First of all, I strongly disagree with those who say that multiculturalism is not fusible because it is all over the world and it is mainly enforced through migration and tourism. Also, I believe adaptation is the key to survival in this world we live in and if you actually think about it, everything around us is something we have adapted to in one way or another. In the case whether or not they agree or conflict with their own values and beliefs, I believe every country has a set of rules in the interest of the people residing in that country unless someone can give me a constitutional law which might conflict with a specific value or belief.
However, if the “stubborn” ones refuse to do this since the heat is too much for them, they should just stay out of the kitchen. Stay where they belong. It is that simple. But I honestly do not believe any situation will get that bad where people will be asked to stay in their respective countries. People have a special way of adapting without even noticing it.

Thanks for your contribution, Mama. I like your argument for individual adaptation.

But if people really are so adaptable to living with others who are significantly different from themselves, how do we explain all the ethnic and religious conflicts that we can observe? How can we explain the deep homophobia that exists in some countries?

It would be nice to think that people just get along, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. What do you think?

I vehemently disagree with the advocates for the non-existence of multiculturalism. Multiculturalsism is the way many countries and even people have become so successful. Their ability to adapt as Mama said has led them to brace themselves with different cultures and merge it with their to manipulate what they have gained to their advantage. As the saying goes, diversity is the spice of life. However, this can sometimes create conflicts between different ethnic and religious groups which exposes the vices of the cohabitation of different traditions. This draws us to the problem of compatibility which I think we can scarcely find a solution to. It would be sensible to say that we should all just stay in our respective countries and follow its laws and customs but then life would be just so boring. Our dynamic nature will send us into to places or countries unknown. We can move wherever we want to but we must adhere to the customs and traditions of wherever we find ourselves. As the saying goes, "When in Rome, we must do what the Romans do."

Living with others

Personally, I totally disapprove of this idea “Multiculuralism is a dead idea”. I think staying with people who have different backgrounds and cultures is a very effective way of gaining more knowledge about what happens in the world. This is an issue of global importance.
I would like to site some examples for emphasizing my point.
1.Imagine if people wouldn’t come out of their country like Russians lived only in Russia, Americans only lived in America or even Ghanaians only lived in Ghana. There would be no communication in between different countries. Implication:- Halting individuals horizon-something like living in a box.
2.If people would have decided to stay in their chambers; our society wouldn’t have moved forward. The developed countries like USA, Japan would have found new technologies and equipments and would not have shared with the other countries. Especially the third world countries would have stayed where they were from the beginning till the end. For the unprivileged countries they may not have any thrive to become developed.
3.Each country (let’s say Gaza strip) does not have the resources to be efficient therefore there is a need for exports and imports to take place but if this rule of “STAND ALONE” would have been applied this would have been impossible.
4.This miserable act will also be a hindrance in knowledge. Taking ourselves as an example:-We are doing IB a swizz board. Therefore if this idea of non-multiculturism was applied we wouldn’t be learning this intense course and would not get any international recognition!
Therefore, multiculturism is very important. As far as the different religious ethnic groups are concerned they should adapt the rest of the other religions as Mama and Zac mentioned earlier.

Multiculturalism is definitely not dead. A look at the United States of America would tell anyone so. There are so so so so so many kinds of people who call themselves Americans, black, yellow, pink, white…and they all seem to be living a relatively peaceful life, barring all instances of racism which I must say are not as bad today as they used to be in the past. America if we must say so does not have any underlying fundamental culture which compels everyone living there to toe a particular cultural line and as such not step on any other person’s toes. Quite the contrary, the American culture is made up of so many cultures, its almost ridiculous.

Then we take a look at some countries where in essence a specific culture is resonant with so many of the citizens, say for example some Middle Eastern countries which are predominantly Arab, and yet such countries still experience quite a lot of internal conflict…women fighting for their rights and the like. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt, and in places where a homogenous culture or way of life is strictly enforced people may become frustrated and resort to venting in rather violent ways. If for nothing at all, multiculturalism is a good way of allowing people to express themselves and avoid becoming activated time bombs.

Nice Abigail, I loove the way you contradic tthe statements with your examples. But let me be a little bit of a devil's advocate:

How much blame would you attribute the disorder we see in several societies to multiculturalism? We see that many things that cause strife are as a result of multicultralism.

What do you say about that? Does multiculturalism work as a whole?

Of course multiculturalism works. Look at the exercise we did. Didn't we all work it our in the end. I'm not sure about the other groups but on my group's island, we were able to strike a balance where the wealthy could control finances and help the economy grow and the intellectuals could help with education and the economic performance as a whole. Strife shouldn't necessarily be attributed to multicultarism. I think the world is rather moving more and more towards multiculturalism

I agree with Mama and Dzifa that multiculturalism is not a dead idea to some significant extent. It is true that we have all managed to live together in peace despite the fact that we hold different beliefs in our respective countries. This claim is yet to be proven because in Kenya for example the literacy rate is 89% meaning 11% of the 38million people are considered illiterate. This, however, does not mean that the 89% is aware of the laws that govern the country and that are ok with them.

Different people have different beliefs and if there was an opportunity for these people to come together to make laws that will govern them it would lead to very long meetings with little or no action. Considering the Muslims in Kenya who have really fought for the establishment of the Khadhi courts which are to contain laws that govern them while the Christians can use the other courts is an example where since we cannot live together let’s give everyone what he wants.

Certainly for us to come together we have to realize the basic needs that each one of us desires ie healthy diet, clean air, shelter and clothing. With this in mind we have to be tolerant, understand our real value and ensure that the freedom we chose to chose does not in any way compromise with the beliefs otherwise i strongly belief that Multiculturalism is a dead idea.

I totally agree with what most of you say, but in my case multiculturalism is very much alive
in most parts of the world.It is being practised all over the world.
An example to show this is the white color jobs. why must one wear a suit to an office?
especialy in African countries why cant we wear animal skins like our forefathers
did? this shows that we are intergrating with other people and we are sharing and gaining knowledge
and thus along side the intergration our cultures are being explored and intergrated
too therefore we practise multiculturalism.

OK - as a foundation for a society, should all of its members make the effort to learn the national language?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/14/david-cameron-immigrants-learn-english

2. To answer Mr Kitching's question, I will focus on what David Cameron said in his speech:

"Real communities are bound by common experiences forged by friendship and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time," he will say.

"So real integration takes time. That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods. This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it."

I think that it is only fair to the nationals of the country that they are encircled by familiarity and friendliness, as well as people who are willing to integrate into that community so that they live in the comfort and happiness that they deserve. Choosing to live in a foreign country means choosing to live in a place with different rules which MUST be adhered to equally and diligently, to ensure harmonious living.

This counters the argument I raised in my previous comment, however, in this particular situation, it will be difficult to argue otherwise. Therefore I stand on the opinion that indeed people should make the effort to learn the national language of the country they immigrated to to enhance that peaceful co-existence which is very necessary for a strong social foundation.

Learing the language of the people you live with would benefit you in that it would promote the "familiarity and friendliness" that we hope for.

However, such a thing in a sense discourages multiculturalism in my opinion. It means that we can't live together peacefully without having similar cultural traits.

There are many other aspects of cultures that can be smoothly blended into each other. However language has a strong argument against multiculturalism which we must consider.

I would love to share my culture but not become someone else just because I emigrated from my native country and immigrated into another. In the U.K., this idea is totally frivolous of thinking that people from different backgrounds are causing “disjointedness”. I see it like the different nationalities are just following their culture and traditions. Hence learning the national language of a country in which a person has immigrated into can be of an advantage because we are gaining knowledge but not on the cost of forgetting our own culture.

Moreover for any profession a person does not necessarily need to know the national language of a country he/she should just know how to his/her job correctly. Example an Ethiopian Surgeon does not need to know English in order to treat an English patient but just know his job correctly.