Definitions of Multiculturalism

[Lutiferre]

I was inspired by this discussion to examine the various differing definitions of the term multiculturalism (and multicultural), that people may have here.

Its a prevalent assumption, that "nationalism" and "multiculturalism" are two opposing forces - two opposing ideologies, that are eternally incompatible and directly opposed. While for the most part, I would agree, then I only agree based on a number of presumptions.

Nationalism and multiculturalism are both, in themselves, generic terms, that can be used to refer to a wide range of ideas and states, which can lead to exceptions from this incompatibility, depending on the definitions applied. It is a semantic, and not an ideological question before anything else.

If one person uses a lax definition of nationalism as any belief that centers around the importance of the nation, and the other person, or the same person, has a lax definition of multiculturalism, as any belief or state (as in current way things are) that concerns or involves multiple "cultural(ism)" components/parts or "cultures", then the two would not necessarily conflict.

Most, if not all nations of Europe, are in some way the product of what we can call multiculturalism. Most, if not all cultures of Europe, are derived from multiple cultures, or cultural components. Most, if not all peoples, are also derived from multiple peoples or components. In this aspect, most if not all European countries are multicultural (generic), even in themselves.

Another such paradox to a contradiction between nationalism (generic) and multiculturalism (generic), is the fact that a large proportion of people that consider themselves/are "nationalist", would willingly accept (limited) immigration by a people outside their respective nation, from within Europe (here). This again, in the terms generic/non-specified form, is a form of multiculturalism.

But it is not against the more prevalent ways, in which multiculturalism is defined. It is not against the reality of interactions within one cultural context/zone - it is not against "multiculturalism", in this respect.

Which leads us to the following. We can conclude that the way multiculturalism is typically (popularly) defined, both here on Stirpes, and elsewhere, is as such:

(NOTE: this is not how I define it, or the generic definition, but one that is often used, by both people in general, and people here on Stirpes)

As a quality/aspect/state of a society (multicultural): a culturally plural society or entity, with significant cultural diversity; e.g., containing significant minorities of people in the society from not just a foreign nationality/culture, but from another non-western cultural zone or context, often with a foreign religion (e.g. Islam versus Christianity, Western/European versus non-Western/non-European).

As a political ideology (multiculturalism): advocating and accepting significant or mass immigration of non-western immigrants, refugees, etc, and accepting their culturally pluralizing presence in society.

Whereas the generic definition would be something like this:

Multicultural, multiculturalism - 1, of or relating to the quality/attribute of multiple cultures, such as in plural societies 2, of or relating to the political ideas advocating multiple cultures or cultural components in one context.

I will provide you with a number of vote options, so you can designate what the term means to you, in relation to how you define your political ideas.

[M.R.]

I agree only with this one

3.2 I define any form/extent of "inter-continental" multiculturalism, between different cultural areas/zones as opposed to nationalism, no matter how limited. Therefore I oppose it.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by M.R.

I agree only with this one

3.2 I define any form/extent of "inter-continental" multiculturalism, between different cultural areas/zones as opposed to nationalism, no matter how limited. Therefore I oppose it.

I am interested to what reasoning you have for agreeing with that option, or disagreeing with others?

It surprises me that not more are participating. I would say this debate is fundamental to nationalism.

[M.R.]

It's simply the definition I agree with. I agree with the last point in the poll too, but it's not a defnition of multiculturalism. Later maybe I can explain every single other definition and why I don't agree with them.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by M.R.

I agree with the last point in the poll too, but it's not a defnition of multiculturalism.

No, you are right about that. I added it specifically so people could be able to define which ideas they believe in, in relation to how they define multiculturalism.

The opposition to multiculturalism is viewed as imperative and fundamental to nationalism here on Stirpes and many other nationalist communities. So the point with me providing options that are rather political here, is to establish what it is people are opposing, when they say they oppose "multiculturalism". To establish what they are saying means, instead of just throwing around with a few isms.

Well, I hope more people will join the discussion - I urge anyone that is interested to come and state their opinion.

[Gnist]

It's a curse word to me, not a philosophical term with a definite meaning. Those who use it in a serious sense are usually traitors, and by that, I don't mean to imply that any of you who took it seriously right here are traitors, it only means that I'm surprised at what I see here.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Gnist

It's a curse word to me, not a philosophical term with a definite meaning. Those who use it in a serious sense are usually traitors, and by that, I don't mean to imply that any of you who took it seriously right here are traitors, it only means that I'm surprised at what I see here.

Many define their nationalism as being directly opposed to multiculturalism. Many nationalists believe a culturally plural society is negative, as it leads to conflicts, destruction of cultures and national identities, among other things. Ive heard many different versions of such argumentation. I find therefore, that it is important to define the exact cultural questions that are involved in the matter of nationalism versus multiculturalism.

Just the last few days, I've seen the word multiculturalism used many times. However, no one seems to define it. So instead of using a vague term, that is only defined as being opposed to nationalism, and involving multiple cultures, I feel we should express in exact what is meant when it is said. Because the quantitative aspect of the cultural question can be defined in many ways.

An example is that many people would consider WN as a form of multiculturalism, whereas WNs likely wouldnt. WNs use the term multiculturalism as a curse word, for "whatever society the leftists advocate" just as much as other nationalists, such as ones on Stirpes. However, the same thing is not meant when it is said.

[wilpuri]

Multiculturalism - the advocation of an ethno-culturally pluralistic societiy.

Multicultural society - A society or collection of societies with several different ethno-cultural groups, which in accordance to multiculturalism would have their cultures recognized and incorporated into the social order (for example special tribunals for religious matters).

Melting pot/Globalist wet dream - the intermingling of individuals of different backgrounds, who all share the same social and individual goals (for example Americanism and the American dream). This, although often equated with multiculturalism, is decidedly different from multiculturalism in that it does not give ethnic and cultural identity any more value than as a starting point towards a ethnically and culturally neutral society, i.e. a society where ethnicity does not matter/exist.

For me, the most dangerous is the melting pot, and most 'multiculturalists' among the liberals are in fact globalist individualists, and favour non-ethnic identities, which understandably become extremely vague. They favour identities based on social contracts (what is says on your passport) rather than emotional commitment (love for your people). Multiculturalists on the other hand have far more in common with us. They recognize collectives as well as individuals, but of course they are usually ethno-masochists and never treat their own ethnicity as an ethnic group but as a neutral host that must pay the costs of supporting a multicultural society. They have been indoctrinated into believing that ethnicity does not exist, and thus they don't treat their own as one, but once they see the 'rich' and decidedly different customs and traditions of other, exotic groups, they fall in love with them and secretly wish they could feel such senitments of community.

I am an ethno-pluralist on the global level but on the local level I am an ethnic separatist.