Is multiculturalism beneficial for Australia?
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||1 week ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||187 times||Debate No:||95949|
1. The mixture of other cultures into our own is slowly changing our culture into a completely different culture, one similar to the cultures we are importing (eg: a disregard for fairness, conformity over individuality, disregard for freedoms, disregard for other western values...)
2. Homogeneous nations generally sport lower crime rates than heterogeneous nations. http://link.springer.com...
3. The multicultural experiment has not worked elsewhere, such as India (which has roughly 3-4 each week: http://www.webcitation.org...)
4. Minorities are considered to be a voting block for left-wing political parties, and could possibly turn Australia into a socialist republic through voting.
5. Importing the brightest and richest people from developing nations hinders the development of those nations as these people are often job creators. These people are also professionals which these nations need more than us.
6. The majority of Australians, often refered to as 'the silent majority', feel as if their national and cultural identity no longer exists or is 'heading that way'. This has lead to the rise of right-wing extremist uprisings (eg: the re-election of one nation) which have decreased the security of our nation.
7. the opposite of right-wing extremists (muslim extremists and asian drug gangs) are gaining popularity, which is also decreasing the safety of our nation (eg: Sydney siege).
This is my first debate on this site, so I am not entirely sure if i have conducted this correctly.
I believe multiculturalism to be beneficial for Australia for the following reasons:
1. Multiculturalism in Australia (and in any other country) helps the people of the country to learn new things about other cultures and other people of the world. This can lead to new ideas (e.g. cooking ideas) and opportunities (e.g. business opportunities) which would not have come about that easily if it weren’t for multiculturalism.
2. Multiculturalism does not only mean the existence of multiple cultures, but also the acceptance of these cultures. Multiculturalism would help Australians to feel more at ease. If the native Australian people would learn to accept people from other cultures, there would no longer be tension between the native Australian people and immigrants from different cultures. This would promote cooperation between the different cultures in Australia.
3. From a biological perspective multiculturalism would be beneficial for Australia due to the increase of mixture in the genetic code, which would e.g. lower the risk of inbreeding (I know this risk is really low, but it would lower it even further.)
4. Multiculturalism would promote immigration which would increase the likelihood of talented people looking for business opportunities to move to Australia.
In response to spladam’s points:
1. I’m not sure if this was done by purpose, but I would like to point out that spladam’s sentence:
‘’The mixture of other cultures into our own is slowly changing our culture into a completely different culture, one similar to the cultures we are importing (eg: a disregard for fairness, conformity over individuality, disregard for freedoms, disregard for other western values...)’’
generalizes the other cultures to disregard what I assume to be the Australian cultural views of ‘’fairness’’ and other western values. First of all, not all cultures disregard the Australian cultural views of fairness or other western values. Secondly different cultures have different views of what is fair and what is not fair, what is valuable and what is not valuable, and it is a part of multiculturalism to accept these differences. If we learn to accept that not all cultures have different views on how to act in the dinner table for example, then we could understand them a bit more and live more harmoniously together. Also it is a bit strange that spladam accused imported cultures to have a disregard for fairness and right after that claim that they also value conformity over individuality. Conformity means to behave according to standards and laws, which would contradict with the statement that they disregard fairness, and individuality meaning that people should be respected as individuals, which would support multiculturalism. I think what spladam meant to say was ‘’individuality over conformity’’.
AND ABOVE ALL THIS is that multiculturalism in Australia does not apply only to native Australians, but also the people from other cultures living in Australia, meaning that a multiculturalist attitude would not only help native Australians accept and understand other cultures and traditions, but also it would help the people from other cultures to accept and understand the Australian cultures and traditions.
2. The statement that ‘’homogeneous nations generally sport lower crime rates than heterogenous nations’’ in itself, is not a statement that could be used against multiculturalism. One could argue that heterogeneous nations have higher crime rates because of the lack of multiculturalism, which would negatively affect the relationship between cultures. Also different nations act in different ways, so this statement can not be generalized for every nation.
3. I know that the data table is meant to show the fatalities of groups in India, but I’m not really sure about the point of showing this data table and the entire statement really. I request further clarification. But even if something involving multiculturalism does not work in India it does not mean that it would not work in Australia. Different countries and cultures react differently. There is no data here which would contradict the benefits of multiculturalism in Australia.
4. If Australia is turned into a social republic, is it a good thing or a bad thing? This is a personal preference. If it is turned into a social republic through voting, I can’t see what is the problem. If the majority of Australia votes for Australia to become a social republic, then it should be for the benefit of the majority of the people living in Australia. Don’t forget that the benefit of Australia does not only include the benefits of the native Australians, but all the people in Australia including the immigrants.
5. Importing the brightest and richest people from developing countries would benefit Australia, period. What happens outside of Australia is not apart of this debate, unless the development of developing countries would somehow benefit Australia more than the development of Australia itself.
6. ‘’The loss of national and cultural identity’’ is a side-effect of multiculturalism that many people may experience, and I think that this is something very personal. The way I see it is that the loss of national and cultural identity is not all that bad. I hope that one day there will be no such thing as patriotism or national identity, but instead that every country in the world would be united and that we would all gain a new identity as human beings. So while it personally may be hard for some to let go national identity, they should also focus on the good parts of the progress, but this is just my personal opinion so it doesn’t matter for the debate. What does matter though is that I fail to see how does the right-wing extremist uprising affect the safety of the nation.
7. I would like to point out that multiculturalism does not support extremism, terrorism or strictly illegal activities of any form. Multiculturalism is the existence and acceptance of multiple cultural traditions, and extremism, terrorism and breaking the law are not apart of any tradition. Also crime happens regardless of whether a country is multicultural or not, spladam has not provided any evidence for whether or not the crime rate or the severity of crimes in Australia have increased due to immigration.
Conclusion: Multiculturalism is undoubtedly beneficial in some ways for Australia. Remember that Australian immigrants are also a part of Australia, and therefore this matter should not only be discussed from the native Australian perspective.
1: These benefits could still be bought to our nation even without having to import foreigners. Take Japan as an example. Their culture, although still very asiatic, has gained much of it's 703 billion dollars of exports by selling western inventions: cars, electronics, plastics, and miscellaneous surgical and technological equipment (http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu...). These products entered the Japanese market, even though Japan is 98.5% ethnically Japanese (https://www.cia.gov...). Therefore, multiculturalism is not necessary in expanding business opportunities.
2: Why would this be beneficial for Australia? Is all the effort to convert everyone to accept foreign cultures worth the outcomes of multiculturalism? Is it even possible to make everyone accept foreign cultures? I have never seen this happen before or heard of such a thing taking place. These questions must be answered for further clarification.
3+4: These are both factual statements which you have not provided any evidence for.
DEFENDING MY INITIAL POINTS:
Before I defend my points, I would like to take this opportunity to state that you have provided no evidence for any of the rebuttals you wrote, yet you ask me to provide evidence. This is a double standard.
1: "First of all, not all cultures disregard the Australian cultural views of fairness or other western values." I agree. One culture which does not disregard these values is Aussie culture. But I think what you meant by what you said was any foreign culture. If this is the case, it must be established as to which cultures do and do not disregard our values.
"Conformity means to behave according to standards and laws, which would contradict with the statement that they disregard fairness, and individuality meaning that people should be respected as individuals, which would support multiculturalism." Conformity does not necessarily mean conformity to the laws of the host nation. In the case of Muslims, this conformity is to their holy book, and not to our customs. An example of this is their dress code for women, which includes the Burka, Hijab, and Nakib. These dress codes are not the type of dress code which is present in Australia, as they do not wish to conform to the standards of an individualistic society, but rather to the laws of their religion.
How is ti even possible to convert migrants (or anyone for that matter) into acceptance? The original statement "The mixture of other cultures into our own is slowly changing our culture into a completely different culture, one similar to the cultures we are importing" remains unchallenged. Our culture is being changed (which is not good, and I will go into further detail of this in point 6) and we (Aussies) are reacting to it (eg: re-election of one-nation back into Parliament).
2: You did not explain as to why I could not argue my point. Where is the evidence to show that my generalization was invalid? If multiculturalism has failed elsewhere, why won't it fail in Australia?
3: The data table shows fatalities due to acts of terror, I am sorry for not clarifying that in my original statement. "Different countries and cultures react differently" Evidence? In what way do they react differently?
4: It is not bad, rather the way this would happen is bad. If a major left-wing political party was consistently being voted into power due to a large voting block of migrants, then this party would become the major political party of Australia. Having what is effectively a one-party system is undemocratic.
5: The development of these nations is beneficial for Australia. These nations (once developed) could become major trading partners. By having more options for who we can trade with, the more these countries (including Australia) will compete. This competition will push Australia to become highly productive, and our economy will improve (). However, this will not happen if the brightest and richest people are migrating from their developing nations, as these people are needed to create jobs through entrepreneurship and working for existing companies.
6: The loss of national identity, although in your opinion is a good thing, does lead to depression (https://www.sciencedaily.com...). Depression causes lower productivity (https://www.psychologytoday.com...) and sometimes suicide (http://www.suicide.org...), which hinders economic progress. If many people will experience loss of identity as a result of multiculturalism, then this is not beneficial to our nation.
7: According to crime statistics from the ABS, Victorian Police, and National Prison Census, migrant groups in Australia display higher levels of imprisonment and arrest rates (excluding European Australians). From 1983 to 1998, there was an 800% increase in the number of Vietnamese people in our prison system. During this same period, Australians in prison increased by just 51%. If multiculturalism is good for Australia, then these people from disadvantaged backgrounds must be able to 'rise up' out of their situation, but if we are to accept their way of life and not let them assimilate, then this will not occur. although these statistics are lacking in numbers for many migrant groups, it provides numbers for all major migrant groups in Australia and shows that migrants (other than European migrants) have higher crime rates than Australian-born citizens. This also supports the case for point #3. (source: http://aic.gov.au...).
It is true that these migrants are now part of Australia, but the source nations for these migrants are less tolerant of us as we are of them. East Asian nations which discriminate who can and cannot gain citizenship to their nation based on race can take advantage of us by exporting their own citizens to Australia without us being able to do the same. By changing our gene pool, they are committing a type of genocide (Article 2, part c, Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide: http://www.hrweb.org...).
Additions to my points:
‘’According to the 2015 IGR, about 88 per cent of migrants are aged under 40 years, as opposed to only 54 per cent of resident Australians; almost half of newcomers are aged 20-34 years versus only one in five resident Australians. Migrants are mainly young and at their prime working age.’’
‘’Australia has a relatively stable fertility rate of 1.9 births per woman, which is below the replacement level. That is, without migration, Australia's population will inevitably dwindle.’’
(Currently the birth rate is about 1.77 which would further support the statement:
‘’Lastly, Australia's population is ageing quite rapidly. According to the 2015 IGR's projection, the number of Australians aged over 65 will double by the 2050s. That adds an enormous pressure in coming fiscal budgets. For a sustainable welfare system, Australia genuinely needs a young, hard-working skilled force. So Australia requires a sufficient intake of migrants to continually provide public care to all Australians.’’
Defending my points:
I never said that multiculturalism was necessary for opportunities to arise, I said that it was easier. And it does not have to be business opportunities, it can be any opportunity which would involve a person from another culture. It’s not only about the ideas which would spark business opportunities for example, but also contacts, and promoting and encouraging contact between different people from different cultures is essentially what a multiculturalist society strives to do.
From Wikipedia: ‘’Inbreeding is the production of offspring from the mating or breeding of individuals or organisms that are closely related genetically.’’, so the less diverse the gene pool of a population is the more likely it is for two individuals having sex to be closely related genetically. Inbreeding can cause genetic disadvantages such as: ‘’Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability, Increased genetic disorders, Fluctuating facial asymmetry, Lower birth rate, Higher infant mortality, and child mortality, Smaller adult size, Loss of immune system function and Increased cardiovascular risks.’’ Of course given that the Australian population is over 23 million the risk of accidental inbreeding is undeniably low. https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. To name a few successful immigrants: http://www.executivestyle.com.au...
In response to my opponent’s defense:
Whether or not it is part of certain cultures to disregard some of the Australian cultural views of fairness or other western values does not affect my point that in a multiculturalist society, the people who originated from different cultures will not disregard the Australian cultural views of fairness or other values.
‘’The original statement "The mixture of other cultures into our own is slowly changing our culture into a completely different culture, one similar to the cultures we are importing" remains unchallenged.’’ I do not challenge the statement, I agree with it. However I believe this is a good thing.
2. ‘’You did not explain as to why I could not argue my point.’’ I think I did, but in case it was not clear: The success of Australia can’t be based on the success of other countries or the successes of other countries in general. I don’t need to prove that generalization can be invalid, it seems quite self-explanatory. For example, one can’t base the probability or the amount of Australians dying due to terrorism from the statistics that my opponent had of India.
3. My point is that they could act differently, one can’t simply show data from India and assume the outcome to be the same for Australia, one must show the evidence of Australia. Normally it should not be required for me to disprove generalization, but since my opponent insisted, here it is:
The amount of deaths due to terrorism in India from 1994-2014 is 29719
The amount of deaths due to terrorism in Australia from 1978-2014 is 113
I calculated the deaths per capita, per year using the deaths due to terrorism, divided by the average population of the countries of the years the data was recorded, divided by the amount years recorded from which I get:
Divide these to get the ratio: 7.66
It is about 7.66 times more likely to die due to terrorism in India than in Australia. And this is why it is my opponents responsibility to provide the statistics of Australia and not India.
4. Having a major political party is not the same as having a one-party system.
5. The potential development of other countries could be beneficial for Australia, but it would be much more beneficial for Australia to potentially develop. Some countries which develop won’t become beneficial for Australia, and even if they did become trade partners for example a trade does not always benefit well. I can say with much certainty that the potential development of Australia is more beneficial for Australia than the potential development of another country which could then possibly become beneficial for Australia.
6. ‘’The loss of national identity, although in your opinion is a good thing, does lead to depression ‘’ To this I say: Well what about the loss of cultural identity? If a person, for example a refugee, moved to a country where he is not accepted because of his culture, wouldn’t he also become depressed?
7. I don't understand this sentence: ‘’If multiculturalism is good for Australia, then these people from disadvantaged backgrounds must be able to 'rise up' out of their situation, but if we are to accept their way of life and not let them assimilate, then this will not occur.’’
‘’By changing our gene pool, they are committing a type of genocide (Article 2, part c, Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide: http://www.hrweb.org......).’’
Article 2, part c, states: ‘’Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;’’ Reasoning for why the changing of gene pool is equivalent to the statement is required.
Our low fertility rate needs to be increased, constantly importing people will not solve this problem in the long term. What happens when nobody wants or needs to migrate to Australia? If our fertility rate is stable, then these new people are not helping to increase the fertility rate. To counteract low fertility rates, the environmental factors which cause the low fertility rates must be eliminated. importing people would be a good solution if multiculturalism actually worked (which i discuss elsewhere). Increasing our fertility rate is the solution to our low fertility rate.
REFUTING OPPONENTS DEFENSES:
1: How much easier is it? Where is your evidence or reasoning to prove that it is easier? Also, acceptance of other cultures can occur without multiculturalism. I am able to be accepting of someone else's way of life without having to live in the same place as them.
2: You have avoided my question: "Is it worth the effort?". "It will make the people feel better" how do you know this will happen, do you have an example of a society which is/was successful in surviving whilst being a true multicultural society? "The more people that accept foreign cultures, the better" Better in what way, for who and how towards what?
3: This ignores the fact that it is illegal to make offspring with blood-related individuals in Australia (http://www.austlii.edu.au...) 1400 years of incest in the Muslim world has lead to irreversible damage to their genetics(https://cairnsnews.org...). The reason for the incest is that it is part of their culture. This act cannot be accepted if it is illegal. If we are to change the law on this matter, then we are allowing an entire group of people to continue to cause more damage to our gene-pool. Therefore, acceptance of this culture will not benefit Australia, more so than if we do not accept this culture.
4: Naming a few successful immigrants isn't evidence to suggest that the likelihood of talented people will be looking for work in Australia will be greater with multiculturalism. Also, if this were true, then this would see many Australian-born people becoming unemployed.
DEFENDING MY DEFENSES:
1: This would mean that these people are no longer practicing their own culture. If it is part of their culture to disregard Australian values, then they will practice that. If not, then they are discarding their own culture and are assimilating into Australian culture. Therefore, this is not an act of multiculturalism, but an act of assimilation.
The loss of our national identity, as I already explained, is not beneficial (for the reasons which have already been established), regardless of whether you believe it is good or not.
2: You have avoided my question: "If it has failed elsewhere, why won't it fail here also?". Yes, we are less likely to die from terror attacks, but our statistics could resemble India's if we also go through the multicultural experiment just as India already has.
3: India is a country which has already undergone the multicultural experiment. What I am showing with those statistics is that this is the outcome of the failed multicultural experiment. The same could happen to Australia if we also undergo the multicultural experiment, which would not benefit Australia.
4: I never said it was exactly the same, I said it was effectively the same. Like a one-party system, this major party will always be in power.
5: How much better? will our economy benefit if we have no competition in who we sell our exports to? You can say anything with much certainty, but where is your evidence or reasoning to prove this point?
6: Yes, that refugee probably will experience a great deal of depression. This is why multiculturalism doesn't work. Either we are loosing our identity and suffering the consequences, they are loosing their identity and suffer the consequences, or we both do. Nobody wins in this situation.
7: Immigration and living among foreigners is a condition of life, which is causing our physical destruction in part by changing our genes. If our genes continue to change to a point where they are substantially different, then we could be classed as 'extinct'. By allowing and promoting immigration, this becomes a deliberate act.
This round has not been posted yet.