Dear Diego:

Mexico has taken steps in this direction (too late and too few, but nevertheless steps in the right direction). Check out the linguistic panorama in the Catalog, as well as the linguistic rights law of 2003, on the web page of the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas:

http://www.inali.gob.mx/

Here is an article with my personal perspective:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235930284_El_estudio_la_defensa_y_la_enseanza_de_las_lenguas_indgenas_de_Mxico_diecisis_aos_de_esfuerzos_interdisciplinarios_e_interinstitucionales

Conference Paper El estudio, la defensa y la enseñanza de las lenguas indígen...

May be the point is this goal "ensure equal rights for all". Presupposes everybody has understood "rights", a cardinal western notion. And "multicultural" can be not only a premodern notion but an antimodern construction. In some of the third world countries, "multicultural discourse" has been use to hide the inequiality and power dispute.

The liberal multiculturalism can found here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228260404_Multicultural_Justice_Will_Kymlicka_and_Cultural_Recognition

The "pro-multicultural" or feministic point of view (without "aislacionist" concept of culture, the colonialist heritage of "exotic people")

Phillips, Ann. Multiculturalism without culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007

Benhabib, Seyla. La democracia deliberativa y los dilemas multiculturales. En: Las reivindicaciones de la cultura. Igualdad y diversidad en la era global. Pp. 179-237. Buenos Aires: Katz, 2006 [2002]

The multiculturalism in conflict societies with "multicultural laws" but "oligarchic" traditions (Latin America)

http://www.ram-wan.net/restrepo/cultura/la%20desigualdad%20despues%20del%20multiculturalismo.pdf

http://www.luguiva.net/articulos/detalle.aspx?id=63

http://www.ram-wan.net/restrepo/documentos/multiculturalismo,%20gubernamentalidad%20y%20resistencia.pdf

Article Multicultural Justice: Will Kymlicka and Cultural Recognition

The "pro-multicultural" or feministic point of view ???? Where does feminism come in?

In any subject that we confuse ourselves (so popular these days) like E.U members, we could go back to basics, and start from square one: If the purpose of "one language- one nation" is to motivate and unified a group, it could be a productive approach. But, if the target is to name "one" to so many different kings of ethnics, languages, and cultures, just not to be alone and small in current political grouping, in my opinion, it is some sort of authoriterianism with a window- dressing.  

I've had a muddled thought process around this question and I think I've sorted it out.

In my mind, there's something that does not quite follow:  "Will a multicultural policy succeed in a state built on national identity and on the ideology of one language, one state, one nation?"

Separating policy from ideology-- these two are not so easily disentangled.   A state, nation, city, town, village usually has policies build around existing ideology.  In my policy classes, students are asked to write a policy analysis (on an existing policy of their choice) following an outline provided in the syllabus. One of the items they must address IS IDEOLOGY:  What is the ideology behind the policy or that illuminates/guides/represents/is related to the policy.

Thus, a multicultural policy (which has to be articulated and defined to approach the question) could not even be created if  the ideology of one language, one state, one nation is still strongly in place.  That model is in and of itself changing/ has changed very rapidly in the wake of globalization.  Does the nation-state still exist? has been a popular  topic of discussion and debate for a while. 

The other  part of the question,  " How can we overcome this contradiction and to ensure equal rights for all?" in my opinion, leads back to an age old question (historically, colonialism, conquering nations, immigration, emigration) and an age old conflict involving race and class, religion and whatever makes "minorities" of a people  in any place (geographically) throughout the world.  The contradiction becomes less so, but those conflicts will go on and ensuring the rights of all will continue to be an important issue.

In the Ecuador national identity is built on the roots of cultures, ancestral languages, but fundamentalemente, quality education is helping to design an Ecuadorian identity. The ideology stems from the cultural, religious, social, educational and political components.

In Israel we have many cultures not only of Jews and Arabs, but also among these two.

multi culturism means common legal behaviors, but a freedom of culture behavior.

It is more easy to talk about then to implicate.

So I will use the main nor, of medicine: DO NOT HEART

I understand your question from a Brazilian perspective (and from my own Brazilian experience).

A society based on the principle of "one language-one culture-one nation" is only possible if the group in power is going to use repression against everyone else. Most recent examples from the 20th century history are quite telling. Even with the best intentions, the end result can only be genocide (or something similar).

Anthropologically, it all goes back to the never resolved issue of universalism vs particularism, and the debate between Herder and Voltaire.

South Africa reflected a good example of the ideology behind the policy of  a hegemonic language and culture which was promoted at the expense of all other cultural and religious persuasions. the fierce resistance to the 'assumed mono cultural and monolinguistic" aspirations of the apartheid government only served to strengthen the resolve of the majority to maintain their ancestral legacy which forms the vibrant tapestry of the now rainbow nation - and  proudly South African.  In this era of globalization, there is a tendency for nation states to be apprehensive of culture, language and identity becoming diluted or diffused. yet these countries are richer for the diversities manifested.  It is interesting to note that the very countries that colonized the world are now subsumed with ensuring that their language and culture remains intact and free from influences of their colonial exploits, this is ironic! 

I have a problem with your research question: The contemporary European model of nation-state is based on the ideology of one state, one nation and one language.... In stead of taking this as an established fact to start your analysis from, make it a question to be answered: IS the contemporary European model of nation-state ...... Or else your research question will be one, whose answer we already know. 

May be the "model of nation-state" was an historical accident. Before the spread of imperial liberalism, there was bands, tribes or premodern states, as history shows in Africa, Asia and America. Now is usefull to the market the "national pride" and for some political legitimation of the statu quo. But the fact is that de political and economic liberalism create subjects ilustraded by Hooper´s art. Without a nation, without a "national past" or "national bonds". 

Now, I believe in Latin America, there are more States than nations. Instead, it calls "pluricultural or multicultural nations", after centurys of irregular modernization. 

A typical case of recent "nations" in search of the XIX century: Scotland or Catalunya. Or consequence of failed states: South Sudan.

This view could be supported by

British Identities before Nationalism: Ethnicity and Nationhood in the Atlantic World, 1600-1800. Colin Kidd, 1999.

Faith in Nation: Exclusionary Origins of Nationalism. Anthony Marx, 2005.

Extreme Politics: Nationalism, Violence, and the End of Eastern Europe, Charles King, 2010.

Nacion y Nacionalismo en América Latina. Jorge Enrique Gonzalez, 2007

Génesis y transformaciones del Estado Nación en Colombia. Una mirada topológica a los estudios sociales desde la filosofía política. Chaparro, Adolfo & Carolina Galindo, 2009

Estado, democracia y populismo en América Latina. Adolfo Chaparro; Carolina Galindo & Ana María Sallenave (Editores), 2008

The Rise and Decline of the State. Martin van Creveld. 1999

The above answers to your question, Diego, hinge upon a mis-comprehension that is the expected consequence of academic reluctance to permit effective methodological applications in the field of cultural understanding. While they are valid responses in an older context, they are not entirely satisfactory from the correct cultural principles that follow the honor-dignity binary methodology (see three papers on this in the writer's 'contribution' here at RG).

In a normative 'dignity-based' society, in which the tenets both of law and religion are predicated upon inherent dignity (whence inherent rights sanctioned and protected by the state), corollaries of reliance on faith and acceptance follow by fits and starts. This is not the easiest of philosophies to practice free of hypocrisy, but it does actually tend to gradually achieve a serious effort towards the ideal.

That ideal need not rely on one-language rule, yet it need not be torpedoed by it either. The test is not with language but with allowing linguistic sub-groups to have significant linguistic (and other) autonomy, provided official legal documents are in the official language. The test of whether and to what extent a multicultural society flourishes with a minimal degree of discord lies in the degree to which minority factions are accorded acceptance throughout opportunity, employment, education, worship and so forth, relative to the native or predominating faction.

A properly dignity-based culture should have little difficulty being multicultural. The extent to which they fail is only but precisely the extent to which they fail to live up to their dignity-based manifesto.

Thanks for a very good question.

Yes, but the question regards multicultural policy,not just existence in a society.

And 'policy' governs precisely what, and ensures precisely what? Answer: The social norms, the cultural prerequisites. These are the result of legal and religious cultural myth. Read especially the piece on Belief-Reliance Mechanisms under-girding the honor-dignity binary, in 'contributions' from my profile page.

If academe had not torpedoed the work of Mead and Benedict you would not be asking questions that so reflect on ignorance. Why would I specify policy when it is implicit to what I am arguing? Please get with the program or don't interject yourself. I am happy to entertain any and all questions as to a system few are acquainted with, as it is my stewardship responsibility as a scholar. It is not my responsibility to entertain needless baiting.

There is no need to be insulting and unprofessional.  I do not think you answered his question and  it my right tot participate on this site to post comments and questions.  If anything is beneath you, you can choose to forgo a  post -- it's that simple.

Where I come from being an intellectual cardboard box is unprofessional. Offering a rebuke for lack of intellectual couth is just that, a rebuke, coming from one who knows a whole lot more about the cultural end of this than yourself. I am responsible for developing the honor-dignity binary. What is your claim to fame? When you are here you should, unless you know you are in the right, assume that others might be your intellectual betters. That is a stewardship  principle helping to ensure the best ethics  in scholarship. Your don't treat a criticism from a superior as an ad hominem unless you are too stupid or arrogant to know better.

As it is you only prove my point. Get off your immature soap-box and read the article I offered you. Then you will better understand why I have said what I said. Until you are rid of a pompous attitude typical of tenure wannabes and the ignorance of an important facet of cultural knowledge, you have nothing to say to me. And if you are tenured you have zero excuse whatsoever for your attitude.

And by the way, dear. I am like this to everyone who acts as you do, and my reputation precedes me.

My answer may seem to be unusual since I'll approach the subject from a chemist's bird's eyes. In chemistry, we used to classify catalysts into (2) types: (i) Homogeneous (which means that the catalyst exists in the same phase as reactants). (ii) Heterogeneous (which indicates that the catalyst exists in a phase different from the phases of the reactants). This classification went on for years & is still adopted in general introductory courses.

Recently, progress in the field of catalysis increased the types to (4). The two additional types are: (iii) Homogeneously heterogenized catalysts. (iv) Heterogeneously homogenized catalysts.

Now, apply types (iii & iv) to answer the question about co-existence between nationalism and multiculturalism within a national state setting and there ought to be a way out from what appears to be a paradox. Human intelligence can work out a satisfactory resolution which is good for all provided that earnest intentions prevail.  

Bravo Nizar, you have just demonstrated the power of paradigmatics, which is a methodology premised originally on a four-part function of four archetypes in which the four satisfy at one and the same time conditions of a gradual incrementation as well as an internal logic functioning like a polynomial.

I apply this to cultural mechanics to form honor and dignity as first-last, and the two in between are both cults, one of honor (the best of all traits) and cult of dignity (the worst of the worst). The honor and dignity are the theoretically pure types, which honor-based societies can often though not usually successfully aspire to, the the dignity-based represent the highest evolutionary potential but which is exceedingly difficult to achieve. The incremental process goes: Honor, cult honor, cult dignity, dignity.

Thanks for your perspective!

Unity in diversity imbibed in citizens and practiced letter and spirit.

Dear Diego Barbosa da Silva ,

Look the link.

https://www.researchgate.net/topic/multiculturalism

Regards, Shafagat

What ever type of country it is, if companies want to remain competitive, to go international, to have competent workforce, to maintain CSR, etc. have to go for multicultural policy.

They have to learn multiculturalism and to manage effectively diverse workforce. 

Diego - focussing on your stipulation: "... a state built on ... the ideology of [just] one language" - yes, it will certainly work against multiculturalism if the government suppresses (or even discourages) the use of other languages. Sometimes, that policy can be quite severe and brutal. For example, when the Nazis occupied western Poland between 1939 and 1944, it was forbidden to speak Polish - even at home !

In Spain, Franco's government did not go quite that^ far, but when he was in power Catalan, Basque and Galician could not be taught in schools - (whereas now they are).

In France, Breton and Provençal do not enjoy any sort of official status - although the authorities are perhaps not quite as intolerant nowadays as they have been in the past.

Vasintha - in South Africa the old apartheid government did not ever try to suppress the Bantu languages - on the contrary, facilities were available whereby White people could study and learn them, if they wished - and there were many who took advantage of that. (However, it is true that the Bantu languages were not accorded any official government status in those days).

Diego - your original question did not specify "religion" [> "... a state built on ... the ideology of one religion" - !] ... As we all know, religious intolerance has led to much more bloodshed than linguistic intolerance - so you were wise not to invite any discussion of the likely consequences of religious differences !

David

With respect to your argument and the explanations Diego is looking for, the significance of promoting a multicultural society was about acknowledging all the people who lived within its borders and made significant contributions to the state, ...it was not about allowing white people to learn Bantu languages...it was more about how the other spoken languages enriched the social fabric of society in a way that it celebrated diversity.  If speaking a Bantu language only meant being restricted to certain roles in society I wonder what "suppress" in this sense truly means?

David:

The advancement in technology make our countries almost boderless, so we cannot stop multiculturalism in the global village in which we live. As such, global citizens are required to develop multicultural skills such as racial tolerance and cultural sensitivity. I don't think we can survive without the latter in a global society.

Many thanks,

Debra

Vasintha and Debra - Thank you for your comments !

Yes, more could have been done to encourage and develop Bantu literature in pre-1994 South Africa ... but some works were published:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_literature#Xhosa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_literature#Zulu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Wallet_Vilakazi#Works

Regards ...

Advocating multiculturalism does not mean simply putting forward a few legislative changes and policies; it involves the implementation of such legislation and policies and the rationale promoted by the dominant group via a variety of institutions, especially public institutions such as schools and health care. Berry et al. (2006, p. 328) point out that when a society pursues the assimilation expectation for immigration, ‘schools tend to reflect only the values and knowledge of the dominant society, and health care accepts and uses only the medical and pharmaceutical knowledge of the mainstream health system’. Comparatively, institutional changes are required to reflect the national goals of cultural diversity and inclusion if multiculturalism is encouraged. Therefore  governments  would  be  well  advised  to  re-evaluate  the  rationale  of developing public systems and establish appraisal mechanisms for evaluating public institutions’ performance in advocating multiculturalism and inclusion.

" The diversity of cultures is behind us, before us and all around us. The only demand we can make of it .... is that it take forms that each make a contribution to the utmost generosity of other people."

http://www.unesco.org/most/sydpaper.htm

Multiculturalism is an ideology that can only be understood as a justification for mass immigration into European-created countries; it is a cultural Marxist plan to diversify all white countries. Ying Lu obviously endorses the diversification of Australia by way of mass invasion of Asians, but she would never consider why it is that Asian countries, China, Japan, Korea, do not open their borders, but wish to remain homogeneous racially and, in the case of China, ruthlessly suppress their own internal minorities, Tibetans and Uighurs. 

Kundus's claim that the "diversity of cultures is all around us" is not confirmed by the evidence, since diversity is being promoted only in European-created countries. In India, there is still a caste system, separation of ethnic groups. European nations will self-destruct as hordes of Africans, Muslims and Asians bring their backward ways and ethnocentric interests into Europe, creating a highly charged racial atmosphere. 

 Ms Lu and Mr. Kiundu express the basic sentiments aback multiculturalism: 1) an attitude fostering mutual respect of cultures as between host majority and guest minority contributors (or, as often is the case between supervening majority and aboriginal minority cultures); a systematic policy intended to implement the attitude. 

Together these two address their common target 'markets': 1) the international realm asks countries to individually - or through multilateral 'conventions' - to introduce and advocate mutuality in cultural acceptance and respect as between countries, whether in business contacts (foreign firms hiring locally, e.g.) or exchange programs or in diplomacy where national aspirations on the world stage are played out; 2) the national realm, where governments are encouraged to facilitate trends toward tolerance but primarily to establish and implement policies that make assimilation easier for minorities without degrading the majority culture, and to make extension of national laws applicable to all who in fact qualify (i.e. no using culture as an excuse to evade legal responsibility).

I apologize for what may appear to insult the reader, for no such is intended, my purpose being to remind readers that many mis-characterize the intentions of multiculturalism, elevating it to an ideology that requires what the actual concept not only does not require but which can lead to policies that fly in the face of reality and good policy, matters justifiably pointed out my Prof. Duchesne.

The point of multiculturalism presupposes conditions adequate (where not normative) suitable to its means and ends. One simply cannot pretend to believe that stolid multiciuturalist ideals can be realized when borders are porous, whence the mere fact of numbers generates overloads on otherwise stable populations. This is not something multiculturalism anticipated, though advocate of the ideal certainly have the right to insist that host cultures show a respect for the dignity and to an extent the cultural reality of the apparent 'trespassers'.

The equivalent mollifying view in the US was to remind people that immigrants were lured by American businesses and this, no less than the desire for a better life, was the motivating reason for so-called *illegal* immigration, whence a 'deportation' policy is misguided, etc. Again, multiculturalism is not really relevant to facts on the ground but serves the ancillary function of helping ensure respect for cultural needs through the processes that are better seen for what they are, matters strictly of national border and foreign-relations.

In regard of the present difficulties in the Euro-zone, in light of Middle-Eastern migration in the hundreds of thousands, I will ledger the following observations for your interpretation:

1. The issue of immigration (set aside massive 'migration' for the moment) has long been a thorn for many EU countries, but not for all in precisely the same way. Those countries that hail from more honor-based (H-B)cultures (Baltic/East European - however one wishes to categorize some 25 nation-sates) have culturally-inclined dispositions to value self-help combined with a distaste for meddling in others' affairs (largely on fear of destabilizing counter-reactions) that, in addition to the potential social and economic disruption for a small country, must certainly disincline from even moderate immigration and suggest the need of border policies and legalized means of entrance and exit that respect justifiable entries and justifiable limits within the country.

2. No country maintaining or espousing 'open borders' can, despite the H-B cultural background, pretend to consider themselves free of responsibility for sensible policies regarding cross-border flow. Ergo, how much more responsible are they when mass movements occur? The current movements could have been predicted a while back. Why weren't provisions in place to handle the eventuality? This problem goes in part to the failure of EU administrators to gather the mental muscle to comprehend the import of mass migration, and doubtless also reflects a difficulty in making arrangements with recalcitrant member countries who would prefer kick the issue down the road, etc.

3. One can substantiate many complaints about German in recent times, but we must remember that they are nominally dignity-based (first clause of their post WW constitution: 'Dignity is non-negotiable' - or words directly to that effect), meaning that in principle the must respect human dignity NO MATTER the source. Of course, that is theory, and reality rarely fulfills the doctrinal aspirations. Here, however, the Germans, for whatever the immediate exigencies or expediencies, nonetheless adopted the dignity credo and publicly stated their willingness to shoulder much of the burden. Kudos for that.

4. So much for political policies. The multicultural element must recognize past and long-standing prejudices against foreigners and in some instances with special displeasure for Muslims. The upsurge in conservatism over the last decade has in many quarter by many analysts been attributed in part to the anti-foreigner contingencies. Clearly, the normative goal of multiculturalism has not been working so well, since we have seen only spotty improvement on that score. These are countries who could not comprehend, or could not owing to EU policies, gather the mentality that saw border control and visa mechanisms as an essential part of a modern state (of course this failure is standard fair, of which the U.S. offers spectacular evidence).

5. With shoddy success of multiculturalism we now have a massive influx of immigrants that are tailor-made to exacerbate all of the original reasons why foreigners were prejudiced against over the decades. If ever there were need for both international and national multicultural policies, now is that time. But they must come on the heels of political action, not pretend to lead the charge, not to sport an ideology the presumes to dictate policies from a vantage the ignorance of which must assuredly bode poorly for success.

In sum, multiculturalism is weighed down by partisans within who claim more for the concept than is warranted, by lack of national or local laws requiring due process and fair treatment for any minorities with colorable reason to qualify, by exigencies that though offering prefigurement were not prepared for, by policies too timorous to be effective over the din of public disapproval, to prejudicial attitudes of leaders, and to displacement by issues the political magnitude of which requires that multiculturalism take a deep breath and 'chill'.

The essential attitudes and policies are reasonable and responsible but must appreciate that the target market is one taken up with much political discord. Those favoring the multiculturalist approach (I am one) can best serve their fellow citizens by rendering as much help as is appropriate given their wherewithal. They can help to goad popular opinion toward policies that are more fair, or policies that are more reasonable and enabling for multicultural prospects. More than that is more than they are capable of offering and they, no more than others, should overstep the bounds of reason. To demand instant equivalence of rights as between host and guest populations is fanatical beyond reason and should not even be a part of any intelligent discussion of the problem. People are not ready for that, laws are not ready for that.

We need to understand that our elites, in the Western world, are not loyal to their own people; Google the meaning of the term "cultural Marxism"; we are ruled by cultural Marxist elites. How in the world could anyone believe that Europeans are getting culturally "enriched" by bringing hordes of Africans from the least developed educational parts of the world. Instead, what we are getting is a rape crisis across England, Sweden, Norway...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/250972/one-million-child-victims-muslim-rape-gangs-uk-arnold-ahlert

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford

Ah, my friend, but isn't there a difference (which my longish answer tried to point out and stress for both theoretical and practical realities) between a rational border policy, tied with a rational immigration policy - on the one hand - and the mass migration and resulting conflagration you interpret here? But of course there is.

I made brutally clear that multiculturalism has essentially nothing to say about such a crisis, which can only be a consequence of cultural history and foreign strife that lands thousands of teeming refugees upon small states and larger alike. I therefore entirely AGREE with your fundamental fears. But there is much more to your remarks than facts on the ground and a less than receptive mindset of conservative cultures to 'invasion'.

Your attitude is itself a part of the problem and goes far beyond the facts of the case. While I understand your frustration, you seem to be taking vengeance as much on humanity itself as upon your core ideals. Your ideals, I think we can agree, are for naught when there is no effective border and immigration policy, no? But of course. Let's not be ridiculous. You are a smart man. Let's just be real here. Your words say one thing and only one thing to an impartial observer. Let the hundreds of thousands dies far away from my turf so I don;t have to feel guilty, I can just shout out my philosophy of Euro supremacy over the rest of sad mankind. You may think such logic makes sense. I assure you that you are in a tiny minority. 

The Hungarian government wanted to send a message to those who had not yet embarked upon a sojourn from Syria and about to Europe. That can under some circumstances be understood and to an extent excused. Note, however, that it was Hungarian citizens who voluntarily offered food and water and buggies. 

In short. humanity sides with dignity and charity. By the same token, your worst fears are come true when governments fail to secure the most fundamental of all policy requirements, that of borders and immigration policy. You act as if you were complaining about them not by addressing those issues but by conflating what is a humanitarian crisis with what amounts to Nazi superciliousness toward the Jews. Honestly, Sir, I find little difference between the logic of the Reich and what you have just written.

It is hard for me to believe that you are a tyrannical misanthrope. In fact I categorically refuse to believe that. By the same token, your words cannot but block good-hearted people from any converse with you on the topic. You will have to comes down from Mt Olympus before we can progress further.

Perhaps the issue as it has arisen in France is better for us to reflect upon than the mass migration. France has been at all times broadly against large flows of Algerian immigrants. Then again, were it not for her prior involvement in that country she would not have confronted the moral queasiness of a colonizer needing to make good on guilt. What France never managed, whether because unable to muster the will, or because of EU regulations (I know not), was an rational border policy and a rational immigration policy. Had she seen to either or both, your concerns from her vantage would never have materialized for there would not have been so-called 'hordes', but a drivel, and those likely of better means and education who could add to the labor force, etc. Countries that accept small flows with immigration conditions have done quite well, thank you very much.

Multiculturalism in theory (it should but apparently is not in practice) presumes just that small trickle, or a pre-existing aboriginal population long since smothered by conquerors. In either case a multi-cultural policy makes very good sense, for it encourages full assimilation and promotes cross-cultural understandings - understandings not fettered by the fear of swarm mentality.

I understand your fears, but not your way of responding. I would suggest that 95 percent of mankind is squarely with me on this point. We all understand the right of a staate to maintain cultural integrity. But that means - by definition - border and immigration policies. When your country refuses these, don;t get on your high-horse about nasty low-brow types. Were YOU in Syria YOU would without question have been one of these refugees. Look at so many who have been interviewed. Bright people who would be middle and upper-middle class by your and my standards.

For god's sake man, please get a grip. Don;t let you lust for conservative credentials rob you of basic decency and humanity. If you want a secure culture, then rise up and get it by implementing and enforcing rational border and immigration policies. But when that fails, I really don't appreciate hearing your supercilious holier-than-thou attitudes. They have no place in today's world. That does not mean, by the way, that the world has been taken over by a group of Marxists. It only means that not everyone is as uncaring as yourself. Which is your right, good Sir. But don't press that into a serious moral flaw, for that violates the principles you are to uphold as a professor. 

Get a grip on that language, else you make the current situation still worse for everybody. Again, I certainly empathize with your cultural concerns. I do work in cultural theory and am one person more than able to understand where you are coming from. You, however, are going to far. That is hardly likely to settle problems. I would like you to get your faculty together and launch a campaign for secure borders and a rational immigration policy, which avoid all the problems you speak of. That would be far more valuable and effective that hurling epithets into the air.

As for Germany, let me leave you assured that she will lose nothing of her essence by accepting the numbers she predicts. That is simply a matter of common sense. Do a little number-crunching on cultures and observe what percentages are required for mass immigration to dilute a culture. Germany has nothing to fear - so long, that is, that this does not continue absent a border and immigration policy. I agree with you that it WILL be a serious problem if these border issues are not dealt with.

I wish you the very best, Sir.

P.S. Thx for the links!

Herman, may I offer this advice: formulate your views in a concise fashion, as this is not a place for long winded explanations.

I understand that it is typical among well-off whites to place themselves on a pedestal of moral self-righteousness promoting mass immigration into working class areas as they inhabit all white neighbourhoods.

Your claims about Germany not losing its ethnic identity are only true if this was an isolated incident, the Syrian migration, but you have to see this within a wider context of mass immigration across the West for decades; don't be so narrow in your perspective; look at immigration patterns elsewhere, combined with fertility rates of Europeans, and in one generation we will witness a massive racial transformation in the West. Also, read more about who is promoting mass immigration into all Western countries, and ask a simple question; why don't Muslim oil rich nations accept the Syrians? 

Your talk about "humanity" is feel good gibberish; if you are so humane, why do you selfishly think only about the Syrians, what about billions of Africans you are leaving to starve in Africa when they long to come to Germany and even to your home for domicile and food? You are a hypocrite. Then you bring the Nazis, which is intended to silence people who think different from you, which is what fascism is about. Were is your humanity for the British girls that are being systematically rape across Europe? 

Charles - Ricardo does make some good points (although some of what he says might be queried - or perhaps I should say 'reworded'). But I cannot agree with Charles that Germany 'will lose nothing of her essence' by accepting nearly a million refugees this year - because those will probably be followed by many more in the near future. We also need to look ahead at the next generation > Will the unborn children be as 'grateful' as their parents were? It is true that Charles ends up qualifying his claim - by acknowledging that "it WILL be a serious problem if these border issues are not dealt with" ... but is there any sign that Europe is going to take meaningful action in that regard? Yes, the refugees certainly do deserve sympathy and help... however, Britain's Prime Minister Cameron is right that it would be better to try and stem the 'flood' at its source. But how exactly are we supposed to do that, short of landing our troops and Police in Turkey and Libya (and in Syria !)?

Ricardo is also correct that the Saudi Arabian and German attitudes are completely different with regard to this terrible tragedy. The unscrupulous "people traffickers" know all too well that they would end up in jail (or worse) if they tried to land their "cargo" on the Saudi coast !

David, thanks for your input. Everything you have said is effectively correct. Which is the problem, no?

The refugees deserve this, but that implies 'that; which we cannot condone. Herrman is right, but fate will prove him wrong. 

You say that Ricardo was correct as to different attitudes as per Germany and, say, Saudi Arabia. You might have also said that of Herrman - and not only would it be true, it would have presupposed the actual seed of the problem, which is a composite of cultural prejudice and the unwillingness to face exigent political circumstances with a backbone. Ricardo and you are right about one thing: cultural insistence on purity goes with stiff conservatism. Japan and the Ainu, Israel and the Palestinians and ad nauseum. If the latter is countenanced, and I can see that in rare instances, the alternative is a resort to the sources of migrations.

Of course, as an American I must confess a sad truth. As to tackling the issue at its source, logic holds correctly that involvement in the Syrian (and other examples throughout the world) was to have been a cornerstone part of a comprehensive solution. The vast majority of Obama's advisers, including Secty Clinton (after realizing her mistakes in wishing to avoid the Arab spring) recommended he take action with other states and NATO. He did not, and that is no small part of the reason for the present Syrian aspect of the over-all problem.

President Clinton had to be pushed kicking and screaming to bomb in Bosnia, for which efforts those who immigrated to America are duly grateful but wonder aloud how and why it took him so incredibly long to get things figured out. Think of the immigration problem had THAT problem not been sternly dealt with!

When the Haitian refugee crisis threatened to flood Florida with an eventual Hungarian-style rejection, Clinton effectively took the national border to the edge of our water rights and stopped them there. This resolved the issue, but very unsatisfactorily in many minds, for it is hardly a solution over the long run, and we could easily have absorbed many thousands had we but entertained an intelligent border and immigration policy in advance of such emergencies. Clearly the EU could have avoided the Hungary problem in advance by having previously laid out plans to transport directly to Germany, as well as arrangements with other nations.

The issue, David, is not rocket science. We deserve the government we get, and we have not had the best. Whence we are all victims together when crises like this arise. I submit for your overview that your approach, while it may sound rational and provoke academic good will, is effectively effete. You sound puffy and stodgy, unable or unwilling to see the sad issues squarely and so refuse to deal with them in ways that are direct, effective and humanitarian (war serves humanitarian ends if correctly premised and rationally engaged).

It is the refusal of countries whose cultural history, in over-worshiping a work ethic that cannot help but result in paralytic fear of disruption, that in turn rejects mutual consent in doing what resolves these problems at the source. You want such and so but are not willing to do what your own logic decrees. What gibberish is that? Or you defend the right to be free of distress on the basis of stereotyping or worse?

Please, David, do try a little harder for me. Maybe you are out of your league here. Clearly Ricardo is. Tell me why your culture cannot or will not do what stems or otherwise eases these conflagrations. Do not tell me that doing nothing is a solution, that Darwinian-style methods are the best for everyone, solving problems while easing overpopulation, etc, etc. For every answer you offer in good conscience I will show you how absurdly feeble your efforts are when not squarely confronting reality with prescient policy. Or, tell me your ideas for invigorating society to enable such prescience.

Good luck with all that.

Charles: You are right - I am indeed "out of my league" in the sense that I just do not know how best to sort out Europe's terrible refugee crisis.

Until a few minutes ago, I did not realize that the question: "Why [do] Syrians do not flee to Gulf states?" has indeed been asked publicly

- see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34132308

where we read:

... which is then followed by a cartoon which was actually published in a Saudi newspaper !

Thanks, David for the article link. Clearly, another example that regardless government policies (the Saudies maintain a definite and strict border and immigration policy), portions of the populace see matters differently, as expected, and as we see with Hungary. All want to retain cultural integrity: few want to do that devoid of compassion.

Thanks again.

It is going to be wonderful kiddos, the more immigrants we get, the greater the enrichment! Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c4Rvz5stHE&feature=youtu.be

Easy, big guy. You haven't been listening, and the length of my remarks in this instance is no excuse for a loyal conservative to blow them off. Low-grade immigration has never been a problem for anybody save bigots, and you know that or you should give up on academe. I have never said that this mass immigration is a barrel of laughs, for obviously it isn't. The worst thing is that there have been realistic answers to it but half of the world's conservatives want nothing but to pound their chests, and the other half have do actually desire a sane border and immigration policy. Blaming lefties, commies or Marxists is worse than scapegoatism, it shows what you are made of, and 'backbone' doesn't well describe matters.

I should also say that while I am a professed liberal, I have had serious problems trying to convince my brothers that a border and immigration policy are sorely lacking and that they should expect more 'fun and games' if they don't get serious. So here's the ultimate irony. You are an academic acting exactly like, talking and thinking exactly like half of the liberals in my country. That is not something you should be proud of. You should wake up and get a grip.

If this could be only an academic discussion of how to understand, evaluate and handle a problem short of 'reverse genocide', I would not be talking like this (and my opening remarks prove the assertion). But you conservative morons won't have any discussion, so this is the end of the line for me. How you can carry on and not appreciate that these problems are because of a failure of citizens and their governments to give advance planning into border and immigration policy is beyond my comprehension. Building borders during a crisis is an answer so late that it fans the fires of hatred all around. It bisters the imagination that an academic is that slow, that silly, that stodgy, that glib, that unrealistic. And conservatives pride themselves on being 'real'. Really?

Kiddoes, have fun, and as long as you are all for shouting and none for understanind or resolving matters, good luck and God Bless, but not on my time or dime. I'm off to do real scholarship, not pound my chest because it makes my vitals tickle or sing stronger.

Answers you offer are typical clichés one hears from academics who are 30 years  behind in understanding what is going on in the world today. "Give up on academe" --- as if you are the final voice on what academe should be about.  Here is an article that  should clear up your mind: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ricardo_Duchesne/contributions

Here are your friends scapegoating British white girls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0YEtuacUk

Here is how we should reason about the migrant crisis:

The Truth About the Migrant Crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BDqzmG-rH8

My own country formally and juridically functions as a multi-cultural state. Wars have been waged in relation to this. To my opinion, no matter how much policy changes, the situation shall remain the same. Examples, no question can be found throughout individual cases. Notwithstanding these facts: the problem still remains. Rare one can see an employment in regard to what once used to be called "nationalities" and/or "minorities". They now call us "ethnic community". 

The only clue to this is a change of the mentality of the people. They are used to seeing us as differing from others. Educations should not be as formal as it is, ( only for a diploma if you pay), but essential. At least if there were a boundary among professionals and non-professionals. 

In conclusion, one can not regard this an academic issue, at least to my modest opinion, as policy making, is not what politics is about. What we face with is "daily politics", and that unfortunately means more mis-interpretation, rather then essentially treating the problem. My working ( and f many others), in a place dominated by my own background, instead of the living place, can serve you as an argument.

I have treated a bit this problem in :: 'Cultural heritage and Identity: the Albanian Experience", naturally using semiotics as a methodology. There is another one that is not final: "Multilingualism in a Semiotic Context: Sameness vs. Otherness". However, these reflect, as it is expected, more a semiotic research than an empirical result.

Hope I have answered the question, basing myself on my own experience.

Thank you, Buhar, will read your article with interest.

It is interesting to note the unusual scenario which Hoxha describes - i.e., the attempt to reconcile two or three different Albanian communities whose local political circumstances diverged when the Hapsburg Empire was dismantled - and then continuing to do so (much more markedly) when the "Iron Curtain" fell across Europe. Elsewhere in the world, on the other hand, it is usually a case of diverse cultural groups trying to share the same country.

Exactly. Thank you so much. Recently, thwnks Gof, pople started becoming aware of this.

Thank you for supporting my views.

Bujar.

nizar , interesting analogy .

the question which remains unanswered now is what these Homogeneously hetereogenized catalysts and Heterogeneously homogenized catalysts  are  in an excruciatingly dynamic unpredictable and volatile environment of human relations, emotions and the destructive cunning policies of most decision makers.

Opportunists

Populist political and national movements gained a wide support in a number of countries. This tendency is closely connected to the criticism of multiculturalism and its failure to ensure social homogeneity and integration. The terms immigration and minorities were becoming synonyms to increased criminal rates, underemployment, poor education and social challenges

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=3806594&fileOId=3806606

Hoy el multiculturalismo es una realidad cada vez más presente en nuestras sociedades, pues a la diversidad cultural de los propios estados hay que agregar el creciente pluralismo proveniente del fenómeno migratorio. Estos flujos migratorios comportan cambios significativos desde el punto de vista político, social, económico, educativo, etc. Ya es obligado decir que España ha pasado en pocos años de exportar trabajadores a otros países a recibir un llamativo número de inmigrantes extranjeros, es decir, las personas que han llegado de otros países y que siguen llegando todos los días y las hijas e hijos de estos hombres y mujeres que han nacido aquí.

La inmigración comporta cambios en la realidad social. Nuestra sociedad por ejemplo, es cada vez más multicultural. La educación, naturalmente, no escapa a esta preocupación y aumentan las voces que demandan una formación intercultural, en cuanto vía apropiada de atención a la diversidad cultural.

El pueblo Cañari es netamente multicultura, porque vivimos armonía con madre naturaleza, no conocemos reduccionismo, más bien somos cultura unitaria en la diversidad, pero por el sistema colonial viven en la pobreza, los recursos naturales del Ecuador son asaltados por las empresas extranjeras, y los ricos explotan a los Pueblos.

Will a multicultural policy succeed in a state built on national identity and on the ideology of one language, one state, one nation?

The fact of asking if a multicultural policy will succeed in a state built on a national identity and on the ideology of one language, one state and one nation is a very complex and multi-faceted question. This statement being made, it is important for me to provide some explanations before responding to the question.

A multicultural policy is the policy that is grounded into the idea that the beneficiaries are of/or have different (cultural) background and that contenting them require the need to take into account some specificities or particularities.

The nation, according to the French theoretician, Ernest Renan, is group of people having in common the same territory, the same language, the common history and the will to have the same future. With this meaning, one can deduct that a nation comes to life and at a certain time die. Another conclusion is that we had nations in Africa before the colonial disruption mainly in the nineteenth century. It is on purpose that the Beninois constitutionalist, Maurice Ahanazo-Glèlè, entitled one of his books, Du pouvoir adja à la nation fon(1974). It means that there was a Fon nation as there has been a historic Yoruba, Mande nation for example. Even the European nations were completely built only in the nineteenth century. Prussia was also a nation that has been dismantled along the Franco-German war (1878) and later the world wars I and II into Germany, Austria, the German side of Poland, etc. France, although claiming to be a mono-cultural entity, is made of different identities. The Basques are not the Brittons; the Normans, and others had their own languages before the uniformised French language be imposed upon all of them and the French Academy, the watchman of the purity of the latter. But till to date, when certain issues arise, one see people jealously reaffirm their being Basque, Corsica, Norman or any other local identity.

The question is how a multicultural policy could succeed in a context of national identity with one state, one language. In fact, defending a national identity is assuming that there are local identities and that policies will help ‘’harmonise’’ people in order to highlight what is common to the latter in the state. But what hinders the most the national project is the fact the state policies fail to put every local identity to the same level of enjoyment of the rights. So, some people have the impression that they do not have the same rights with others or they are victim of a sort of double standards. The consequence i that when policy-actions and state-actors give the impression to some groups that their belief in the state is betrayed, it is any longer possible to reach the noble aim of the nation. Daily police violence in some countries is a proof of such a thing and eventually local identities start developing ideas and actions that finally definitely lead to the collapse of the state unless the latter use the violence to main the local identities in to the state. So when the state succeed to define and maintain core values with their subsequent rights, it is still possible to keep the project of a state based on one language, one state and one nation.

Igor Severyanin Glimpses

There 's evil in good and vice versa, But people are neither that nor this. They all are right, and even more so, Not worth a curse, not worth a bliss.

There is no Sweden or Japan, But only people are around Who under pale and crippled Sun Are crawling on the shaky ground.

https://ruverses.com/igor-severyanin/glimpses/#disqus_thread

It is often said that in order to identify as a nation, the territory must have the following 5 features in common:

1) A common Language

2) A common Culture

3) A common territory

4) Common Goals

5) Common ideals

Many of the states especially in Europe are built on this basis, however, embracing a multicultural identity, helps in the strengthening of institutions such as government, society and empowers individuals in order to be represented. An example of this is Belgium, who have adopted a system of multiculturalism in terms of th linguistic base i order to maintain peace in the nation. A similar situation can be seen outside the European context in India, where the concept of the union of states is a coming together federation based on common ideals, but, cultural identity of each community within it is intact. Scholars, often call nations of this type state nations, or those countries that could be a number of independent states. This is also similar to the United States of America, where the multicultural identities are held together by the center for purposes of International security, representation.

Those common features are no longer very valid since the rise of USA culture (through film industry, food, etc.) in the last three decades, the over-exploitation of natural resources by multinationals that negate hope to youth in several countries, etc. The growing numbers of migrants in Mediterranean sea and the Black sea are examples of the lost of hope...

No! On the other hand, the answer is already implicit in your question ...

No!

No.

Canada? A dramatically “immigrant society” with a policy of Official multiculturalism. Two official languages, (and the very recent implementation of the rôle of Commissioner of Indigenous Languages). The Province of Québec has somewhat “special status” within the One Nation.

How well, realistically, does this all work?

The official motto of Guyana, another multiethnic nation with which I have some familiarity, is One People, One Nation, One Destiny. Interethnic tensions have been perpetual, occasionally erupting into violence; political and other affiliations, pre- and post-Independence from Britain, have long been along ethno-racial lines.

So, are there successful Nations with policies of multiculturalism? Canada, perhaps? though the entente is perhaps less easy than it once was.

Belgium? Switzerland? Also officially multilingual, within territorial and political boundaries.

The type of government system would be a factor as well.

A multicultural policy may succeed in a state built on national identity and on the ideology of one language, one state, one nation, as long as rules are established to financially or symbolically support minority cultural groups. We must bear in mind that culture forms an essential aspect of individual identities, and individuals operate from a cultural point of view. Differences between one culture and another are based on standards, clarifications and perceptions.

Cultural Pluralism is the key. A nation has its own language(s) and institutions, which can be called culture. Within that culture, other cultures can coexist harmoniously. This is the idea of Cultural Pluralism. Within the idea of Multiculturalism, the dominant culture is not needed and this does not function very well.

The answer lies in the process of social learning. If the state imposes certain rules, the citizens must comply: they will accept those who speak another language or have another religion, but this does not mean that they will get along with them or that they will be in solidarity. Multiculturalism is based on mutual tolerance (voluntary or imposed), while interculturalism means mutual understanding and appreciation. Intercultural dialogue, intercultural co-construction and social solidarity occur after different cultural groups coexist for a long time and find, alone, reasons to show solidarity. This happened in Banat, the region in Romania where I live, but ... after two centuries. The element that welded the different ethnic groups living in Banat was the regional identity, to which was added a common material culture and a common way of life. In the contemporary era, there is a chance that this desire for intercultural solidarity will never happen, because the man of the 21st century has no desire to remain permanently in a certain place - this can be seen in the millions of workers who travel from Germany to France, the Netherlands. and everywhere I find opportunities. The countries that formed on the basis of ethno-nations were not even ethnically pure, especially Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland. Their attitude towards minorities was different. for example, Romania sought the path of tolerance and consensus (except for the Antonescu and Ceausescu regimes of the twentieth century). Other countries have not officially recognized those minorities and pursued a policy of forced assimilation or even expelled the minorities to their related countries / kin states.

All this is a very important issue, not only for the present but we must also think to the future as mentioned 'the man of the 21th century'. In my country Belgium, there are living Russians, they speak Flemish and Russian are integrated but still have their Russian identity card. In case of conflict between East and West, which side they will choose, we don't know. All Russians are patriotic and Europeans have still a weak identity.

multiculturality could be used as a policy to build one state. But that can not call for one single language as national identity. it doesn't work that way and it works against the idea of multicultural society