Is Multiculturalism destructive to indigenous cultures?

Question

Why not? Why so?

Keywords: convincing, not dogmatic, awareness of rival arguments, clear articulation of the thought process behind your position so I can evaluate, compare and weigh it up easily.

Answer 1

Multiculturalism has 'never ever' worked in any country that has 'forced' its indigenous peoples to accept it.

Even western governments/politicians 'now admit' it was a failure policy.

If people want to see 'other cultures' - they can go on holiday and see for themselves....no need to force it on the peoples of a country who (for the most part) didn't vote for it - and didn't want in the first place.!!

Nothing wrong in indigenous peoples wanting there own cultures etc - they seeing 3rd world/stone-age cultures totally foreign to them and their own country.

All MC has ever done is 'breed resentment' and hostilities etc because of the influx of allowed (political) mass immigration - they bringing with them all the troubles of there homeland political and social - and making where 'they land' into homeland conclaves with absolutely 'no allegiance' to the host country that gets 'lumbered with them' forced on the indigenous peoples by 'our own' politicians.

The costing to the UK taxpayers (benefit system) for this 'stupid idea' has gone 'off the financial scale' (billions) over the year - with little or no effort/return from immigration who have/do 'breed' beyond any sensible thinking - they knowing the taxpayers will fund there tribes of families etc....for their lifetime and beyond!!

There has 'not been' any % gain from MC - all its done is 'bankrupt' the countries who were 'forced' to accept it....the immigrants seeing their host countries as .....the land of 'milk and honey' - because 99% of immgration offers nothing.....but trouble.!!

In the UK - even the 'new born offspring' are only UK passport holders - none has any interest/allegience to the UK....as is being proved all the time by 'them' denouncing all the time what the UK stands for.

Answer 2

Destructive is an ambiguous word. There is a fine line to be drawn between, within and to what extent each party relates to word like "destructive". Personally, I think those that wish to be left alone, should be left alone. On the flip-side is a well developed culture finding itself engulfed by multicultural elements. If you are talking about the USA, the indigenous culture has been all but stamped out and what is left has been corralled. It is sad.

Answer 3

Depends on if the Multicultural society preys on the indigenous one in a active or passive manner.

A Active example would be one society trying to eradicate a indigenous one so it could take it's resources: http://www.wce.wwu.edu/nwche/genocide/indonesia.shtml

A Passive example would be the multicultural society, in proximity to the indigenous one, cause the migration of people and resources to the multicultural one if the standard of living there is better? That is what the US did for many years with other countries, especially European ones: siphoning off some of the best and brightest people.

In the passive example, there is no reason a smaller indigenous culture population, freed of people who were not big believers in the indigenous culture to big with, can't go on living in their indigenous way.

Answer 4

Seemingly not, as most of the minority cultures present in the former colonies and now imported to the old imperial nations are flourishing (if you doubt it, not only London but Paris and Amsterdam.) Anyone for Couscous Royale? Prefer Lamb Biriani myself.

If you mean the cultures of the European nations, they look to be flourishing too, although they are under very serious attack by American cultural imperialism on British (and French, and Netherlands, and others that never were imperial powers) language, politics, economics, aesthetics, food, music, literature etc, and this is a much graver threat to Britishness than an invitation to the neighbours' Diwali party, or the other side of the coin, my onetime British Asian PA, who now dances in an English Morris side.

Rule Britannia
Marmalade and Jam
Three Chinese crackers up your @rsehole
Bang, Bang, Bang!

Answer 5

Yep, trust me I'm from a multicultural area and it's hostile and cultureless. Not to mention the fact that patriots are demonized by the hypocritically named 'anti-fascists'.

Answer 6

Of course it is. All it is is genocide that enriches the corporate elite whose wallets fatten off their labor at the expense of the lower and middle classes. It's more than cultural suicide, it's *ethnic* suicide. It's disgusting and needs to be reversed. All non-Europeans need to be evicted from Europe. Support the movement. Have as many kids as you can, spread awareness, vote for politicians who will end this crap.

Answer 7

celebrating different cultures is what makes life vibrant and exciting! what fun would life be if the only holidays we ever celebrated were the ones from Great Britain or Ireland? I love Cinco de Mayo!

Answer 8

Haha, yo. Ever wonder why we don't see any more Native Americans? Multiculturalism. So if you want to kick anyone out, kick out the non-natives. I'll see you guys on the boat to Europe.

Answer 9

According to the government you aren't a native and don't hold any rights or ancestral property. So in their view you are no different to a foreigner, pretty sickening really. This was passed without even flinch from any MP's, or the media.
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/610

For decades now we British have been told that we are mongrels, the descendants of invaders such as the Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes. However there is both new and old evidence that has been challenging these unenlightened views, still favoured by the leftist media.

Some people go as far to say that the original inhabitants of these Isles were wiped out by the Celtic people, however this is part of a long term misunderstanding that the Celts arrived as invaders, when in fact there is no evidence that this was the case in terms of conflict, genealogy or otherwise; In fact the only influence of the Celts was the culture (Hallstatt, La Tene), most likely brought over for agricultural reasons. Caesar noted that some Gauls south of the Seinne called themselves Celts, and today in areas like Normandy there are more frequent Celtic place names than anywhere else, so it is easy to see how easily the culture could have spread to the British Isles. ''The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of south-western Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.... There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.''
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/1...
The myth that Anglo-Saxons ethnically cleansed England still persists today, and is far from reality, fuelled by tales by Dark Age clerical historians such as Gildas, who sprinkles his tale with “rivers of blood” descriptions of Saxon massacres. Anglo-Saxons were usually hired as mercenaries by British warlords seeking protection, however as they realised they were stronger than their employers, they soon turned on them; figures that the Anglo-Saxon invasions began in the fourth century A.D. added about 250,000 people to the British population of one to two million (an estimate that is considerably larger than others), but is considerably less than the substantial replacement of the English population assumed by those who would support the myth. The Norman invasion of 1066 brought not many more than 10,000 people, who as any historian should be able to tell you replaced our rulers and nobility, not our general population.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/scienc...
In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters. "There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," Miles said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/…
So what does the future hold for the indigenous British? Considering that the alarming immigration rate is not slowing we may very well see our genetic makeup fundamentally changed by the tide of non-Europeans entering our lands. Our government cannot be trusted to hold the British people above others, they themselves not recognising the British people as indigenous. Dark times are ahead of Britain, and her people, unless the patriots of this land unite behind one banner it is set to continue.
http://rikstir.blog.co.uk/2011/09/27/the…

Answer 10

Multiculturalism creates ghettoes or enclaves where the indiginous authorities are unwelcome - unless they're bearing gifts.
Frankly,if you are unwilling to participate in our language and our culture,you should f**k off.