Migrant assimilation programs in Europe have failed
[ad_1]
The policy of widespread multiculturalism turned out to be wrong
Each outbreak of violence based on cultural differences gives rise to another wave of discussion about the “failure of the policy of multiculturalism.” Terrorist attacks in Europe, pogroms in the United States, war in the Middle East – it seems as if each such event nullifies all efforts to “accept your neighbor” and confirms the need to abandon the idea of tolerance. But how possible is this?
First, let’s remember that the term “multiculturalism” originally appeared in Canada in the 60s. XX century, and in 1971 it was proclaimed official state policy with the slogan “One nation – two languages - many cultures.” Initially, this came down to the recognition of French as a state language on an equal basis with English and recognition of the rights of the French-speaking population. However, during the discussion, the question was raised about the contribution of Aboriginal people to the history and development of the country, as a result of which a political decision was made not to reduce the concept of “Canadian culture” and “Canadian nation” only to the descendants of English-speaking and French-speaking immigrants, but to extend it to all peoples and cultures, living in this territory. The uniqueness of Canada lies in the fact that neither English nor French migrants could claim superiority over others, as a result of which multiculturalism for the country turned out to be an organic answer to the question of what to put at the forefront of state ideology. It is not surprising that one of the founders of the theory of multiculturalism, Will Kymlicka, is a Canadian political philosopher.
The benefits of multiculturalism were widely used in the United States, although the birth of the American nation was accompanied by a greater number of “birth traumas” than the Canadian one: the genocide of Aboriginal people, slavery, and the civil war. Initially, the immigration state could not form its own nation otherwise than taking into account the characteristics of the peoples and cultures that created this nation. At the same time, the United States followed the “melting pot” policy, until the 60s of the last century, rigidly assimilating European migrants, while discriminating against Indians, Africans and Latin Americans. To equalize the situation, “positive discrimination” subsequently began to be practiced in the country, but uneven policies towards different ethnic groups still manifest themselves in the form of negative consequences. Something similar to the American one was the policy of Australia, a country that was also created by immigrants and also mixed European migrants in a “melting pot” until the 70s, and then tried to neutralize the consequences of such a strategy by adopting the concept of multiculturalism. This is how Australia differs from America, which at the state level continues to follow the idea of one political nation, limiting itself only to individual actions in support of multiculturalism (the above-mentioned “positive discrimination” – preferences when applying for study/work for minorities).
But most of all they talk about the “collapse of multiculturalism” when assessing the situation in Western European countries. Here, more or less culturally homogeneous nations emerged before massive migrant flows, unlike Canada, Australia and the USA. At the same time, European governments could not ignore these flows, and their complete assimilation was considered practically impossible. Unlike North American countries and the Australian mainland, multiculturalism for Western European countries has become not a natural development of the originally existing migrant policy, but an “emergency measure” to resolve pressing issues. At the same time, the policies of different European countries regarding migrants differed. France, for example, from the very beginning had a negative attitude towards the idea of multiculturalism, trying to assimilate migrants as much as possible and erase their national, cultural and religious identity. In Germany, multiculturalism was understood as the coexistence of different cultures without mutual penetration, and initially (in the 70s and 80s) migration policy boiled down to the expectation that immigrants who arrived would soon return to their countries. The first law on immigration was adopted in Germany only in 2001, when the descendants of those migrants who were expected to leave twenty years ago were already living in the country a long time ago, and until then it was desirable to protect them as much as possible from German society .
Great Britain faced a problem similar to the French one, which harshly sought to assimilate migrants and received no less harsh rebuff from them. Understanding the impossibility of introducing a multinational community to the ideal of “traditional English values” led the authorities to embark on an equally strict multicultural policy. Such a sharp change in sentiment led to the fact that the titular nations (the British, Scots, Irish and Welsh) sought to distance themselves from migrants, who, in turn, “took revenge” for many years of discrimination.
As we see, the crisis of European multiculturalism was not caused by the special “problematic” nature of migrants of a particular nationality or religion, but by initial political mistakes regarding their integration. Severe discriminatory policies led to the closure of the discriminated community on itself, a feeling of rejection and alienation of its members and, as a result, further radicalization. “Turkish schools” in Germany and the ban on wearing hijabs in French schools taught immigrant children to think about their negative “otherness” and their rejection by German and French society. The policy of European multiculturalism has been criticized for ignoring the problems of national minorities, for leaving them to their own devices, or for harshly suppressing their national and religious identities. Indifference and repression cannot give rise to anything other than national resentment among a large group of the population, which is considered citizens of a particular country only on formal grounds, without being in any way included in its socio-political life.
And here we come to the answer to the question of what needs to be done to implement a competent policy of multiculturalism. The first and most important rule is respect for all cultures and religions, including the culture and religion of the titular nation. “Your freedom ends where the freedom of another begins” is a universal rule that allows you to take into account the interests of all people coexisting in the same territory. However, the second, no less important rule is the recognition of the need for a policy of multiculturalism. Not a single large country in the world can now call itself absolutely monoethnic and monocultural; and no matter how much globalization is criticized, it is already a fait accompli (in the information space this is true). Such recognition requires state leaders to take greater responsibility to the citizens of their country not only for the economic policy that is being pursued, which does not allow the segregation of people in ghettos, but also for cultural policy. At the same time, declaring such a policy in the absence of real steps towards its implementation threatens with serious consequences that must be remembered. A sense of national humiliation, and even more so an insulted religious feeling, is a powerful fuel for large-scale and bloody revenge on the part of groups that were once ignored and not accepted with their original identity. Both citizens and leaders of our country, as a historically multinational, multi-religious and multicultural country, always need to remember this.
Newspaper headline:
“Friend or foe” and the policy of multiculturalism
[ad_2]
Source link
