Most

Essay No. 1 (on "Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation")

Most of the countries practicing multiculturalism nowadays, like Australia and the U.S., formerly operated under the doctrine of assimilation and had to undergo fundamental changes before they concluded that multiculturalism was a better concept for organizing the living together of different ethnic groups in one country. Therefore, I don't want to contrast the two policies as being completely incompatible but rather consider them as different stages in the search for a better way of living together. But even this "new" concept of multiculturalism cannot solve all ethnic problems and guarantee a life without violence as recent incidents have shown. I think that the policy of multiculturalism is only one more step towards a better living together in a differential society and it is far from being the ultimate solution for solving ethnic conflict and therefore has to be accompanied by other fundamental reforms.

Although multiculturalism is considered to be the enemy of intolerance, it does not really foster that different ethnic groups are living together but rather "side by side". The ethnic neighborhoods in many U.S. cities illustrate this very clearly. Even if people have more or less learned to accept different ways of life, they still do not interact as much as would be helpful for a better mutual understanding. Some people might be content with this situation and do not expect much more than being left alone and being able to cling to their own language, culture, ethnic neighborhood, but in order to prevent ethnic conflict it takes a little more. Still existing prejudices can only be overcome when people meet and show interest in each other. Thus individual efforts play an important role in contributing to a more peaceful living together and active steps should not only be expected from the government.

The policy of multiculturalism has certainly contributed to establish the idea of equal rights and equal opportunity despite of the ethnic background. But at the same time the policies directed towards this goal, such as the programs of affirmative action, also revived very strong ethnic sentiments which pose a potential threat to a peaceful multicultural society. There is certainly nothing wrong with people of the same ethnic origin organizing in order to deal with their mutual problems and represent their special interests, but as soon as these different ethnic groups are mainly aiming at obtaining more Political power than other groups, the esults will be power struggles and a further division of society. Thus policies which are directed at abolishing differences and guaranteeing equal rights can have unwelcomed effects.

Although the policy of multiculturalism has contributed to create more tolerance and mutual understanding among ethnic groups to a certain extent, incidents like the Los Angeles riots have shown that ethnic conflicts cannot be solved alone by this policy. Most of the conflicts are not that much of an ethnic nature but are caused by social unequality. Therefore a highly differential society can only live together peacefully when the policy of multiculturalism is accompanied by social reforms. The differences between rich and poor people, the access to and quality of education, the question of adequate medical insurance etc. are problems which are inseparably linked with ethnic conflict and therefore have to be solved first.

My comments:

Composition: The author wisely avoids the temptation in this type of question to "discuss" two opposite points of view, which usually results in what I call a wiwa (wishy-washy) essay. (A wiwa essay either has no thesis at all or a very weak and uninteresting one, like "There are two sides to this question.") Here the thesis and topic sentences are clearly identifiable and coherent (i.e., the topic sentences support the thesis). This makes the essay easy for the reader to outline and indicates that the author probably used a very similar outline in planning the essay. The purpose of structuring ("composing") an essay is to make it easier for the reader to follow the author's argument, so in general, the easier it is for the reader to reconstruct the argument in outline form, the clearer the essay. A good essay should be easy for the reader to outline, e.g.:

Thesis: Multiculturalism is not the ultimate solution to ethnic conflict (ll. 12-13).

SP 1: Multiculturalism does not mean people will live together, even if they live next to each other (ll. 16-17).

SP 2: Some multicultural policies can even provoke ethnic hostility, rather than reduce them (ll. 30-33).

SP 3: Multiculturalism alone cannot solve the basic problems of social injustice which are the real cause of ethnic conflict (ll. 7-8).

Language: There are very few errors, and none that interfere with understanding.

Essay No. 2 (on "Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation")

I consider multiculturalism to be the best way to integrate people from other countries into new cultures and countries. I think multiculturalism causes less problems, difficulties and tensions than assimilation.

I imagine that I want to or that I would have to move to a totally different country. I think your own familiar habits and your own language give you the safety you need to feel comfortable in a new country. Your new life with many difficulties and problems: for example, to a new job, to make new friends or to get used to mentality. Everyone needs some time to feel at home new place. I would say it is much easier if you are given the chance to keep some familiar customs. This is to me an important supposition to settle in a raw country. This seems to be natural which can be seen from the fact people of the same nationality always stick together they live in a foreign country. For example, most of the Chinese immigrants live together in the same part of York, in Chinatown.

Having the right t-o keep some parts of your culture which are important to you, will help you to get step by step used to a foreign country. You can't force people to other cultural rules and habits; if they feel ready for it, they will assume the new things one day.

Multiculturalism expects people to accept other cultures. The people learn not to regard their own culture higher than others. They are confronted with other ways of living and other points of view. It should be an important aim of a country that its people are able to live in a multi-cultural society. Unfortunately, many people have to learn to tolerate foreign people with their own culture. I think education in the kindergarten and at school has to deal with this subject. Politicians, teachers and other people with great influence should show their interest in a multicultural society. Assimilation doesn't mean to accept people who are different or attitudes and customs which are different. Assimilation means to me that I'm absolutely convinced that how I live and how I see things it's the only way, and I expect the others to adopt my way of life. If we are able to accept multiculturalism, maybe we are able to accept different habits and people, e.g. colored people, homosexuals or handicapped people, in general. Multiculturalism should be seen as a chance to learn to tolerate and to accept people who are different.

Finally, I'm of the opinion that multiculturalism enriches a country. We get into contact with people of other cultures, we get to know other cultural habits or perhaps we have the possibility to learn another language. Many people only see the problems, which may arise if foreign people and refugees settle in a new country. I think we shouldn't forget about the positive side. Everybody of us likes to eat Chinese, Italian or Mexican food, buys crafts from South America, has incense sticks from India or a hammock from Bali. We already consume products from all over the world. Moreover, we are interested in Yoga, Thai Chi, Tekwando or stomach dance. These are all things which belong to other cultures, and we are fond of them. We can learn Turkish from native speakers and teach German or we can learn how to cook couscous and show how to make pancakes. We should stop searching for attitudes and customs which seem to be strange and incomprehensible to us, but we should see the enrichment of a cultural interchange.

I see my points of view supported in the text, where the former Prime Minister defined multiculturalism as "the enemy of intolerance". Moreover, it can be seen from the text that because of the concept of multiculturalism in Australia, they have been spared any real tensions or violent behavior between the different nationalities who live together in Australia. They gave up their arrogant attitude to tell immigrants to become an Australian overnight, and they were successful.

My comments:

Composition: The author has an identifiable point of view (in favor of multiculturalism), but the thesis (presumably ll. 5-6) is not accurately formulated. Multiculturalism causes fewer problems than assimilation commits the author to contrasting the problems of both, but in fact she discusses only the benefits (not the problems) of multiculturalism. A more appropriate thesis statement would be: Multiculturalism not only helps foreigners assimilate into the new culture, but also benefits the native inhabitants. The first part of this thesis is supported in paragraph 2 (TS ll. 22-24), and two benefits are described in paragraphs 3 and 4. The argument would be easier to follow if the topic sentences of paragraphs 2 and (especially) 3 were at the beginning, as in paragraph 4. Then it would be easier to reconstruct the author's argument as follows:

Thesis: Multiculturalism not only helps foreigners assimilate into the new culture, but also benefits the native inhabitants (rewritten).

SP 1: Multiculturalism helps immigrants adjust (ll. 22-24).

SP 2: Multiculturalism encourages tolerance generally (ll. 45-46).

SP 3: Multiculturalism enriches a country (ll.47-48).

The last paragraph, with references to the text, should come at the beginning, as an introduction to the thesis statement.

Essay No. 3 (on "Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation")

The policy of multiculturism in Australia should be a model for all countries. Multiculturalism will help people of different cultures, to understand and tolerate each other. Tolerance and understanding are the basis for a peaceful world, and wars like in Bosnia could be prevented. Policies, like the one in Australia, are an important step to improve the social life. of course, a policy cannot change tensions between different ethnic groups overnight, but, in my opinion it is a very effective governmental measure. A policy like this is overdue in Germany, where xenophobia destroyed the country's reputation.

Foreigners do not have an easy time in Germany, especially in the last few years. The German government should now consider to change its attitude and it cannot if ignore that we live in a multicultural society. Instead of excluding or assimilating foreigners, the Germans should be able to tolerate their way of life. It can no longer be accepted that the government avoids to take up an attitude on this subject, hoping to bind right-wing voters this way, whose horror is the notion of a multicultural society. As long as the German government does not seriously fight the increasing xenophobia, some misguided people will go on discriminating against foreigners, thinking that the German culture is superior to all others.

A policy for multiculturalism could be a sign for Germany's good will to change the present situation. The demand that foreigners should assimilate and adapt totally to the German way of life is a selfish demand. Of course they should be assimilated to some extent, but they should not be forced to adopt a different culture, because culture and individual traditions, for some peoples make up their identity. How difficult it can be to assimilate in a foreign country, thousands of German turists show the world every year: they cannot live without their German beer and Bratwurst.#

The Germans should get used to live side by side to other cultures, as they already do in big cities like Berlin. Maybe, one day they will notice that they can even learn something from others.

My comments:

Composition: The thesis is clearly identifiable in l. 10, although the subordinate clause introduces a second element that dilutes the focus of the main clause and in fact is not discussed in the essay. (Is the policy desirable only to restore Germany's reputation?) The point of paragraph 2 seems to be ll. 17-20, which would be much clearer if it came first in the paragaph. The historical situation hinted at in paragraph 1 could be mentioned here as an additional reason for the government to take action. The point of paragraph 3 is not clear. The first sentence is circular ("A change would be a sign of the will to change"), and there is nothing in the rest of this paragraph or the next that further explains why a policy of multiculturalism is overdue in Germany. The main problem with this essay is the paucity of ideas.

Essay No. 4 (on "Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation")

The text Multiculturalism versus Assimilation clearly supports Australia's policy of multiculturalism as being a means to minimize tensions between different nations, races, and religions. Although I personally support the right of multiculturalism, because it allows everybody to live according to the rules he or she wants to, it must not be the best alternative for the immigrants neither can it be a solution to eliminate existing antipathies between people from different origins. In my opinion, it can't just be said multiculturalism is good, assimilation is bad. In my essay, I will refer first to the statement of Australia's Prime minister concerning multiculturalism. Then I will discuss the reasons supporting, on one hand, assimilation and, on the other hand, multiculturalism. In the last paragraph, I will- give an evaluation of multiculturalism versus assimilation.

In the text Multiculturalism versus Assimilation, the former Prime minister of Australia defines multiculturalism as "the enemy of intolerance ... the right to a fair go, the idea of Jack being as good as his master, in other words, the very core of what it means to be an Australian." This quotation sounds very nice and I wished the content was true. But I don't think that his statement is correct. It is too idealistic and, unfortunately, does not prove to be valid in reality. We are experiencing something different every day. It might work in Australia, but in most other countries in the world it does not. There are plenty of examples which disprove his statement. In former Yugoslavia, there is a war going on between Muslims and Serbs for more than two years now, in Israel Palestinians and Israelis have not been able to come to an agreement for more than twenty years, fights between different clans in Somalia even led to a civil war. Today still exists discrimination against blacks as, for example, in South Africa but also in the United States, although blacks in the United States are -- according to the law -- equal to whites since 1964. Finally,, there is also to mention the increasing number of fire attacks against Turks aid homes of asylum seekers in Germany following the reunification of the two Germanies. As much as I support multiculturalism, reality seems to destroy the hope of a peaceful living together of different cultures.

There are some points which support the preservation of immigrants, traditions. In my opinion, it is important to have a variety of cultures. If all people changed their habits according to the new country, there would be much conformity. Furthermore, it can't be expected that traditions, that have been formed over many years, can be given up from one day to another. People cannot become a different person overnight. Those who change their customs are often divided between their homelands' traditions and the habits of the new country. In the end, they don't know where they belong, as they will always be foreigners in another country.

The advantages of assimilation can't be neglected. If the immigrant is willing to learn the language and assimilate according to the new living style, it might be much easier for him to get integrated and accepted within society. The acceptance of new traditions and habits makes it easier to come into contact with people in that country. Sticking to old customs, on the other hand, might cause uneasiness among neighbors, colleagues and make it more difficult for the immigrant to feel at ease in the country of destination. The 6o contact- to other people of the new country supports the learning of the language, which, consequently, also enlargens the possibility of getting a job. If the immigrant doesn't speak the country's language, it will always be difficult for him to get a qualified job, claim his rights, and to express his opinion.

In conclusion, I think it can't be said multiculturalism is good, assimilation is bad or vice versa. Certainly, people should not be forced to do one thing or another. It depends on the immigrants themselves what they expect from their life in the new country. If they intend to stay their whole life, it would certainly be easier for them to assimilate to a certain extent to the rules and habits of the country of destination. If it's just a means to earn money with the future plan to go back to the country of origin, people might prefer to keep their tradition and live in native communities in the new country. But what they choose in the end, that should be up to themselves.

My comments:

Composition: This is a good example of a wiwa (wishy-washy) essay. The thesis is that there are good and bad things about both multiculturalism and assimilation (ll. 9-10), and the conclusion is that individuals should be able to choose which way of life they prefer (ll. 67-68). This is like saying abortion is both good and bad; therefore, people should do what they like. The thesis, in both cases, is simply uninteresting. Most of us realize that there are (at least) two sides to every issue. We read an essay (as opposed to a news article, a textbook, or an encylopedia) to find out what the author's opinion is and how s/he arrives at it. It is fine to discuss opposing viewpoints in an essay, but the purpose of doing so should be to demonstrate the superiority of one's own argument.

The conclusion is illogical, and though it would seem impossible to contradict such a wiwa thesis, it does. If you want to be able to choose between assimilating or not, you want a multicultural society. Similarly, if you want to choose between having an abortion or not, you want abortions to be legal. (In fact, pro-abortion people call themselves pro-choice, since what they advocate is not abortion per se but the right to choose to have one.) The conclusion, then, although the author probably did not realize it, is an argument for multiculturalism and contradicts her wiwa thesis.

Furthermore, the wiwa thesis is not well supported in the body of the essay. As she formulates it in ll. 9-10, the thesis commits her to a balanced discussion of the bad things about multiculturalism and the good things about assimilation. Paragraph 2 tells us multiculturalism is unrealistic. (The topic sentence in ll. 22-23 should be at the beginning of the paragraph.) Apart from the question of why something unrealistic should be "bad," this proposition, which takes up half of the essay, seems to make the rest of the discussion superfluous. Why discuss "alternatives" if one of them is unrealistic, that is, not an alternative at all?

Paragraph 3 gives two reasons for multiculturalism, but this is not what we expect from the thesis. After the discussion of a "bad" aspect of multiculturalism, we expect a discussion of "good" aspects of assimilation, not of good aspects of multiculturalism.

Paragraph 4 has the topic sentence clearly at the beginning, but the negation makes it sound like a concession rather than an argument for assimilation--which is what the thesis promised us. This is another indication that the author's opinion, if she had allowed herself to think it out fully, is for multiculturalism, and she would have done much better to write her essay from this point of view.

To summarize, we might outline the essay as follows:

Thesis: Multiculturalism is not all good; assimilation is not all bad.

SP 1: Multiculturalism is unrealistic. (Ok.)

SP 2: Multiculturalism creates diversity and helps immigrants maintain their identity. (Does not support thesis.)

SP 3: Assimilation makes life easier for immigrants. (Ok.)

Conclusion: Individuals should be able to choose. (Contradicts thesis.)