ismaël Soobrattee   I think the the government can certainly create policies to deal with such problems/issues.  However, laws and policies have to be employed and practiced by their peoples; just like morality, values, beliefs, attitudes, discrimination, racism, hatred (for those that are "not like me," ) etc. cannot be legalized.  The histories of other countries have taught us that much on this issue.

Governments can't change people's attitudes and viewpoints with laws.  They can attempt to modify behaviors; if these behavior-modification laws pertain to attitudes and viewpoints they will likely be unsuccessful.

Cultural differences are not a problem, ever, in of themselves.  Laws, as in the rule of law are created and adopted by government entities, be they local state or national.  Morals are only local, when so created or defined. Ideologies are belief systems that differ across groups everywhere, also created of developed.

Governmental laws do not govern, rule, or make laws regarding  religion or religious beliefs in many countries, only in some countries.  The US constitution specifically established the separation between church and state.  Individuals, groups, even communities may create problems when they are intolerant of cultural/religious differences; that is when rule of law comes into play.

No law is stronger than the norm it circulates around. Norms are often more powerful than law in shaping behavior.

Norms may be totally unrelated to  laws. Non-adherence to laws has specific defined consequences.

"..Laws which are Norms.:: Laws are NOT norms

Francesca, With all due respect and no offense intended, I have a difficult time understanding or following your writings.

Laws are rules created by governments, local, state or national, to be followed by the people in order to maintain society.  Religious laws are a product of the institution that creates them and each has its own "laws;" of which I am only familiar with canon law/Christian law.  There is Islamic law, Jewish law, Hindu law and so on. 

Don't confuse either of these with norms, even thought they may reflect a law/statute. For e.g., a norm can be as simple as in the US in the 50s, "women don't wear pants;" and a law can be do not cross in the middle of the street/sidewalk , only at the corner. In both cases, neither is the other, in terms of law/norm.

Mores are norms based  on morals, such as,  only married couples live together.

I really cannot say anymore without writing a book (or 2 or 3, as has been done) and I spent many weeks in sociology and philosophy classes on these topics.

Hello.

ALL implication of policy will not eliminate the problem.

Education for tolerance at home, school and in work places are the significant solusion

Your question is an age-old one going back more than 3,000 years. There is sufficient data to suggest that we humans begin to form our racial, ethnic, religious, and gender attitudes by the time we are 3 years old. We build on those initial training sessions that are many times unconsciously conveyed to us from parents primarily and secondarily by our siblings and friends. Yes, we can offer extensive programs  to help modify these negative attitudes, but we also must ensure that early childhood development by parents is void of such negative attitudes and teaching. Ensuring this occurs is not a government problem only, its larger and more lethal than government, its a world problem. Each of us must do all we can to eliminate indifference and injustice. As Elie Wiesel has said, "Hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is the opposite of love".

Yes, Charles, you are so right.  We may form those attitudes, if as you say we are trained and so on.  As the song goes, "You have to be taught." 

There are also studies that show very young children play and interact equally with other  children, regardless of color.  And there are biographical and autobiographical accounts that, not until High School do "children/adolescents" begin to act on others' notions of who their friends are/should be; then they abandon their  childhood friends who are racially/ethnically different.

Richman's position I agree. we only can look at models Ismael. Singaporean social experiment is a good one to study.  I have looked at it, and its a doable proposition but adaptability  is a requirement. But we will still not solve all issues. Society is a by product of conflicts of some sort. That is why we call it society. Durkheim is very clear on this and it is in society's engagement  that we can attempt to resolve. I am an optimist through and through, I tend to work with models and not ideals even though ideals could be helpful.

Hmmm, as in good academic tradition I think we need to start by unpacking the question.  By 'ethnic problem' I am hoping that you mean discrimination i.e. that the 'problem' does not lie in the concept of ethnicity itself but in the tendency of some groups to abuse their power (historical, cultural, economic, physical) over others.  I think whilst we live in a world where competition is considered a force for good and the main political impetus for anti-discrimination policies is a 'business case', we will not make progress on removing discrimination. But, like Shanthikumar, I am an optimist.  We do not currently live in the best social system that we could and eventually we will progress. I hope that in 500 years time historians will look back and consider the 20th and 21st Centuries barbaric.

Bearing in mind the brilliant interventions above, my addition speaks to "how" ethnic problems can be "eliminated." For sure, ethnic problems can not be eliminated but managed. There will always be ethnic ideologues or "entrepreneurs" whose political existence and relevance is linked to the promotion of ethnic tension. The management of the ethnic question in multicultural society means the creation of institutions and promotion of norms (as you have noted through laws, etc). For instance, in some multicultural Africa, cultural pluralism has been managed with such mechanisms/policies like the rotational presidency, federal character, national youth service, judicial and economic reforms among possibly numerous instruments. The clause is however that these policies must be contextualised and structured to achieve stated goals. Thus, while national youth service schemes seem to positively contribute to promoting a national identity in Nigeria and Ghana, it has been a source of trouble and "negative contact" in other contexts. Simply, policies for managing cultural plurality (i.e. nation building policies) can, in themselves, be the basis for mobilising ethnic tensions and divisions. Examples abound.

Yes, the tension is between multiculturalism (which might promote separatism) and cohesion (which might simply mean promoting and imposing the ideals of the ethnic majority).  The same issue has for a long time concerned feminists.  How do we recognise our similarities as women without losing sight of the importance of the different experiences between women.  The same issues are present in the labour movement.  How do we strengthen our collectivism as workers, whilst remembering that as women, men, ethnic minorities, workers with disabilities, older workers, younger workers, workers with different sexual orientations, we may not experience the workplace in exactly the same way and may need to respond differently. 

What must not be forgotten is that we teach (whether we are parents or educators) not only by word, but also by our behaviors. Our toddlers, and older youth, understand our actions clearly when we are tense around the "other'', avoid and/or make so called jokes about those who are different from us. Some years ago I visited the L.A. Holocaust Museum; there were two doors, Door #1 said, "If you are NOT prejudice enter here", the 2nd door said, "If you are prejudice enter here". Door #1 was permanently locked. We all have work to do.

There are schools around the world that discourage critical thinking and teach young impressionable children demonstrably unfounded notions, some fostering hatred--even violence, and oppression--as essential life skills.  They seem to succeed, which would at least imply that school could be a place for children to learn critical thinking along with biological, historical and social realities, as a path toward a better world--or at least a safer world--for everyone.  

But it would have to become government policy to teach biological, historical and social reality in school.  And perhaps the time has come.

When I was little I didn't have to go to Bible camp, Hebrew school or memorize the Koran--I don't know that this was either a good or a bad thing.  But I know that in that I met my myth-as-reality quotient in public school, where I Iearned that the Father of all politicians fessed up to a hatchet-job rather than lie, and America was a religious, racial and ethnic plurality.  Certainly well-intentioned, but not true.

My parents taught me that my family had a direct line to what was right, and therefore good, and also that America was a religious, racial and ethnic pluralism.  Also well-intentioned, but also not true, and probably familiar to more than one of you.

When my daughter first introduced me to someone she might marry, heritage inevitably came up--but religion wasn't mentioned, so I asked.  The young man paused, possibly fearing this was the deal-breaker.  "My parents raised me to be a decent human being" he said.  He didn't turn out to be the one she married, but I'll never forget him because he reminded me of all that really matters. 

I think we might try to foster human decency by teaching biological, historical and social reality in public school.  Taking action against bullying is a good start--it is absolutely true that kids can be cruel, but the greater truth is, kids can also be kind--it all depends on what we teach them.  

I don't think kids are ever too young to learn that we approach human decency from different directions, but the goal is shared; that race is an irrational social construct, that different faiths are all legitimate ways to approach the sacred, that personal choice of faith is whatever makes each individual most comfortable, not a measure of human decency where anyone comes out on top.  Put differently, we could start by teaching a reality-based curricula, or as close as we can possibly get to it.  It may not be a perfect solution, but its a way that government could help reduce the mythology and pseudo-ethnography that is taught as reality (or goes unchallenged) in schools, perhaps relieving some of its negative social consequences.

Hi Ismaël,

I believe that reducing ethnic tensions/conflicts has a lot to do with social equality. In fact, we could substitute “ethnic” by “social” in many cases. The riots in the French banlieues (suburban areas of French cities) that have been going on for decades are a good example of the fact that interethnic conflict (and ethnic radicalization) is greatly a result of the profound marginalization, social disadvantage and social exclusion of certain sections of the population; that is enforced social and spatial isolation of a low-income population of immigrant origin (mostly not immigrants themselves!), in turn distancing them from institutions and subjecting them to stigmatization; the continual cuts in spending on social services (e.g., on labour insertion or social housing programs); and ethnic discrimination within the job market. The urban violence in the banlieues is, therefore, a reaction born out of frustration with ethnified and deculturalized marginalization, but it can mistakenly become mired in culturalist interpretations… So I think it is crucial to bear social equality in mind.

This is a related publication that might be useful (it's available in ResearchGate):

Rodríguez-García, Dan (2010) “Beyond Assimilation and Multiculturalism: A Critical Review of the Debate on Managing Diversity”. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 11(3): 251-271.

Best,

Dan