Multiculturalism vs. Integration

Multiculturalism is clearly better; how can you expect people to give up their heritage? Immigrants do not leave a country to leave all their cultural identity behind, they generally leave so that they can access the better quality of life afforded in other countries.

Being asked to abide by laws is one thing, but conforming “to certain norms” sounds insidious. Many ways of living are equally valid, even if they are not regarded as “normal” by some people. If a society claims to be tolerant of personal choice, then it must respect the personal choice to retain their heritage. Anything less smacks of social engineering.

Clinging to an idea of monolithic, national identity is anachronistic. The nation-state model for society is crumbling, and is being out-stripped by trans-national models, such as the European Union. As a result, there is less emphasis on fetishising the predominant characteristics in an area and putting them in a pedestal to be called a “national identity.” Such exclusive nationalism is destructive, and history shows it to be so.

America can hardly be cited as an example of racial harmony. The perpetuation of a “national” identity inevitably leads to the alienation of those, who through religious or other reasons, chose not to conform. If the “normal” or “national” identity does not include turban or head-dress or robe wearing, then those who do wear these things are excluded from the mainstream identity. This conjures up the dichotomy of the “other” and leaves people prone to ignorant attack.

We should embrace the fact that people can support both Pakistan and England, or India and Scotland or whatever. It shows that we have moved beyond this divisive national stereotyping that causes the wars for which you think you need national cohesion. The more tolerance of difference and embrace of other cultures advances the less conflict there will be.