Who took the right approach?

[Exilian]

Hey all, I'm a politics student and a few weeks ago we had a talk about British multiculturalism vs French republicanism.

Here we were asked to decide which approach we think ultimately checks out as the superior - the British way of accepting everybody's culture and allowing them to fully exercise it (i.e. unhindered religious expression, celebration of Indian/Arab holidays), or the French way of making everyone assimilate and put French culture above their own (i.e. banning religious headwear and symbols in public places, banning some foreign cultural celebrations, etc.)

Which one do you agree with?

I would go with the French way, because, although I'm by no means a nationalist of my own or any other country, I still think it's important that the people of a given country share at least some common ground, and if that necessitates abandoning their previous cultures then so be it.

[Celista]

By French republicanism I assume you mean assimilationism? There are pros and cons to each.

Assimilationism in the US prior to multiculturalism is why European Americans typically do not speak a language other than English at home, or celebrate cultural traditions of their ethnic origin. A lot of cultural roots were lost here with assimilationism.

Then again, assimilationism tends to promote a strong mainstream cultural identity. So, shrug. I don't think either approach is right or wrong.

[primalmatter]

What one ended with a theater full of dead people?

Your project seems easy.

[May90]

I think French attributes such as ban on hijabs and such are harmful for the society, but I also don't think ALL aspects of all cultures should be allowed to be exercised. I think, as long as one exercising their culture does not break the general law, it should be allowed.

[Daelak]

What one ended with a theater full of dead people?

Your project seems easy.

And you seem ignorant of Middle Eastern History.

[primalmatter]

And you seem ignorant of Middle Eastern History.

Actually studied it way back in the day I pretty versed with most of it from the ottoman empire onward. I might not be able to recall exact dates its been almost twenty years but I remember the gist of it.

[Daelak]

Actually studied it way back in the day I pretty versed with most of it from the ottoman empire onward. I might not be able to recall exact dates its been almost twenty years but I remember the gist of it.

For your addled mind to see a connection between France's society and the attacks only shows your willful ignorance as to why ISIS terrorists chose Paris. You shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about.

[Selastan]

What one ended with a theater full of dead people?

Your project seems easy.

Not cool dude. Don't blame any system for the actions of those psychopaths.

Anyway, I agree with the French. (For the first and likely only time in my life.) For a country to be strong and unified, the citizens of said country need to put it above all else.

For example, in America we had this big deal about a Kentucky woman refusing to sign marriage licenses to gay couples, despite the law stating that she (a government employee) must. Turns out she won her case, claiming religious freedom, and even became the face of anti-lgbt groups all over the country. Say what you will about religious freedom, I get it and all, but IMO when your boss tells you to do something and you refuse for stupid reason, you should get fired. Exponentially more so when that boss is YOUR GOVERNMENT.

If a country is to be a truly free and fair society for everyone, the citizens must be aware that the needs of the country come above the needs of their own little groups. Religion is fine and all, but if it any way conflicts with the law of the land, just put it aside. Your duty to your nation should come above your duty to your god, if your nation is to be above religion and unbiased, that is.

Cut out "religion" and "god" and insert whatever applies, if you thing your group should get special treatment, you better find a country that caters to that group. Free countries put aside differences for the greater good rather than cater to some.

[primalmatter]

For your addled mind to see a connection between France's society and the attacks only shows your willful ignorance as to why ISIS terrorists chose Paris. You shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about.

They choose it because it was easy to get weapons and people into and presented the biggest target they could easily hit.

These people can barely read they are not some master tacticians.

[Deleted]

British multiculturalism or French multiculturalism? How about German one?

None. No multiculturalism. Nations aren't projects you can experiment with.

[Bollocks]

I go for British multiculturalism. Its the best approach to immigration and gives people enough space to express their culture, while ensuring the adhere to the law

[Underverse]

I do think it's best for people within a larger community to share some common ground. I don't like the French, though, because they just tend to be assholes in general - not because of their assimilation policies, which I agree with, but because of their sense of superiority combined with a disdain for anyone who isn't exactly like them. I think a degree of tolerance is warranted and certainly possible even if you're actively pushing for integration.