Hello,

Please follow the link. I think they are two distinct terms however with some element of overlap.

Regards, W.

Dear Eric,

I think the field of Cultural Geography (sometimes known as slightly different names) should be helpful.

I know this scholar, Prof. Beth Mitchneck, at the University of Arizona, who studies migrations from various perspectives.  She may have literature you can read and cite that makes the distinction you seek.

Here is Beth's web page:

https://geography.arizona.edu/user/beth-mitchneck

BTW, the field of linguistics now favors 'intercultural' over 'multicultural" because the latter makes cultures sound like separate insoluble elements, whereas linguistics teaches us that they blend and overlap, have dynamic and symbiotic relationships.

THANK YOU!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Wilson,

You may like to have a look at the following question and thread of discussion which I initiated some months back:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whither_multiculturalism_How_are_we_to_best_understand_multiculturalism_and_is_it_a_good_or_bad_thing_for_each_multi-ethnic_country

As a general point, it seems to me important to distinguish between the multi-ethnic and/or multi-racial make-up of a given society or country and the policy of multiculturalism. Canada, for instance is an officially multicultural society, giving special status and protection to the French language and Quebec. Belgium is officially multicultural. Again, perhaps Great Britain counts as a multicultural society, given its four geographical and ethnically defined sub-polities. But there are multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies which emphasize integration over distinctness. The U.S. for example has no ethnically defined states.

Also of some importance is to distinguish "multiculturalism" from pluralism. Accepting and even welcoming diversity and pluralism is quite distinct from officially encouraging or financially supporting the internal persistence of distinct cultural groups. Pluralism basically contrasts with the traditional ethnic, monocultural ideal of the nation-state.

H.G. Callaway

Multiculturalism as a process (Europe) vs. multiculturalism as a public policy  - e. g. in Australia https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/a-multicultural-australia/national-agenda-for-a-multicultural-australia/what-is-multiculturalism

and in Canada where it was first adopted officially as a policy in legislation http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp 

The definitions in the latter two are very clear but as usual wrong interpretations abound - multiculturalism as a policy aims to protect equality (meaning that migrants should respect the laws established in the country rather than apply practices which contradict them) and the free choice of self-identification (with this or that community or none of them) rather than multiple mini societies within one country. 

Although the Australian government states that "it plays no part in migrant selection'', I think it is a driver for future migrants because it portrays those countries that have accepted it as friendly to migrants (we may assume that most of those migrants have/will not read the policies and the relevant legislation).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Petrova,

I think you will find that the definitions of "multiculturalism" vary quite a bit. It is a very political and politicized term, the definition of which varies, as do the contrast terms, depending on particular political objectives. This is a matter of playing politics with ethnic and racial differences and conflicts and not to be recommended. When one version gets shot down, then another version will appear.

"Multiculturalism" in Europe was rejected just about everywhere, to be replaced by "pluralism" and greater emphasis on integration. Afterward, multiculturalism  was again conflated with pluralism and reintroduced --to be pushed in some direction or other, presumably. Generally, "multiculturalism" tends to have a good name in the British Commonwealth countries, and this rests on several historical factors, in my estimation. 1) The multicultural character of GB itself; 2) the rejection of the early twentieth-century British version of "pluralism" which turned toward syndicalism; 3) the desire in big business for cheap labor and its conflict with home country resistance to mass immigration. It tends to retain its good name, and under pressure, its meaning shifts around, IMHO.

This has been going on for decades.

H.G. Callaway

Canadians have defined it very well and very precisely. As Canada is closely related with GB, as are other countries, it is not surprising that the policies and history of GB will have influence but Canada built on and developed further the concept. Some politicians may play with the term but it is there and it is clear, provided people want to find the legislation, the new policies, etc. Policy changes are reflected in their legislation and policies, easy to find and frequently updated. Just ask (English-speaking) Canadians if they feel British, they don't even understand British English, let alone identify with their distant past.

Is there a bright line between immigration and multiculturalism? Yes, there is. These are different terms (both as processes and as policies) but they are very closely related. Some people even don't know they are migrants, they consider themselves expats because it sounds better. Multiculturalism (as a number of cultures, languages, etc. co-existing) may also exist in a country where there are not many migrants at present - as a result of migrating waves in the past.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Petrova,

You are right, of course, that Canada has a more definite conception of multiculturalism and that it is closer in many ways to British traditions. I don't believe that non-Canadians should try to modify their system; and I have no objection to Canadians deciding such things for themselves. The very names of many of the provinces show a long history of the idea that ethnically different people should, in some sense, have different geographically separate sub-polities. Nor can I easily conceive of outsiders wanting to re-arrange British sub-polities. My impression, is, however, that when the attempt was made to extend the concept to recent immigrants in Great Britain, those lacking a pre-existing British homeland, this didn't work well. The geographical separation is thus strongly linked to the political tradition.

As I say, the idea of multiculturalism has been rejected within just about every European country--and this was a matter of moving toward greater emphasis on the need of integration of diversity, often called "pluralism." An exception to the rule is Belgium, which has a long history of geographically separate and ethnically distinct sub-polities. Recognizing and accepting internal diversity is one thing, and encouraging it or promoting it, in every circumstance, something quite different. As long as unemployment is hight, I think there is hardly a country in the world that does not attempt to regulate immigration with one eye on the unemployment rate. Though diversity is a strength and a good, greater diversity is not an unconditional good.

Consider the native born citizens. Of course, they think they own the place, wherever they may be. Maybe they have a somewhat stronger tendency to talk back and challenge authority? There is a certain expectation that the country be run with due respect for their opinions and interests. Yet large-scale immigration is closely associated with globalization. This in turn is associated with the ascendancy of large-scale financial and commercial interests centered in international trade --and decline of the influence of both labor and domestic manufacturing. We have seen growing inequalities around the world--the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

We naturally sympathize with displaced people, especially those fleeing war and disorder at home; and there is a great deal of sympathy for minorities who see themselves as disadvantaged. But who exactly has the upper hand in all this? How do the claims for multiculturalism and diversity fit together with interests of international finance and commerce, as contrasted with the long-term public good in any given country? How does increased diversity fit together with governability? What is the effect on native-born minorities of mass immigration from abroad? I notice that you say nothing about the motive and special interests involved in encouraging cheaper (and sometimes, more pliant) labor.

In general terms, the U.S. has nothing much resembling ethnically defined sub-polities; and we wouldn't want them. Every state is constitutionally required to respect the rights and privileges of the citizens of the U.S., no matter where they come from. (It is not that our practice is always perfect, of course, but that is the political ideal.) Because of this, I believe that the model of multiculturalism is unsuited to the country--and to many other countries as well.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Eric, yours in an indispensable question at this point in time. Defining the main terms at stake —"immigration", "multiculturalism"— will not do. It is my belief that issues of race, gender, religious persuasion, and elements like that are deliberately masked by terms such as "multiculturalism", and even "immigration". There is a monstrous lack of sincerity in most debates on these two terms, and most misreadings of their definitions are intentional, a way of obscuring the terms, distorting them. For example, the fact that the immigrants who are most disenfranchised have been living in the US for more that two centuries —the African-American citizens—, or may even have arrived earlier that the Mayflower —like the Native Americans— should be enough food for though. The search for purity of racial identity is always false, a coverup for prejudice of all sorts. The fact that such a person as Donald Trump  is being successful in pandering racial prejudice should tell us that the issue is neither immigration or multiculturalism, but racial prejudice, taking into account that the US Census describes all immigrants as races, not as cultures. Only arians are white for the purposes of the census! Racial prejudice is condoned in the very documents that describe and classify US citizens.There you have the problem loud and clear.

Best regards, Lilliana

THANK YOU!

Dear Lilliana et al,

Thank you everybody for all of your responses. I will try to go through all of the sites and attachments provided soon.

My own take on the issue of a bright-line distinction (or a non-collapsible relationship) between inter-culturalism and migration/immigration comes down essentially to this. Inter-culturalism constitutes a very specific, quasi-Foucauldian form of bio-power that emerged in the early 20th century (eugenics; public health; preventative medicine; social welfare; the insurance industry; demographics; population control; abortion) while immigration has, for the most part, been treated as an example of a laissez-faire approach to issues of cultural forms. In other words, immigration, apart from its relationship to purely economic considerations (decline of labor costs and the concurrent rise of full or part-time employment) simply did not generally rise to the level of serious concern.

And the reason for this lies in a phenomenon that is devilishly hard to come to terms with: the formation of the category of populations as both the subject and the object of public policy, a nebulous intermediary between State and People.

Eric

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

Thanks for your comment here. Passionate and clear as always! Bureaucracy loves categories and classifications, but "Nature likes to mix her stocks."

I'm hoping that the Republicans will have the good sense to throw Mr. Trump out of their party. 

However, I think that immigration is a distinct issue, leastwise in American politics. Diversity is a good thing, but there can at times be too much of a good thing. I think you have to ask about the effects, downward pressure on wages, for instance, especially among native-born minorities; growing inequalities, etc.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G, thanks for your comments, sober and careful and clear as always! :-)

I agree with you, but it is probable that nations will have to be forced to negotiate new labor conditions —among other things— to make the world more just. The problem is not salaries and their fragility: the problem is corporate pursuits that are shooting prices up insensibly and unnecessarily. Translational corporate enterprises care nothing for the destruction of third-world habitats which pushes people to become immigrants. People do to leave their countries on a whim, they do because life in their countries becomes unbearable. If US corporations are imposed limits on shameless exploitation of other nations, people can go about their lives in peace in, say, Indonesia and Puerto Rico, Brazil and Congo, and immigration would be much lower. The world has become a nasty system of relationships that works well only for a few. Usually, immigrants have no choice but run away. If the US is more attentive —law-wise— to corporate earnings taken from other countries, then these corporations should contribute financially to help the people they have pushed out of their own countries and now come into the US as immigrants. An intelligent and humanitarian balance beween corporate ravenous hunger and social justice depends of the US (and other developed countries) commitment to world peace and a better living for all. Immigration seems a social problem Western nations seem to have set rolling. Responsibility for immigrants should be allocated on those that provoked such migrations.

Warm regards, Lilliana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

My impression of globalization is that the international system is able to expand trade, but is, as a whole, politically incompetent to deal with the political and social consequences of expanded trade. Even regulation of international banking has been a chancy thing.That is a lesson to take from the financial crisis of 2008.

The resistance is coming from within the various counties affected, in oppositions to their own governments. We do see large-scale discontent with growing inequalities, job insecurity, unemployment, etc. But established political forces are often engaged in a competition for the support of large corporations and large institutions generally. The opposition is largely a matter of relatively inarticulate populist protests, both on the right and on the left.

I don't think that it will actually make much difference who gets elected, until and unless it is understood that global unity and amity will not arise simply from the workings of economic and financial imperatives. Too often this becomes a matter of international elites trading favors to the disadvantage of many others. No country can be reasonably or effectively organized in economic terms alone, and neither can the world at large. But it is much easier to institute social and political reforms within countries than between them. The world needs a rest from continuing globalization, that is, international expansion of economic relations, so that domestic policies can catch up, IMHO. The evidence is that there is no effective political will to reform in the international system. We keep hearing about the need of this, but I don't see effective measures forthcoming.

H.G. Callaway

Eric:

Very interesting question! I have done some analysis of multiculturalism as it relates to higher education to include the benefits to both the university and their students and by extension the wider host country, which I hope can be helpful to answering your question. 

Data Curriculum Inclusiveness Challenge: Responding to Multicultu...

Dear H.G., sadly, I totally agree with you. Greed has the upper hand.

Warm regards, Lilliana

Dear Debra, good article!

"In contrast to ethnocentrism, the melting-pot theory is based on the assumption that American immigrants from diverse cultures should assimilate and blend into the dominant Western European culture (Walker-Tileston 2004). Yet, in practice, the melting pot theory stifles the cultural identity of minority students". There is another thing, forcing minorities to keep their difference could promote a sort of willing "apartheid" under the motto of "we have to stay apart", disabling all connections between the culturally different and the main community. Evidently, the problem is complex. It could actually be a no-win situation.

Best regards, Lilliana

I think that Canada and Australia wanted to avoid the empty concept in place in Britain and therefore their definitions and policies are much more developed, after all these are countries that needed migrants but they had to think well how to choose their citizens (and they implemented points-based systems for a reason - to evaluate human capital skills).

What is valid for cheap labour is also valid for international students or jobs in the US going to China and India. Some research papers have pointed out that there were excellent foreign students among terrorists in the UK and US. The same goes for some regulations in the US regarding aviation pilots because it is easy to start such a course, no matter one's status.

Multiculturalism is not as positive as it sounds but the receiving country is also responsible for security, selection and business (incl. universities) compliance with local and national laws. 

There is a certain duplicity inherent in talking and writing about 'multiculturalism', a duplicity characterised by simplifying vexed and troubling issues. I want to submit that ethnicity, which translates to locality, becomes more complicated in the formation of identity matrices connected to movement, dispersal and re-locating to (an)other centre where home becomes blurred by the pressing contingencies of trying to insert oneself in the 'global' and therefore multicultural. Essentially, there is a degree of getting 'supplanted' in the new geography/location. For utilitarian purposes, the emigre learns and masters the language and practices of the new locale, always reminiscing about home...and the overt forces that compelled journeying into the 'other' space/s. If one comes from the South, the questions that the 'hosts' in the North ask relate to the fissures that we would have run away from: dictatorship, collapsed economies, domestic tyrannies ad nauseam. Were the 'native' to return to the 'local' the assemblage of linguistic repertoires and practices learnt abroad are shed at the port of entry, be it the airport or any other b/order. To 'add and drop' cultural repertoires for the convenience of 'becoming' mocks therefore what I understand by genuine multiculturalism.

Dear Olav,

Thank you for your post.

Yes, my sense is similar to yours, as I have expressed it in my other posts. Immigration is a world-historical phenomenon driven by a plethora of forces, while inter-multi-culturalism is very much an exercise in bio-power (interventionist managerialism) that is wholly unique to the 20th century.

However, I do not believe that the historical record proves that we can automatically assume that immigration automatically leads to cultural pluralism. I believe that the levels of inter-cultural exchanges (insofar as they can be measured at all) tend to positively correlate with the host's Society's level of (i) mercantile connectivity and (ii) absence of centralized political power.

Eric

Yes, we can draw a big line between immigration and multiculturalism; one can acknowledge the age-old cultural pluralism and ethnic diversity of those nations that were so characterized, and have policies that make sure all groups have the same civic rights. However, the implementation of mass immigration, starting in full force during the 70s, across the West, had nothing to do with validating the existing diversity of European nations, but with forcefully diversifying European created countries so that they cease to have a European character and become race-mixed societies. There is more to this phenomenon, needless to say, but here is an interview I did in French but was translated at the Council of European Canadians, in which I make this distinction between multiculturalism and immigration in the case of Canada: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/08/ricardo-duchesne-interview-what-is-multiculturalism.html

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for your post.

I started this thread in no small part because of the increasingly toxic atmosphere over at the international human rights/structural global inequality thread.

To further exemplify this point: I had a long discussion with a friend of mine in Indonesian Studies and ran a few things past her, confirming what I suspected. Jakarta is currently very concerned about the 'Americanization' of Javanese culture, especially among the youth. However, American immigration to Indonesia is virtually nil (apart from a miniscule ex-pat community). Yet, American cultural forces are tremendous. How? Through the anti-demographic phenomenon of Globalization. How anti-demographic? Because of accelerated complex interdependence, both commercial and tele-communicative, 'peoples'' may exercise profoundly de-centering and alienating effects upon other peoples without actually moving or going anywhere. That is, they migrate while remaining stationary. An insight worthy of Paul Virilio.

One of the things I would like to establish with this thread is a clear sense of whether it is or is not the case that when populist/xenophobic movements achieve momentum and call for closed borders, they are really protesting against phenomena that are more usefully classified as intra-cultural rather than migratory.

Eric

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Wilson & readers,

I always find it somewhat curious when I hear of people thinking of globalization as a kind of Americanization. It often seems quite the contrary from here. The phenomenon of "de-centering" of people from their own traditions and values does seem very prominent. 

My experience in Europe suggest to me that the deeper inter-connection of the European cultures and peoples has been a process of their own doing; (and I am certainly aware of European resistance to further proposals for trade liberalizations with North America.) In any case, even within Europe, the attempts at unification, and the E.U. trade union, has a certain tendency toward establishing a de facto rule of the lowest common denominator. That is a process not unfamiliar here.

How does this work?

You wrote:

Through the anti-demographic phenomenon of Globalization. How anti-demographic? Because of accelerated complex interdependence, both commercial and tele-communicative, 'peoples'' may exercise profoundly de-centering and alienating effects upon other peoples without actually moving or going anywhere. That is, they migrate while remaining stationary.

--End quotation

Pure local demographics has a conservative effect--the simple weight of established habits-- but I understand that when the percentage of non-native born speakers approaches something like 15%, the local language will begin to change. One might expect some similar effect merely from more intensive trade and inter-cultural communication. 

So, I think you pose an interesting sub-question:

One of the things I would like to establish with this thread is a clear sense of whether it is or is not the case that when populist/xenophobic movements achieve momentum and call for closed borders, they are really protesting against phenomena that are more usefully classified as intra-cultural rather than migratory.

---End quotation

Such populist/ xenophobic developments are taking place here, in the U.S. as well--on a significantly large scale-- and I do not think that those caught up in such things tend to view globalization as a process of "Americanization." Quite the contrary.  Historically, the U.S. is quite accomplished in mediation of the "inter-cultural," but it can be argued, of course, that the means for such mediation are always finite and can become over-burdened. From that perspective populist discontents are surely a sign of the times--pointing to excesses of globalization. --Or, so I tend to think.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G. Callaway,

Thank you for your post.

Just to clarify--I did not mean to insinuate that Globalization strictly equates with Americanization. As you rightly point out, from the USA's perspective, Globalization means non-Americanization, whereas the view in Jakarta is quite different (I can speak from experience here).

My main point is that one of the aspects that fuels anti-immigration discourse--the 15% rule as you have identified it--may, in social fact, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the physical migrations of peoples. We have reached a very 'weird' phase of development in which transformative cultural events can be created by a kind of action-at-a-distance. In other words, cultures can circulate globally yet no one need actually move.

Which is a rather difficult phenomenon to express clearly, especially when you are trying to organize a mass political movement.

Eric

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Wilson & readers,

Yes, I think you are quite likely on to something. From this perspective, the phenomenon of populist and xenophobic reaction amounts to a retreat into the nation-state; and there is evidence, I think, that international rule-making is much less effective --and that it tends to be reductive. But, of course, nationalism, and economic nationalism in particular are dangerous sorts of things. To what degree is the cultural de-centering also an effect of wider inter-cultural communications?

Cultural habit and language are adjusted to the local demographics, and when this begins to shift significantly in character, people may feel at a considerable loss on how to act and react. This is the phenomenon of "de-centering." It is important to note in this connection that there are always some agents and advocates of "de-centering," within any given society. Moreover, given societies may certainly benefit from exposure to the wider world. But there are limits.

Tell me, are you trying to organize a "mass political movement"? Or do you intend to mention someone else who is? 

Thanks for your clarification regarding "Americanization." I think the question at issue here has more to do with the effects of large-scale commercialization and the ascendancy of large-scale finance on local or national culture, values and existing habits within diverse societies. Recall, e.g., all the debates concerning banking regulation. Its almost Bernie Sander against Mrs. Clinton.

H.G. Callaway

So writing about the human right violations inflicted upon Europeans by migrants who are raping thousands of women creates an "increasingly toxic atmosphere", and it is best to cover up this situation: http://www.allende.se/misc/underskrift/index.php?lang=eng&fire=2016

What a humanitarian your are, Eric. 

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your post. 

Actually, I really do not consider myself a humanitarian at all. On this point, at least, I agree with Carl Schmitt: Whoever invokes Humanity cheats.

What I do consider myself to be, however, is a good Wittgensteinian. And my original purpose in starting this thread--independently of whatever any other contributor may wish to do with it--is to ask this question: does the current debate over immigration rest upon a category mistake?

That is, if the common sense view of immigration is movement-of-people-across-borders then anti-immigration movements rely upon considerations of demographics. But if anti-immigration movements make an appeal to core cultural values and problems of relativism, diversity and failures in assimilation, then I simply believe that this is erroneous, both as speech and thought. Because what Globalization has clearly demonstrated is that profound social changes can be induced through inter-cultural exchanges that occur independently of the physical migration of peoples. The neo-liberal Capitalist World-Economy and virtual reality/social media networks converge to set up an all-encompassing global system of capillaries of diffusion that allow any particular cultural form or artifact to spread globally with no one actually moving or going anywhere.

With all of this said: my sense over the current crisis of immigration really has more to do with Globalization and its cultural effects than with the bio-power calculations of demographics and multi-culturalism. However, the language of the latter seems to be applied in a blanket manner to cover the former, which results in the category mistake that I am trying to identify. Australia, where I currently reside, is an outstanding example of this. The amount of social media generated by immigration--lawful or otherwise--is completely disproportionate to the objective numbers of arrivals (both legal and illegal). What is very much at stake is not numbers but unassimilated cultural elements which, as we all know, may be spread by means that are divorced from physical migration. But, we really cannot politically mobilize to combat global information technology; it is within our power, however, to close borders, restrict immigrant intakes, and protest against the construction of mosques.

As for the Muslim sexual assault problem: you are far more up on it that I am so naturally I am not going to be drawn into a debate on this. I will only make a few observations, which are pretty banal: Merkel's throwing open of the EU's borders was astonishingly un-thought-out and inexplicably incompetent (unless there is an ulterior motive at work that we cannot see). I do not know if there was a coordinated Government/Police cover up of sexual asaults, but if there was, it was catastrophically stupid.

Eric

Eric,

You might want to investigate the ways in which the Left and Right have converged on globalization; the Left thinks it is possible to formulate values that are true for all humans, human rights, and wants to open Western borders to create global citizens who believe in leftist values, hoping that these global citizens inside Western nations, a generic or deracinated species, will then spread their values to the rest of the world, and thus China, Japan, Indian, etc., will say, "Yey, you mongrels are the future, we want to destroy our millennial ethnic identity, and become just like you!"

The Right wants to promote generic companies, open borders for the movements of capital and cheap labour, to bring Third World labour conditions into Western countries, and create a rootless generation that is easy to manipulate, and turned into shoppers without any strong national identities, and the Right loves Leftist ideas of diversity. LGBT, and the rest, as it facilitates the break down of strong identities in the West. 

Meanwhile the immigrants who are arriving into European lands play up to Leftist values, as they know leftist prefer them over White males, promote their cultures through multiculturalism, and hand them over jobs in Europeans lands through affirmative action; so they like Leftist values BUT only as a means of promoting themselves, their own ETHNIC interests, and in this way take over the West.

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for your post. And sorry about the 'Richard' in my earlier reply.

If you don't already know it, you might be interested in Rene Girard's fairly recent criticisms concerning multi-culturalism as an inverted form of Western imperialism. That is, the need to denigrate the West out of colonialist guilt coupled with the need to idealize/exalt non-European cultures is itself a perverted continuation of Western ethnocentrism out of its continuing belief in the ability of Europe to occupy the position of true universalism--whether of the Left or the Right.

Eric

It is peculiar in an academic forum that opinions can be so polarised that they reflect populist political bigotry rather than reasoned debate.  Multiculturalism or whatever it might be called now is not a single, simple phenomenon that could be either 'good' or 'bad'.  It is a highly complex interaction between differing social groups that has been going on since the beginning of human history.

It is quite clear that some cultural interactions are negative and that some cultural norms abhorrent to sophisticated, educated and liberal minded people but, to denounce all interactions between cultures as some kind of conspiracy to destroy western culture is ridiculous.  

Eric is correct that much of this is an inverted form of colonialism/imperialism where the 'ethnics' are patronised by the western ethnocentric.  I can remember less politically correct days where otherwise racist individuals might complement black people on "their wonderful sense of rhythm".  

Exhalting all non-european cultures in the name of multiculturalism is of course an absurdity, all cultures are flawed and all should be subject to robust criticism.  It is a disgrace that criminal, anti-social behaviour and human rights abuses have been ignored or covered up to supposedly protect cultural sensitivities.  

Nevertheless to denounce all non-European cultures as negative, or even primitive and atavistic does nothing to address the problems, it merely hides them behind blind prejudice and moral superiority expressed in victim culture language.  

I am pleased to work in an ethnically diverse and culturally broad environment where Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and a dozen other faiths mix with us atheists.  It has been my long experience that most immigrants share the same values as the indigenous population and are just as appalled by the activities of other immigrants, who through ignorance or bigotry of their own violate the law and customs of the UK.

We need to get some perspective on this issue, blanket denunciations of immigrants does no good at all.

Multiculturalism is, as Rene Girard's says, an inverted form of Western imperialism. and this comes in many ways, in the moral expectations leftists have about their own cultures, while expecting a lot less from Blacks, Muslims and non-White cultures generally. They suppose that Europeans should be held to a higher moral standard.

BUT I think it is important to realize that the promoters of diversity and mass immigration are not driven by moral principles; yes, there are naive Whites who mean well and think they can bring hordes of immigrants to their lands and integrate them within a harmonious utopia, but the Leftists at the top, the George Soros of this world, the political activists, the academics who should know better, are driven by hatred or resentment of Europeans.

Anyone who says that racial diversification "improves" White lands, is obviously anti-White, and should be held morally accountable. To say that Europeans lands must be "environments" where multiple races and religions mix is inherently anti-European, for it is a claim about the superiority of mixed environments over what has existed for millennia in Europe.

Why is this woman saying that Sweden and all European nations cannot remain European and must be diversified through mass immigration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ 

But if multiculturalism is in its roots a heritage of imperialism, then it cannot be leftist by its philosophical nature for these are currents of quite opposing nature. Leftists have used many other theories in an inverted and perverse way but they cannot work for long. We should always look at the original meaning and intention.

In that sense, I believe multiculturalism has been exported from GB and other empires (e. g. Spain, Portugal, Netherlands). The many varieties we see are due to unique mixes: bi-culturalism [http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biculturalism/page-3] and three official languages in New Zealand, eleven languages in South Africa - these two countries experiencing the strong influence of the British and the Dutch empires in combination with the traditions and cultures of local people,  a "majority'' culture of migration waves mainly from GB and Northern Europe and other waves from neighbouring countries and regions.

Multi-culturalism as a product of imperialism extends much further back than the European expansion into the world commencing in around the beginning of the 16th century.  

From the earliest civilisations an exchange of cultural values was the norm, even if it was often achieved by conquest rather than by consent.  History is full of examples of cultural assimilation, most of which had positive influences on societies and cultural evolution.

The wonderfully diverse cultural traditions of Europe as well as its common values arose out of the admix of cultures from the late mesolithic through the Bronze Age, The Greek, Persian and Roman Empires to the formation of the nation states in the 15th century and beyond.  With the formation of the nation states and the expansion of their empires into the world beyond Europe cultural influences from the other side of the globe began to appear in European states. 

Europe itself is the product of multi-culturalism, every part of it even the most remote is touched by and influenced by its near and far neighbours.  Our languages with few exceptions are an amalgam of earlier languages many of which originated outside of what we would geographically describe as Europe.  Our religious creeds, from which our ethical and philosophical ideals arose are an adaptation of in the main Middle Eastern cults blended with European pagan traditions.      

For anyone to suggest that embracing multiculturalism is a manifestation of a hatred for all things European defies credibility.  Without multiculturalism there would be no European culture.

We need to distinguish the existence of ethnic minorities in European nations with long roots in these nations from the diversity that is being superimposed from above in recent decades.

Those who say that Europeans countries have always been "wonderfully diverse" do not make this distinction since their goal is to manipulate students into believing that the diversification going on now has been an ongoing phenomenon, a natural state of affairs, nothing new.

The fact is that there was next to zero immigration throughout most of  Europe's history. Immigration promoters are pseudo scholars not interested in facts.  

Europeans nations, to a lesser or greater extent, have been diverse only in the sense that they were populated by various minorities co-existing with the majority ethnic group for a long time, but this historically-rooted diversity should not be confounded with the current effort to racially diversify Europeans nations. Minorities historically rooted in Europe were almost all European in ethnicity, which is totally different from the masses of non-Europeans arriving by the millions and millions in a few decades, which will lead in a few decades to the reduction of Europeans to a minority in their own homelands. 

Eric

It is possible to discuss the differences between the natural flow of peoples as a historical, anthropological event as compared to what you quite rightly describe as a social-engineering process.  It is the social engineering process that is the problem not the immigrants.

The problem with immigration is that for some people it is a demographic problem for others it is race.  Those of us who are alarmed at the mass migration, because of the severe disruption it causes to infrastructure and the ability to integrate huge numbers of people all at once would love to have such discussions.

The problem is the debate keeps being hijacked by racist bigots who spout their supremacist bile at the mere mention of a migrant.  It is absolutely correct that this subject needs to be tackled as a major social problem and that governments in western countries have entirely abrogated their duty and responsibility, leaving dangerous situations all over Europe the US and Australia.  

The problem is not helped however by a lunatic fringe screaming cultural damnation and blaming everyone who does not support their crude racist sentiments.  Neither does it help for ridiculous attacks to be directed at 'academic's or 'pseudo scholars' allegedly 'manipulating' students.

Nor is it helped by a foolish and entirely inaccurate description of European history traipsed out in a mixture of panegyric about "white lands" and crude racist invective about non-european culture.  Some of the rubbish I have had the misfortune to have to read sounds like it came straight out of Mein Kampf, I have little doubt that some of the ideas supporting it certainly did. 

This utterly stupid diatribe based as ever on sinister conspiracies blocks all rational debate.  It is absolutely obvious that the countries of the EU cannot accommodate migrants arriving at the rate they are doing.  It is obvious that the countries of the EU will not all see the picture from Angela Merkel's perspective and will not take large numbers of migrants.

It is also obvious that we cannot solve the problem with fences, tear gas and neo-Nazi politics.   A humanitarian solution is going to have to be found, and soon.

Dear Barry, thank you for your brilliant and sound comments on this issue. Food for thought. This is serious, and bigotry makes it worse. I agree with you.

Warm regards, Lilliana

Dear Barry,

Thank you for your post.

I would add one caveat, however. If one raises concerns about immigration proper (as opposed to people-less globalization) in relation to either structural problems or social engineering, then one is very often pilloried as a racist, which inhibits freedom of speech.

One reason why I started this thread was to see whether it was possible to formulate a discourse--or even just a vocabulary--that would allow one to critique immigration and/or inter-culturalism while remaining immune to accusations of extremist xenophobia.

Eric

Eric

It is certainly possible to formulate a critique of immigration without resorting to racist language or hysterical xenophobia.

The current mass immigration represents a serious threat to European stability not because of an imagined conspiracy by Islamists to destroy European culture or of some devious plan by 'the secret rulers of the world' to enslave so-called indigenous Europeans.

The movements of millions of people from Africa and the Middle East into Europe within such a sort space of time cannot be accommodated even with the best of wills.  Our economies are rich but they are fragile.  Just about all EU countries have either housing problems or large scale unemployment or both.  While given time most EU countries could absorb a good number of immigrants it cannot happen all at once.

Those that have arrived face years in relocation centres which in many cases are rudimentary, effectively refugee camps in the west.  Absorbing them into the economy, communities, schools etc will take a very long time.  These camps become oppressive and are notorious for creating unrest.

Many within our populations are xenophobic and racist.  We cannot ignore that or simply moralise it away. All human cultures are xenophobic by degree.  Mass migration is fuelling it in many who are usually more tolerant.

The countries from where the majority of migrants are coming from need their populations too.  They need doctors, engineers, scientists and skilled people.  Syria cannot afford to lose its highly educated professionals, the war will end one day and it is they that must rebuild it.

One thing is crystal clear.  The rich countries of the world are going to have to deal with the reasons for this mass migration if it is ever going to be controlled.  We are going to have to intervene more in the affairs of failed states and for that matter the corrupt ones that also drive people to desperate migration. 

This is not a racist issue it is an economic one, a political one and a humanitarian one.  The racists xenophobes can only offer fences, police states and fear and no solutions will come from there.

There is no question, as Eric says, that any critique of immigration which asserts the right of European peoples to protect their ethnic heritage is deemed to be racist, and that the aim of the R word is to cut off any freedom of speech when it comes to European affirmation of their heritage in the face of mass immigration that is set to reduce them to a minority in Europe. These opponents of freedom will use every name in the book, Hitler, xenophobia, neo-Nazi, etc, etc. It is always the same pattern; once they lose the debate, and they can't answer the questions I have forwarded, they use labels that are aimed at damaging socially those who dissent from mass immigration.  

What I believe is very simple: all peoples, ethno-cultural nations, have a right to self-determination, to protect their heritage, traditions. Mass immigration is a program imposed on European peoples by both the Right and the Left in order to diversify Europeans and create a generic species without identity.

Why is Israel called a liberal democratic state, even though it is an Ethnic State? How come Israel has a massive wall against immigration and Islamic terrorism? 

Israel Expels 8,000 African Immigrants Because They “Threaten Jewish Identity” http://www.mintpressnews.com/israel-expels-8000-african-immigrants-because-they-threaten-jewish-identity/196405/

Ricardo tells us:

"Anyone who says that racial diversification "improves" White lands, is obviously anti-White, and should be held morally accountable".

Anyone who uses the expression “white lands” is clearly a racist.

Anyone who thinks that LGBT people “facilitate the breakdown of strong identities in the west” is clearly a reactionary bigot.

Apart from the objectionable nature of such language, do hysterical conspiracy theories about a sinister plot between the 'right' and the 'left' (whatever they are) led apparently by George Soros provide  a rational contribution to a very serious debate about a very serious problem?

There is undoubtedly a smug self satisfaction among some 'left' leaning individuals about the morality of unopposed mass immigration but are we really supposed to believe that this is a conspiracy?

No one is trying to close down the debate, that is further hysterical victim culture language of the conspiracy theorist.  Racists and white supremacistsand for that matter Islamist supremacists have a constituency and however much we disapprove of them they need to be spoken to.  Those who hate homosexuals, so very often concomitant with race hatred also must be engaged with in debate.  They will never be educated otherwise. 

Dear Barry,

Thank you for your post.

I certainly agree with you that it is possible to discuss immigration critically without necessarily being accused of racism or xenophobia and that one way to do this is to focus on the infrastructural aspects of the problem, both the support capacities of the receiving States and entrenched problems of inequality within the World-System.

I wonder, though, whether other parts of your answer are somewhat polly-annish. You claim that only a humanitarian response can solve the problem. Yet, my feeling is that the immigration 'problem' is often being manipulated in the same way that the War on Terror or the fear of (so-called)radical' Islam has been: as an excuse to expand military and national security resources in the name of the preservation of an enlightened form of global goverance (liberalism, democracy, secularism, etc).  We all know that control over borders'is a euphemism for a preference to rely upon military and police methods to solve international problems. Are we really so certain that the West could not collectively use the threat of uncontrolled, massive, non-European migrations to justify an indefinite prolongation of the national security complex? From a neo-con perspective, the War on Terror was a gift that kept on giving, because it established the framework for a practically end-less war. Why cannot we not do the same with immigration? Or, at the very least, for the quixotic quest for perfectly secure borders? Australia has been engaged in a low-intensity version of this kind of program for some time.

I am also concerned about your nod to the need for greater levels of humanitarian interventions i the future. Were not our recent interventions in Syria and Libya, the twin sources of the EU's current immigration fiascoes, cynically rationalized on precisely these grounds?

Eric

Dear Hristina,

Thank you for your post.

For an outstanding example of the sort of phenomenon that you describe (though driven more by dire necessity than inspired idealism) but that remain largely unknown in the West, I would draw your attention to Indonesia, where I have been doing much work of late. There, the global exemplar of 'moderate' Islam (a term about as meaningless as radical Islam, but we need some word to use), a more nuanced form of Theology that seeks syncretic engagement with local cultures and traditions is driven by the governance requirements of maintaining a minimally acceptable degree of national unity within a polity that consists of +500 ethnic groups and languages.

Strikingly, though, the Indonesians largely understand this as an anti-Dutch phenomenon, the antithesis of their history of colonial suppression. Yet, the history of Dutch imperialism in the former 'East Indies' shows quite clearly that the Dutch, for all of their universalist pretensions, were keen not to tread too heavily on local customs and ethnic identities. The critical factor is that amorphous mass that is today Indonesia, and which is largely governed by the Javanese, represents an artificial construction that never would have existed without the discontinuous machinations of Dutch colonialist (the East Indies as a sub world-economy, yes; as a unified modern Nation-State, no).

Eric

Eric

Our recent interventions in Syria and Libya were not humanitarian anymore than the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were.  Neither were they a war on terror.  Terrorism is now far worse than it was prior to our interventions.

What needs to be understood is that unless the world governments do something to remove the causes of mass migration it will continue.  The only alternative then is a police state apparatus at our borders which would inevitable lead to razor wire fences around every country in Europe and the shooting of people trying to get through them.

This sort of reverse Berlin Wall or Inner German Border would bring with it the other baggage that police states adopt.  Having spent some time in the police state of the DDR I would not recommend it.  

Australia and the UK are relatively difficult to get into because they are islands but if all of the member states of the EU fence off their borders and man them with shoot to kill border guards and minefields what kind of a Europe would that be?

Make no mistake that the fences are the themselves not enough to stop the migrants, if they are not manned permanently they will be torn down.  Ghengis Khan ridiculed the Great Wall of China saying that a wall was only as good as the soldiers on it.

Ricardo's rose tinted spectacle view of European culture is a product of his xenophobia.  I have seen a great deal of European culture and it varies hugely.  I have spent enough time in the former Soviet Bloc to know that European culture can and does include Mauer im Kopf (Wall in the head) mentality and that shooting people at borders was not that long ago included in some European cultures.

Maybe some see that as the solution but they should think again.  In my lifetime I have seen civil liberties in the west eroded.  You cannot have a partial police state, they work by being absolute.  Contrary to the views of some I am proud of the liberal humanitarian approach of most of the states in Europe.  I speak three European languages and have a reasonable understanding of a couple more.  I love European culture and the rich and varied history of it and would defend it against all that sought to destroy it.

But mark this we have seen the results of a Europe that hides behind fences, we have seen the results of a Europe of nations states armed to the teeth and breeding mistrust and hated for foreigners.  It was that Europe that nearly destroyed itself twice in a century and left 75 million dead in wars.  As for the refugee crisis I suggest reading the immediate post war history to get some perspective on that.

Eric, I am not surprised. Conquest and empires have never been valued or understood. There is always the element of opposition, the anti- one, but they helped build a lot in most of the conquered lands. In India English is the main language of communication, given that there are so many local ones. Many people are proud to be Indians and in their pride they have severely opposed or ignored the huge contributions of the British Empire in their lands, with so many noble British trying to get them out of poverty, with so many people educating them and setting up hospitals in remote areas. Likewise, the Lebanese community in Brazil perhaps would not have the warm welcome in contemporary democratic times that it had during the times of an empire - planning was not partisan but one of a national and global scale, and building a nation of skills was integral. 

Dear Barry,

Thank you for your post.

OK, understood. But I still do not see a real answer to my query in your response.

What, exactly, will prevent us from creating a new Europe of barbed-wire borders. What is there that will thwart the hard War on Terror (military) into morphing into a soft (police) War on Immigrants/Refugees? As Europe's pathological obsession with neo-colonialist tinkerings only degenerates further, a Euro-Wall would seem to be the optimal mid-way point between the institutionalization of the Worst-of-Both-Worlds: perpetual interventionism coupled with eternal border vigilance as a means of minimizing social costs plus perpetually subsidizing the military-industrial-intelligence complex.

Check out Alain de Joxe 'Empire of Disorder' if you do not already know it.

I know that the case of Israel is always a sensitive one, but in this case I must point my finger at the obvious: that Wall/Fence of theirs is a permanent feature of the landscape. It will not come down so long as the crypto-colonization of the West Bank continues. Which is to say: never.

And, no, I never bought for a single nano-second our interventions in either Syria or Libya were authentically humanitarian. It is the case, though, that that was how they were sold via public and social media.

Pure Blair-ite/Clinton-speak garbage.

Eric

Dear Hristina,

Thank you for your post.

The more that I work on Indonesia (and Indo-China as well), the more I realize the inescapably euro-centric dimensions of virtually all aspects of or discourse concerning both multi-culturalism (endo-colonialist) and immigration (exo-colonialist).

Here, as elsewhere, I have found the work of Paul Virilio to be a priceless guide.

Eric

I am not acquainted with his work. Would you give a link to some of his studies?

I have researched and I am in interested more in skilled migration from the prism of public policy rather than sociology/anthropology/cultural studies and the concept of multiculturalism is dealt with in the latter fields. 

I don't know how helpful it could be to your research but one of the best researchers in comparative skilled migration - Lesleyanne Hawthorne - is based in Australia. She is also more focused on public policies but you can find some interesting comparative studies http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person15262#tab-publications

England as a White land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQV1_B63LTM

Google "London in the 60s"----- still almost 100% White

Now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3FwTtBVjk

Anti-Whites filled with hatred and resentment say that it was horrible before now, and that it had to change without democratic consent; I disagree, and believe that all peoples have a right to ethnic national self-determination. 

"one of the best researchers in comparative skilled migration - Lesleyanne Hawthorne" -------- in other words, her job is to entice skilled individuals in countries where they are needed to come to affluent Western nations. 

Enticing skilled laborers and educated professionals from poor nations to come to infertile feminist Western countries for better pay is known in Economics as "human capital flight", a form of "brain drain imperialism". As any undergraduate can find out in Wikipedia:

===Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have lost a tremendous amount of their educated and skilled populations as a result of emigration to more developed countries, which has harmed the ability of such nations to get out of poverty. Conservatively speaking, "Brain drain has cost the African continent over $4 billion in the employment of 150,000 expatriate professionals annually." ====

She is one of the best in my personal ranking (and I hope other people will agree). You can say that we are all enticing someone to do something. As long as it is allowed by laws and policies and political regimes (people are not blocked by their own governments), people will have the freedom and choice to move.

"we are all enticing someone to do something" ----- but at least those enticing skilled workers should stop trying to claim a high moral ground about how great they are in promoting diversity and fighting racism, and simply state that they want to grab skill workers from poor nations.

Similarly, those who claim to be bringing poor people from Muslim nations to help them  and help enrich whites should stop hiding systematic raping of white girls on a daily basis across Europe: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/03/immigrant-to-sweden-rapes-12-year-old-girl-gets-community-service/

My views are the only ones that stand on high moral ground. 

Dear Hristina,

Thank you for your post.

Two articles that I have posted on-line with Researchgate are both on Virilio, and each contains an extensive Bibliography:

--Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism

--Speed/Pure War/Power Crime

Recently, Virilio's own work has been devoted to immigration and over-population. I can recommend ''The Futurism of the Instant: Stop-Eject' (Polity 2010) and 'Grey Ecology' (Atropos Press, 2009).

Eric

Thank you. I will read them.

Multiculturalism is now a word so politically highly charged as to have lost its original meaning.  Cultural variances is the past were largely seen as positive and often celebrated.  Europe itself has huge cultural differences and even within the nation states there were cultural variations.

There are of course aberrations in all cultures including our own.  It is patently obvious that aberrations should not be tolerated and turning a blind eye to them in order to avoid 'offending' ethnic minorities has resulted in some shocking behaviour being neglected and not dealt with.

This is not of course restricted to non European cultures.  The disgraceful shielding of Catholic and Anglican priests who were serial sex offenders and the now clear evidence that establishment figures and politicians also got away with this behaviour shows serious deficiencies in our own society.  The 'culture' of the church and the establishment has lead to untold misery for very many.

Quite obviously where cultural differences involve breaking the law they should not be tolerated and all who come to live in the UK or anywhere else for that matter must abide by the law and not insist on any special treatment.  There cannot be parallel legal systems, especially those based on cultural concepts that are unacceptable to the host countries social conventions and laws.

If immigrants, wherever it is they come from feel uncomfortable with social norms and especially laws of the country they chose to reside in they should consider leaving.  If they refuse to abide by such social norms and laws they should be obliged to leave.

By far the vast majority of immigrants assimilate and become productive and valuable citizens.  They do not deserve to be castigated about their cultures because some immigrants are undesirables with reprehensible versions of culture and anti-social traits.

Although the statement about sexual abuse by Catholic and Anglican priests is intended to detract from the issue at hand and cover up systematic raping and criminal behaviour of migrants in Europe, it should be noted that this behaviour came to light in the West, whereas the more pervasive sexual abuse by rabbis is still relatively hidden: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rabbi+child+molesters

Within a short span of time, immigration has become one of the major issues in the field of European politics and social discourse questioning the status quo of such conceptions as citizenship, nationhood and community cohesion. Multiculturalism as an ideology of a political strategy in particular. It seems even that the idea has become a scapegoat of several social problems like segregation, poverty, increase in crime rate and unemployment, extremism, terrorist attacks, to mention but a few accusations.

Be it noted that India is one of the most racist countries in the world, with a caste hierarchy defined by colour.  These are the daily facts brought about by immigration to Europe. The ones who bear the greatest responsibility for this mess are academic/media leftists and corporation owners looking for cheap labor.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545758/Seriously-dangerous-illegal-immigrant-jailed-15-years-shattering-five-year-old-boy-s-leg-leaving-looking-like-car-crash-victim-glassing-man-separate-nightclub-attack.html

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/15/brussels-terrorist-swedish-documentary-successful-integration-immigrants/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_vN_BTrDgc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-1gNPDqZEE

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/sunderland-man-out-celebrating-birthday-11137544

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8GSyLaxrI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547827/Syrian-migrant-17-joined-friends-brutal-three-hour-gang-rape.html 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LjjOJCDDWE

Corporation owners and presidents do not want their laborers to migrate, rather they would convince them that they are not cheap (even if in most cases they are) and that they are highly skilled (quite ridiculous knowing how little is required for most jobs, and that there is a huge discrepancy between people's skills and their credentials), otherwise they would not be there, relocating to create more positions at the expense of quality. Corporations are interested in cheap laborers not migrating from their cheaper countries.

You can't change the logic of business, the same is true for positions requiring more intellectual abilities - e.g. in research salaries are not adequate for the intensity and importance of work.

Big businesses create big threats and big opportunities (who gains is another question) and this is true for big countries. Look at the immigration crisis in the US - it is more likely for illegal migrants to get a job and a legal status because the powerful legal lobby behind it is feeding on that. At the same time skilled migrants will play by the rules and wait, very often leaving the US to create businesses and jobs elsewhere.

Racism exists everywhere, it is true, for instance it is the main reason for emigration of white people from South Africa. 

A great quote from President Obama

"Seek out people who don't agree with you. That will teach you to compromise. Compromise does not mean surrendering what you believe,"

The relative importance of race and religion to immigration and multiculturalism is much more complicated than it seems. In the current refugee crisis in Europe, the country which has immense responsibility as a transit one and one that has to accept migrants is Turkey. Funding (from the EU funds) alone is not enough for a deal. Knowing that Germany has always opposed its accession to the EU while the UK has firmly supported it tells us that the discourse of religion is populist, and that there are other issues such as economic advances, political influence and potential redistribution of power and funds within the EU.

As an adjunct to sociological studies, you might also read literary treatments of the problems encountered by immigrants.  After WW II there were many Displaced Persons, derogatively called "DP"s, working in heavy industry in many Eastern and midwestern US states.  Since I am a literature student and have taught fiction on this topic, a two stream approach may give insights that empirical studies alone may miss.  For instance, there is Flannery O'Connor's short story "DP."  There have been many other fictional treatments of more rcent waves of immigration, as well.

The new trend is to merging methods between the arts, humanities, and sciences.

One example is that the NSF gave a grant to read US fiction through a 'fuel consumption" lens.

RE. Obama:

Of course, that could be deconstructed/destroyed to read: 'Compromise does not mean surrendering what you believe. Compromise means getting the other guy to surrender what he believes.'

Barry has always talked the talk but never walked the walk. 

I always walk the walk and compromise most certainly means getting others to surrender what they believe. 

I am always ready to listen to the alternative argument before dismissing it, no one could be fairer than that.