What is the population of Poland's non-european minority?

For me there are two types:

1. The situation where there are different ethnic groups and cultures living in the same area.
2. The political ideology of multiculturalism. Which includes the cultural relativism, focus on ethnicity and collectivity (i.e. seperate laws and the likes). This is mainly a problem in western Europe, but the discussion have begun in many places. Some even dare to speak that maybe not all cultures and their customs are equally good.

Neither of those fit the classic definition.


Interesting that you approach the issue as 'a problem'.

Of course they arent. Compare French culture to lads living in the jungles of Papa new guinea.

Not all cultures are equal, anyone who claims that they are is ignoring reality.

I think I'm pretty much dead on.


For me it is a problem. When cultural customs such as murdering innocent girls because they have "dishonored" their family, then yes, I see the issue as a problem. The ideology of multuculturalism also say (because of the cultural relativism) that these customs are not better nor worse than for example our European customs and values, they are simply "different" and must be understood. The same goes with circumcition, female mutilation, to the freedom from religion. So focus shifts from individual to group (ethnic group), where your personal rights is in somewhat way decided according to which ethnic group you belong.

And if your opinion is that this have nothing to do with multiculturalism, then we probably won't get much further in the discussion than this.

Yes. None of that rant has to do with multiculturalism. And the level of debate for the wikipedia page you cite isn't much better than some of RN's posts here.

So the academic world hasn't got the correct grip of what multiculturalism is? Would you mind telling them (and me) then what is?

So bring your own definition of multiculturalism into this and we can see where that takes things.

Then stop being lazy and define your terms (and address the research that shows it's not necessarily a never-ending street carnival of grooviness).

No. I'm having too much fun reading the sub Daily Mail comments which as ever come down to fear of that which is different.

You can point and namecall all you want but you're the one who made the ridiculous statement to begin with and haven't accepted the given definition of multi-culturalism- you're thowing up smokescreens while offering no substance and baseless accussations. What gives?

Ok, you can't be taken seriously. Just admit that you are frustrated that everyone doesn't share your opinions, but have no ways whatsoever to argue for your position?

Ad hominem and guilt by association, classic signs of someone lacking knowledge and arguments.

That about sums it up.

What sums it up is that we see increasingly frustrated sniping by people with a track record on here of opposing immigration. People looking for an argument but not getting one because all has been said already.

While immigration steadily grows here without negative effect.

What's your problem, there have been legitimate criticisms of some effects of multiculturalism by at least one academic which were brought up in this thread. You simply ignored it. You aren't happy with the definition of multiculutralism that people on this topci have agreed upon but haven't nominated a different definition. You speak in absolutes and insult anyone who doesn't. Take a time out.

If you honestly can't think of a single negative effect that has ever come out of multiculturalism then I guess that's how you see things, but with all things, there are advantages and drawbacks, so your assertions on this matter can simply, by way of reasoning, be disregarded. Sorry.

Why can't you define 'multiculturalism' or address the research concerns raised by Putnam?

Can you really look at places like Rosengrad (Malmo Sweden) or self-declared Shariah zones in the UK or the banlieues of France and see only good?


I thought multiculturalism wasn't about immigration? For the record, I think small scaled immigration by people who know there's no social safety net for them isn't necessarily a bad thing, but as the man said "democracy, multiculturalism, mass immigration — pick any two of three" (because no one has successfully combined all three).

I live in a diverse and multicultural country and I personally love it here.

Given that this site is known for having racists and anti-Semites, I am not surprised to see so many ignorant people in opposition. This site is honestly starting to look like another Stormfront. I feel embarrassed being a registered member here.

Hello all-

As long as they are skilled labor and educated I don't see a problem letting some in to the US, as long as it is a small percentage. The problem comes when we allow 3rd world bums to come in mass. For instance, they are allowing a whole bunch of Somali's to immigrate to the US and they are ending up in Minnesota. These people don't work and live off the welfare state. Thats whats messed up. It all started when they changed the immigration law in 1965. The US was a white nation until that bill was passed into law.

Horse and feathers, care to name such a place cos one doesn't exist, if it did exist and was stable that wouldn't be multiculturalism but occupation/domination.


So all Americans should be puritanical bigots? Don't be silly all cultures and most societies evolve. Any society that cut its self off from change died.


We are discussing problems with migration and social evolution not hard science, all terms used by you here are non quantifiable, what was your point?

Care to point to anywhere in Western Europe with different laws for different ethnicities?

Hi Michael Jackson,
You said the US is the only nation that do not have specific race. Have you ever heard about Brazil?

Had a search for him, found the wiki pages for bowling alone and the links to conflict theory which in turn led me to several links to class conflict and such like, I then remembered the wiki page for confirmation bias.

So the empirical study is not empirical at all but a social study and as I pointed out to For 4 above everything outside the narrowly defined world of hard science is relative except that any culture/society that looks inward dies.

The bad cultural differences that Nohas mentioned are terrible where as good cultural differences are examples of exquisite taste.

The Austro-Hungarian (and Ottoman) empires come to mind as maintaining multi-ethnic cities for a long time (which largely ceased being multi-ethnic when the empires ceased to exist). Not democratic and not a lot of interaction between the groups but that's the point.


Internal organic change is generally better the externally driven change as can be found in Vollsmose (neighborhood in Odense Denmark where (mostly muslim) immigrants are trying to drive out ethnic Danes:

liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1327591131


That makes no sense, Putnam's bias was _in FAVOR_ of diversity and he was badly shaken up by his findings (which suggested that diversity is not an unmitigated good). He was so shaken up that he sat on them for 10 years....

When discussing such matters, it is wise to not speak in absolutes as many have done here. When someone writes of "over-willing" immigrants and "under-willing" hosts, they've left everything up to interpretation and basically muddied the waters of clear discourse through their introduction of such terms.


No sh*t, most people don't realize to what extent some ethnic "issues" in North and South America mirror each other.

Hrm. A solid position. I like it.


Uh... okay.

You claimed that multiculturism (without migration) only works when there is strict separation I called that domination so you produced two examples of imperialism to illustrate your point. Imperialism by its very nature is domineering and undemocratic.


You seem to be confused on the one hand you are agreeing (with your examples) that successful enterprises are outward looking and almost always multicultural yet to back your point you say there is no mixing and with the dissolution of the imperium the people stopped mixing.


One doesn’t preclude the other and we are getting perilously close to marketing speak going forward.

The confirmation bias I would suggest is your own, this (unlinked) study was favoured, however you came to hear about it, by you. It confirmed your own bias. I would suggest that Class conflict could be a more appropriate explanation for his findings but with him being North American it’s easier to go for the race card cos class conflict is a no no.


I agree speaking in absolutes is silly that’s why I pointed it out.

Yeah that's the point there aren't any examples of multi-ethnic multi-cultural cities that work _without_ some kind of authoritarian rule or a common culture/language that all are expected to belong to.


My own bias was in _favor_ of muticulturalism and peaceful co-existence of different cultural systems. But, I have enough intellectual integrity to realize when reality doesn't support my biases (or at least I try).

And you haven't addressed cases where multi-culti isn't working (like mass muslim integration .... anywhere in Europe).

So you pointed out what I had already pointed out. Okay then.

jasondmzk- I am still curious to hear your definition of "over-willing" immigrants and "under-willing" hosts, you mentioned this term so I was hoping you'd give it some teeth.

I used those adjectives because they are subjective. My only interest in the debate is anthropological, and in that science it's useless to put positive or negative appellations on one peoples' motives over another. I have no dog in this fight.

Are you suggesting that it never works without coercion that only full assimilation, the eradication and rejection of imported values, works? This is simply not the case as the development of almost every major European and Asian city demonstrates.

Your idea that cultural dominance is the driving force only works to a point in attracting capital, a limited amount. People are different with them come ideas, even when they hate each other the exchange of ideas happens it is what drives commerce. Money and ideas are what changes a trading post into a significant city.

The great belt of cities along the old silk route was dominated by Turkish people using Persian ideas. European cities only became world beating once they started banking and trading outside Europe on a large scale. Russian cities became stone cities after the Greeks showed them how.

The driving force for all this and more was an exchange of ideas and people not dominance, it was an internal readjustment forced by external pressure that made wealth creation possible.

People follow the money that’s why market traders in central Asia are mostly of Turkish origin as one example, the various ethnic quarters in all cities reflect the cultural exchange and development that migration brings and is necessary for growth. Ireland was the only place in Europe to expel the Vikings and they had to be the only Europeans to invite them back. Spain expeled the Jews and had to import Muslims to do the irrigation work.

Maintaining an identity was what made this growth work, both then evolved together in a slightly different way. People opted for this as the community gives protection until individuals are confident enough to leave the group it’s capital that gives people acceptance who wants a poor person in the golf club?

Imposing restrictions upon people ultimately stops the flow of capital the modern equivalent is economic sanctions. The Chinese discovered this when they turned their backs on the world.

Problems with mass migration today are more about class than anything else as it was in the past with the fear of the mob.

Well my interest (in terms of immigration to Poland) is the longterm best interests of the existing local population. If that's not a concern then you'll perceive things differently.


Does it matter what the source of the problems is? It either works or doesn't and if it doesn't (which is often the case in West Europe at present) then maybe there should be some serious rethinking.

Again small scale immigration by people who don't expect a safety net and who intend to integrate/assimilate can be a good thing. Large scale immigration by those who expect to be supported and who despise the local culture and don't want to be part of it ... isn't.

It does matter if we are looking to solve the problem. Exaggerating the depth and breath of the problems also matters.


The absolute moral responsibility that many Western countries had to take waves of migrants at different times cannot be dodged there is no rethinking required it was a must. East African Asians including those expelled from Uganda in 1974, The Pied Noir who arrived in France were absorbed as were many Muslim French Citizens who fled to European France. It would have been immoral and illegal to prevent them from coming to Europe.


Again a lot of this is exaggerated by the chattering classes and zealots on Blog sites. The tiny minority who despise the local culture are heard more often.

In the UK the majority of non EU migrants are relocating there because of business, they are needed by their companies. There are a lot of myths about migration that just don’t stand up to inspection.