above by Himster.

[Copperknickers II]

Coming from a society which until relatively recently (early nineties) was a single culture society, I would like to ask people who have lived in multicultural societies longer than I have what positive things I can expect from our new multicultural society.
So far, what I've seen from our multicultural life is an increase in violent crime, robberies and attacks. This violent crime has many times taken extreme forms (ie, invading old people's houses and killing them just to get a sum of 100 euros), or organized, large scale racist crime such as mass harassment on women in New Year's Eve festivities, similar to that seen in Cologne.
But, I am sure that the multicultural society has many positive aspects, and despite all those thousands of isolated incidents, we are sure to reap those fruits of the multikulti tree.

So, what are the positive sides? Please enlighten me.

1. A multicultural country is a country which is more attractive to foreign workers wanting to move to a country with better opportunities. This attracts the best and brightest from other countries.

2. It balances out the social problems: for example, in the UK, most immigrant communities have much lower rates of alcoholism, family breakdown, obesity, violent crime, claimance of unemployment benefits, and have higher educational attainment.

3. It greatly increases international trade - the UK gets huge amounts of tax income from imports from outside the EU due to our immigrant communities from places like India and Africa.

4. Easily accessible foreigners: if you want to learn nearly any language that any Westerner could ever wish to learn, you need travel no further than London: Swahili, Japanese, Hindi, Turkish, Arabic... you can very easily find native speakers of these languages. I have a personal interest in language learning, but I can imagine that many other people would find some personal interest which coincided with having easily accessible foreigners from a certain country, be it weaboos or Indian food aficionados or investment bankers needing contacts in weird timezones, or setting up an international business of some kind and needing interpreters/translators.

5. It improves the quality of various services. In the UK we have a shortage of nursing and care staff, so immigration fills this gap. It also improves the foodstuffs on offer at shops: the greengrocer is now nearly extinct in the UK outside of multicultural areas, so if you like cooking with fresh fruit/veg and meat/fish, you often will need to go to a minority ethnic area as supermarkets have killed indigenous shops. Many corner shops (for ordinary every day essentials) are owned by Asians, for the same reason. And all manner of other services are propped up and kept alive by immigrants.

6. It's interesting to learn about other cultures, most people don't get the chance to go outside their own continent so it's educational to have people from different places in your neighbourhood. Stops you from getting the wrong idea about things. For example, anyone who actually knows any Muslims knows that 99% of them aren't the demonic world-domination obsessed terror sympathisers they are made out to be, they're just ordinary people like anyone else.


In my experience, violence and rape are socioeconomic problems, they'll happen in any community which is made to feel like dirt and is struggling to survive. We have many 'rough areas' in my city: one of them is 90% populated by immigrants from the third world and has one of the highest rates of burglary and violent muggings in the country. The rest of them are nearly 100% white areas with murder rates to compare with American inner cities. The one thing they all have in common is corruption, lack of services and poverty. Other immigrant areas are some of the safest areas in the country, as are other white and mixed areas.

[ioannis76]

That's not an effect of a multicultural society. That's an effect of crime. Something that happens in all societies.

I am afraid it is. In Greece, before the arrival of Albanian "economic migrants" in the early 90's, people would sleep with their front doors open (I remember it in summers, as a child). Violent crime was virtually unheard of, with, for example a murder or a rape making it in the newspaper front pages for weeks on end (it was THAT rare). With the arrival of those "poor migrants", crime, particularly violent crime, went off the roof. Murder, rape, drug dealing, robberies, you name it. The individuals arrested were almost exclusively of Albanian origin. To this day, most of the organized crime here is carried out by foreigners, particularly from Albania, with "newcomers" (from Morocco, Algeria, Syria, etc) starting to get a piece of the action.

Yeah, people "argue" that immigrants drain the economy by being on welfare and taking advantage of the healthcare system.

Since the whole thing with Syria got started, we have over 60 thousand new muslim "immigrants" here. None of them work (with the exception of some who have been arrested for drug dealing, pickpocketing, etc, if you can call this work.) They live in shelters payed for not by themselves, eat food payed for not by themselves, use heating payed for not by themselves. So I think they use up other people's funds, and not their own.
In other countries, this seems to be the case as well:
http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households

In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.

The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.

At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.

Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.

The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.

Educated people tend to have more pressing passions and endeavors, so the production of children is a lesser concern.

Hm, what you say is interesting. However, I think that muslims just produce children without much caring about how and if they will grow up, in contradistinction to westerners (particularly educated ones). Muslim refugees have been known to reply "we don't care about the babies, we can make more, as long as we as ok" when asked about their children. This is a quote, and it came from an interview with a member of the coast guard (it's on youtube, its in Greek so I cannot bring it here).

cry-bullying culture

Heh, I love the term.

Obviously we must have had good looking women at some point, where'd they go?

You still do, m8. I met many good looking women when I was in Britain. And the best thing was that they were really down-to-earth and approachable.

Like, with Islamic cultures: many of their cultural tenets seem to be utterly repugnant to western values, right? Well, they're still essentially individuals, capable of adaptation and many of them do adapt.

I am not sure about that. In fact, I think that many of the individuals responsible for the most recent terrorist activities and the Cologne attacks had been in Europe for quite some time. They should have adapted but they didn't.
Not sure if muslims are the same as everyone else.

Which societies would you regard as multicultural? A few examples would help to get a clear picture of what you mean when you use that word.

The USA (if multiculturalism is such a good thing, why did the US vote for Trump, who wants to build a wall with Mexico?), Britain (if multiculturalism is beneficial, then why did Britain decide on a more "isolationistic" approach by brexiting?).

1. A multicultural country is a country which is more attractive to foreign workers wanting to move to a country with better opportunities. This attracts the best and brightest from other countries.

Ehm... Immigrants in German schools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6BKXkxvIhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYi5cvsq9U

I think their performance leaves a lot to be desired.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

That's not an effect of a multicultural society. That's an effect of crime. Something that happens in all societies.

Especially multicultural ones, oddly enough.

[Iskar]

Since the whole thing with Syria got started, we have over 60 thousand new muslim "immigrants" here. None of them work (with the exception of some who have been arrested for drug dealing, pickpocketing, etc, if you can call this work.) They live in shelters payed for not by themselves, eat food payed for not by themselves, use heating payed for not by themselves. So I think they use up other people's funds, and not their own.
In other countries, this seems to be the case as well:
http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households

If you are referring to the people coming in as migrants/refugees, then it is quite obvious they do not work: No working permit without residence permit, no residence permit without accepted asylum application, and most of them just got subsidiary support and won't be allowed to stay. They don't work, because they are not allowed to.

Hm, what you say is interesting. However, I think that muslims just produce children without much caring about how and if they will grow up, in contradistinction to westerners (particularly educated ones). Muslim refugees have been known to reply "we don't care about the babies, we can make more, as long as we as ok" when asked about their children. This is a quote, and it came from an interview with a member of the coast guard (it's on youtube, its in Greek so I cannot bring it here).

It is not really sound debating to base such claims on anecdotal evidence and the statements of a single interviewed migrant. If you make such sweeping (and somewhat denigrating) claims you should be able to give more tangible and statistically significant evidence.

I am not sure about that. In fact, I think that many of the individuals responsible for the most recent terrorist activities and the Cologne attacks had been in Europe for quite some time. They should have adapted but they didn't.
Not sure if muslims are the same as everyone else.

There are very strong socio-economic factors at play preventing proper adaptation rather than religion or ethnic background, the latter rather come in as intermediary factors.
Also, good job on throwing our western values over board by questioning the humanity of people based solely on their religion. That is most certainly how we will preserve our precious Western values and occidental culture. Not.

The USA (if multiculturalism is such a good thing, why did the US vote for Trump, who wants to build a wall with Mexico?), Britain (if multiculturalism is beneficial, then why did Britain decide on a more "isolationistic" approach by brexiting?).

The multicultural setup of the US lies way further back at the point that it is built on English, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, German, Russian, Chinese, etc. immigrants over the course of its entire history and I do not see them reneging on that. Britain decided to leave the EU and wants to curb European immigration, while expressing explicit hopes for closer contacts and cooperation with non-European countries such as China or India. If you go by that then the British decision very much contravenes your narrative.
Would you include Germany or France in the category of multicultural societies?

Ehm... Immigrants in German schools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6BKXkxvIhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYi5cvsq9U

I think their performance leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes, two singular youtube videos of dubious provenance. In particular the Rütli case lies about 10 years back and appropriate measures have been taken there. It seems the problem lay more with low socioeconomic status and lack of parental guidance and education rather than with foreign culture or religion in particular.

Especially multicultural ones, oddly enough.

If you make such a claim, it would be beneficial if you gave us
a) a clear definition of what makes a society multicultural in your book and
b) statistical evidence showing that such societies exhibit significantly more crime and violence - with mere socioeconomic factors accounted for.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

C'mon, even the most ardent opponent of immigration couldn't fault the Chinese. What have the Chinese ever done wrong?

The Chinese, a great bunch of lads.

[ioannis76]

here are very strong socio-economic factors at play preventing proper adaptation rather than religion or ethnic background, the latter rather come in as intermediary factors.
Also, good job on throwing our western values over board by questioning the humanity of people based solely on their religion. That is most certainly how we will preserve our precious Western values and occidental culture. Not.

Once again, the "bad" society that prevented proper adaptation/assimilation of the poor muslims.
Strangely enough, people from other (non-muslim) backgrounds managed to fit in, some more quickly than others, to the point where they are almost indistinguishable from indigenous population. For example, Greeks in Australia, managed to fit in. Chinese managed to fit it (I think they managed that pretty much anywher they went). For some reason Turks in Germany never did manage to do so, despite having lived there for some decades, with ghettos forming in various cities.
Do we even have an example of a country where muslim populations were assimilated successfully? I doubt it.

Calling a spade a spade, and detecting a very clear and present threat, while others choose to close their eyes to it, does not, in my humble view consist a lack of preservation of precious western values. Quite the contrary.
Western culture is all about being pragmatic. FACTS point to certain inevitable conclusions. FACTS point to the conclusion that you cannot have democracy AND Islam. They are just incompatible. FACTS point to the conclusion that you cannot have equal rights in both sexes AND Islam. They are just incompatible. Trying to pretend that the facts are not there is not going to make them go away, nor is it going to fix the problem.

[Love Mountain]

I am afraid it is. In Greece, before the arrival of Albanian "economic migrants" in the early 90's, people would sleep with their front doors open (I remember it in summers, as a child). Violent crime was virtually unheard of, with, for example a murder or a rape making it in the newspaper front pages for weeks on end (it was THAT rare). With the arrival of those "poor migrants", crime, particularly violent crime, went off the roof. Murder, rape, drug dealing, robberies, you name it. The individuals arrested were almost exclusively of Albanian origin. To this day, most of the organized crime here is carried out by foreigners, particularly from Albania, with "newcomers" (from Morocco, Algeria, Syria, etc) starting to get a piece of the action.

Are you insinuating that Greece has never experience crime before immigrants? What a ridiculous thing to say. Crime has always existed and always will. Rise in crime can be attributed to many things. Social tension, economic downturn, and political upheaval are all normal. A rise in crime when large inflows of immigrants come into the country is also normal and will eventually even out like it always does.

Multicultural society in USA has been producing literature on the horrors of ethnic crime for decades now, all that haven't come true. Why I still remember justification for not letting Chinamen into the Union. They are inferior culturally, they are exploited physically, and they commit crime when they realize these factors they said.

I love how people think this is all some novel and new phenomena and we don't realize the dangers of immigration. Read about Yellow Peril. Read about the 19th century. Conservatives have always "warned" us about inviting strangers in. All things that have proven to be un-founded and people increasingly divided themselves among class lines rather than racial lines because we all saw through the lies eventually.

[ioannis76]

Are you insinuating that Greece has never experience crime before immigrants?

No. I clarified it back in the post, but I will say it again. I AM saying that there was very little violent crime before that, so much so, that the occasional rape or murder would make it into the headlines for at least one week if not longer. Of course, even one life snuffed out by some psycho, is for me too much. You can imagine, therefore, how much angrier it makes me to see dozens of rapes, murders of innocent, often elderly people etc.

A rise in crime when large inflows of immigrants come into the country is also normal and will eventually even out like it always does.

How can you call the loss of life "normal" or "acceptable"? Why must we let in people who will harm the weaker members of our society?

Conservatives have always "warned" us about inviting strangers in.

Turns out they were right.

All things that have proven to be un-founded and people increasingly divided themselves among class lines rather than racial lines because we all saw through the lies eventually.

Unfounded? Would you tell the relatives of the victims that?

[sumskilz]

I guess it depends on what one means by multicultural, but it always seems like a misunderstanding to refer to the US as an example of a multicultural state, because the multicultural ideal is as new to the US as it is anywhere else. Even when I was a kid, the "melting pot" metaphor was still the predominate self-conception whether on TV or in school, whereas the "salad bowl" metaphor is the one representative of multiculturalism in which each of the constituent parts retain their distinctness rather than being blended into one. The US motto E pluribus unim (Out of many, one) on our coins since the first generation after independence was initially meant as out of many states one nation was formed, but not long after it took on the sense of out of many cultures a new one is formed.

Titus Munson Coan, A New Country 1875:

The fusing process goes on as in a blast-furnace; one generation, a single year even - transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American. Uniform institutions, ideas, language, the influence of the majority, bring us soon to a similar complexion; the individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot.

Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot 1908:

Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.

Which is not to say hyphenated American identities don't exist, but they function much more like sub-cultures subsumed beneath the umbrella American culture. For example, a third generation Chinese-American almost certainly has more in common with Chinese people in China than a non-Chinese American would, but he/she certainly has more in common culturally with other Americans than with Chinese people in China. We're just now starting to see some actual multiculturalism as the view that pressure to integrate is racist starts to gain hold, but that really is a relatively new thing. If you want to talk about a state in recent history that has been multicultural, I think the Ottoman Empire is a much better example. The US has traditionally been multiethnic, not multicultural.

[Copperknickers II]

I guess it depends on what one means by multicultural, but it always seems like a misunderstanding to refer to the US as an example of a multicultural state, because the multicultural ideal is as new to the US as it is anywhere else. Even when I was a kid, the "melting pot" metaphor was still the predominate self-conception whether on TV or in school, whereas the "salad bowl" metaphor is the one representative of multiculturalism in which each of the constituent parts retain their distinctness rather than being blended into one. The US motto E pluribus unim (Out of many, one) on our coins since the first generation after independence was initially meant as out of many states one nation was formed, but not long after it took on the sense of out of many cultures a new one is formed.

Titus Munson Coan, A New Country 1875:



Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot 1908:

Which is not to say hyphenated American identities don't exist, but they function much more like sub-cultures subsumed beneath the umbrella American culture. For example, a third generation Chinese-American almost certainly has more in common with Chinese people in China than a non-Chinese American would, but he/she certainly has more in common culturally with other Americans than with Chinese people in China. We're just now starting to see some actual multiculturalism as the view that pressure to integrate is racist starts to gain hold, but that really is a relatively new thing. If you want to talk about a state in recent history that has been multicultural, I think the Ottoman Empire is a much better example. The US has traditionally been multiethnic, not multicultural.

These would all be very admirable points, Sum, if the OP had not clearly defined his idea of 'multicultural society' as 'having a lot of immigrants'. Besides, the USA did not always integrate all of its communities very well: as in Europe, those communities which had a great plurality of one particular nationality did not integrate well into the rest of society: see most notably the Irish community in Boston, the Italian community in New York, the Chinese community in San Fransisco, etc. I don't really see that the Irish community in Boston integrated any better than the Indian community in England, for example.

If you go to any majority white area of France, Germany or Britain, you'll find they are no different to America: people of non-white origin retain some of their original culture, but not much, and identify as British. I'm a third generation immigrant myself in a majority white area: I eat Asian food and have a lot of Asian artwork and religious imagery in my house and speak a little bit of my ancestral language, but other than that I'm totally lost when I go to India. But I have third generation immigrant friends in London who grew up in non-white areas, and they feel more at home in their ancestral countries than in the UK because they got such a complete cultural and linguistic experience of it and so little of the country they actually live in. But that is really not very common outside of certain parts of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, London and its satellite towns.