The politics of multiculturalism pose an existential threat to western civilization
Debate Rounds (3)
The politics of multiculturalism - an active attempt by a governing body to encourage and promote multiple cultural traditions in a single territory
existential threat to western civilization - any force that has a reasonable chance of dismantling core western institutions such as democracy, the education and healthcare system, the humanities, etc.
Round 1 is for acceptance only (no arguments)
Round 2 is statement of arguments
Round 3 is for rebuttals (not for introducing totally new material) and for closing statements
Burden of Proof is shared
1. Are you white?
2. Are you Christian?
3. Can you prove you are?
It should be considered a loss for con if con fails to answer those questions.
I wish to thank my opponent for joining the debate though their response in Round 1 seems to constitute more than an acceptance. I would request they stay within the parameters of the debate. I am a white atheist but will not be able to offer more proof at this time (nor am I interested in doing so).
Here are my principal arguments:
1. Countries who actively promote multiculturalism sustain highly healthy democracies for decades.
Two of the earliest proponents of official multiculturalism, Canada and Australia (1) both are ranked in the top 10 most healthy democracies in the world in one index of political stability (2). Given that both countries passed their multiculturalism acts in the early 70's, there has been over 40 years for the effects of the policy to result in decline in western institutions. There is no such evidence of that decline in either of these two countries. Rather, they are two very politically, culturally, and economically healthy societies.
2. A review of those western nations most in decline show that none were particularly strong supporters of multiculturalism before their decline.
According the this year's Democracy index (2), the only western European nations to experience declines in the stability of their democracies over the last 5 years were Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. Greece, Italy, and Ireland don't have formal multicultural policies. Portugal and Spain make mention of intercultural exchanges and integration in some legislation but avoid formal multiculturalism (3). The most important unifying feature of these five states was that they were all hit badly by the economic crisis (rather than a tendency towards endorsing multiculturalism).
3. Historically, the biggest threat to western civilization has been authoritarian ideologies. But people who are most likely to support multiculturalism tend to be less likely to endorse authoritarian beliefs.
North America and Europe faced their biggest recent threats in the back-to-back conflicts of World War II and the Cold War. Both of these struggles were against authoritarian systems. Interestingly, authoritarianism and support for multiculturalism are negatively related (4). We would expect that authoritarian groups and individuals to dislike multicultural policies and those who most strongly advocate for multiculturalism to be most strongly inclined away from authoritarian belief systems. As such, it seems unlikely that societies that move towards multiculturalism are likely to endorse those ideologies that have historically threatened Western Civilization (e.g., fascism, communism, etc.).
Multiculturalism poses no existential threat to Western societies. The two biggest proponents of multiculturalism, Canada and Australia, have proved robustly stable and prosperous. In contrast, those Western societies that have suffered the most in recent years, do not show any particular tendency to multiculturalism. Finally, support for multiculturalism does not seem to lend itself naturally to a support for authoritarianism, the traditional existential threat to western societies in the 20th century. Rather, one can imagine that as societies normalize multiculturalism, authoritarianism becomes increasingly marginalized.
Multiculturalism threatens the very notion of what America is supposed to be. The term melting pot is often used to describe America and in fact was a term that was used just at the beginning of America's independance. The tradition and notion of melting pot was a part of America's culltural identity and tradition. J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur wrote in 1782:
"whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes... What, then, is the American, this new man? He is either an European or the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared." https://en.wikipedia.org...
We have an element in our society who is looking to disrupt our national identity, who wishes to take the melting pot philosophy that is so great and binds us together and replace it with a sald bowl philosophy. A melting pot culture allows us to be accepting of each other rather then mere tolerance as multiculturalism would have us
According to google define, this is what the word civilization means: "the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area." https://www.google.com...
We know this is the correct definition because it is the only one that mentions a specific area, and the debate title has the qualification "Western". If multiculturalism (Salad Bowl) movement is destroying the melting pot culture than, I have affirmed the resolution.
Recent studies have actually shown that multicultural communities are worse off than segregated communities.
Here are excerpts from an article discussing the results of 1 such study.
"But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings."
By further reading the article you'll see it discusses people hunkering down and being distrusting of their neighbors in multicultural communities. If multiculturalism is having this effect on people it is significantly altering (destroy their previous) way of life and it affirms the resolution. Putman's study alone is enough to also win me this debate.
We all know that Capitalism is good and communism is bad. We've seen it, with the rise of capitalist countries and the fall of communist ones most notably communist Russia. We can also look at the economic freedom index that ranks countries on economic freedom. The countries which are most capitalistic are at top, and the countries which have centralized communist style economies are at the bottom. The top includes the western countries mentioned in this debate while the bottom mentions communist countries like Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and Iran. http://www.heritage.org...
Even if we ignore the history of free economies vs controlled ones we can see that free ones excel while controlled ones failed taking society with it, by looking at the economic freedom index and seein the obvious correlation between free countries and wealth and controlled economies and poverty. The free countries are mostly Western countries, while the least free is non Western countries. If they assimilate they might take on our values of freeddom, but in a multicultural society they will keep their anti economic freedom values. The polls in Western countries bear this out as immigrants make it harder and harder for the party that is pro economic freedom in their respective countries harder to win public office. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
So the sae values that destroyed the countries these people are running away from are being shoved down the throat of free societies, and the results are predictable. They always end up the same, whether it be the collapse of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea. If we create the same policies as them, we will see the same results.
This is the actual intent of multi culturalism as well. Once marxism failed and destroyed other countries, marxists started theorizing as to why it didn't succeed. Common sense tells us it failed because the policies were horrible, but they ended up blaming it on the conservative christian element in Western societies and devised a strategy for attacking that culture. The plan mostly involved creating a multi cultural society to replace the melting pot. The plan was called the long march and the intellectual capital of this movement became known as the Frankfurt school, which churns out theories that soon get gobbled up by the media as well as academia which are sympathetic to them.
According to theamericanthinker: "The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revoltuion based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.
Toward this end, Marcuse-who favored polymorphous perversion-expanded the ranks of Gramsci's new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci's ‘long march' was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism."
We can see that not only does multiculturalism accidentally destroy Western Civilization, it does so intentionally.
According to one poster on stormfront:
"In language chillingly reminiscent of modern multiculturalists (4), the Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41–54) argued for the admittance of Gauls into the senate. By 193 Rome was ruled by a North African, Septimius Severus, who had learned Latin as a foreign language and was overtly hostile to Romans and Italians. In the fourth century Christianity, imported from Asia, would become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity, a proxy religion of Jewry, inverted the exclusivistic values of Judaism and was partly a symptom and partly a cause of the erosion of Roman and Greek national consciousness. The national cause in ancient Italy was lost. When Rome finally fell, it was the Jews, not Romans or Greeks, who would survive with a viable race-political programme." https://www.stormfront.org...
We can see that multiculturalism has a history of destroying civilizations, Rome being the most notable.
BaruchSpinoza forfeited this round.
My opponent dropped out, so I will make this quick.
He states that multiculturalcountries are doing fine after 40 years of civil rights. This doesn't take into account that these countries became prosperous before multi culturalism, and like it or not white countries are more inclined to support economic freedom which is why these countries are successful to start with. The slow erosion of free market policies by allowing in cultures will take a while to take effect. As the demographics continually become less white we will see less people who are pro free market, and as we fall down on the economic freedom index, further from healthy countries like Norway, and closer to unhealthy countries like North Korea the worse off these countries will be worse off.
Anyway all my arguments and rebuttals stand, so vote me. thanks.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con Forfeited. Automatic win for Pro. I VOTE PRO.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.