Symbiotic_Co-Existence

Symbiotic co-existence - single or plural identity' Sociologists define multiculturalism as a state or condition of being influenced by several cultures, while politicians and diplomats define it as a state of maintaining a diversity of ethnic cultures within a community or society. At the same time as the dictionary defines national identity as; “A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government.” And that’s why so many countries find it hard to successfully integrate immigrants, because the term national identity and nation contradict the idea of a multicultural society. So the question remains; is it possible for several cultures to form a nation in symbiotic co-existence' Britain has benefited historically from its colonisation and the expansion of the British Empire, which, at the time as well as to today, have brought many new cultural impressions to the country and made Britain the multicultural society it is today. But the question is; has the British culture annexed the incoming cultures into a melting pot or has Britain escaped its nationalistic monoculture with a society built on the salad bowl or mosaic metaphor' Today London alone consists of more than 42 ethnic minority groups of over 10,000 people with recent foreign antecedents. Nationwide Britain has nearly a million immigrants, who have defined themselves as of mixed race according to a survey made by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The CRE is a non-governmental organisation or NGO founded in UK during the Race Relations Act in 1976, which promotes racial equality and tolerance. Since the CRE was first created, Britain’s demographic outlook has changed rapidly compared to the society thirty years ago. This is due to globalisation and the impose of the treaty of Rome, which meant that capital, articles and labour become increasingly mobile, leading to huge demographic shifts. The term ‘transnationalism’ was invented to characterise people who base their lives in two or more countries simultaneously, due to the huge development in transport, logistics and technology’s endless line of social platforms. This minority is just one of many newcomers that have outdated the old terms, assumptions and thoughts of a multicultural society. The immigration patterns have changed much throughout the years. After the Second World War the immigrants mainly came from countries outside of Europe and remained citizens of Britain afterwards, so they were able to raise their future generations in Europe. Today we see a high proportion of Europeans, particularly from the newer member states of the EU, immigrating to Britain and not necessarily to raise their future generations, but to experience a different culture. The key to successfully integrate immigrants, from a governmental point of view, is first of all to take factors other than economic development and growth in consideration when setting levels of immigration. Cultural benefits must be acknowledged as well as the economics’. Throughout understanding and an interactive approach towards different cultures, we gain a better understanding of our own, which may lead to a more tolerant view on others’. Tolerance has by definition a sense of equality attached or at least a claim fair and even treatment. And that’s one of the reasons why the Britain has been so successful compared to other multiethnic societies, like the USA. It’s important that you balance out the two poles with alienation and assimilation in each end. If a whole ethnic community feels alienated from the rest of the society, then it will must likely end up in a self-ruling parallel society known as a ghetto. The morals and ethics in these strained estates are based outside of governmental authority, which again pushes the immigrants further away from the labour market. If that happens the number of unemployed will increase rapidly and thereby the crime rate, which provides the rest of the equation with a negative synergy that only alienates the immigrants even more. The alienation starts by calling the immigrants’ home a ghetto, because it has such a negative wording attached to it, which ignite the human grouping mechanics where the ghettos become a part of them, not us. The key is therefore as Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister of Britain, proposed in 2007 to firstly integrate the immigrants in an interactive dialog with the local community. It’s crucial that the immigrants carry out social beneficial responsibilities, so they get introduce to the people they live alongside with, which would also kill many of the myths that are attached to ghettoes. That would also demonstrate to the locals that immigrants are willing to contribute to the society as a whole. Secondly you must have, as the dictionary defines, have some sort cohesion whether it’s by ethnicity, religion, language etc. to be able to successfully built a nation in symbiotic co-existence. But what ignites or creates a nationality or national feeling is a question with answers to as many as asked. It’s therefore crucial that you protect and enhance your culture’s way of life and force the immigrants to learn the native languages otherwise it may as in Belgium, where the language and cultural barrier is huge, threaten with a two-nation solution. When discussing pros and cons of multiculturalism it is likely, if not inevitable, that disagreement will abound over time. The sense of separation is often seen during crisis where the search for reasons and abnormalities is huge with the only possible answer the immigrants. History provides us with lots of evidence to this scenario, where immigrants get suppressed or even haunted, as if they were some kind of parasite, in South Africa during apartheid, when the white minority was suppressing the black majority of indigenous people or in Europe during the World War 2, when the Nazis sought to eradicate, among others, the Jews. But that shouldn’t prevent countries from opening their borders because the pros overshadow the cons by lengths. In the article, “What does it mean to be British'” Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, adviser on Islam for White House and founder of the California-based Zaytuna educational foundation, gives the expression that the cohesion and therefore the integration are better in the USA compared to Britain. But that’s due to the fact that the American way of live and their core values are so well defined which automatically creates a cohesion and allegiance towards USA. But in dealing with multiculturalism and how to respect and engage minority communities Britain has a lot to teach others. One of the key points to the European success of integrating, which often has been neglected, lies in the way the welfare model is constructed. Every time a person gets unemployed the government then provides him or her with a transfer income, which means that the person continuously can be a part of the ongoing society and therefore has a better chance of returning to the labour market. Immigration patterns and society models are organic dimensions, which are effected by the grouping mechanics at home and the crisis abroad. The term national identity is an extremely abstract subject and is almost impossible, by definition, to unite with multiculturalism. A successful integrating involves respect and tolerance, but must important to find the balance between alienation and assimilation, where other benefits than economic growth must be acknowledge. The success of immigrating lays in our ability to engage in each other’s cultural background. Even though multiculturalism historically may have lied to confrontation shouldn’t it keep us from belting cultures and it all starts by breaking down the barriers and myths between us.