There seems to be two main definitions of multiculturism and both get confused with one another. There is one definition where the ‘quirks’ and accidents of culture should be mainly tolerated as long as that culture does no harm to persons and other cultures (which I agree with – toleration here does not preclude criticism).
The other definition is that the individual person is subsumed within their culture (whether they chose their culture or not) and that no-one can interfere with the culture’s claim over the individual. In practice this means that the powerful members of the hierarchy of the culture get to impose their prejudices and that any criticism is seen as intolerant. Difficult to choose examples despite their abundance as the holders of this second view will see it as an attack on their culture (and I expect they genuinely believe it to be so.
I would urge support of the first view and just disgust at the second.
It is two years since I [posted the above, so high time to post something again. My imnterest is in Political and Social Philosophy and this will now form the basis of this blog, with excursions into politics (note the small p) and into othet areas of philosophy. My intention is one blog per week or more.
Thanks for sharing such a nice idea, article is good, thats why i have read it entirely
Ꭲhanks for finaply talking ɑbout >Multiculturism | Site f᧐r Sore Brains <Liked it!