Back to "

Multiculturalism versus Assimilation

They are the world's headlines: the Los Angeles riots, war between Croats and the Serbs, Arab youths throwing stones at armed Israeli soldiers.

But they are not the headlines from Australia, where Serbs and Croats, Palestinians and Jews, Asians and Caucasians live without violence. "Considering the overseas situation, we have been spared any real tensions that would cause undue concern to law enforcement officials," says Ivan Kolarik, ethnic affairs adviser to the police in Victoria Province.

One reason for the peace, Australian officials say, is the country's policy of multiculturalism. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke defined 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."

Although the policy is nationwide, multiculturalism is especially noticeable in Melbourne, where officials estimate nearly 20 percent of the population hails from a non-English speaking country. Immigrants have settled here from 140 different nations.

In the core areas of the city, the proportion of people born in a non-English-speaking country is as high as 36.7 percent. The government in Victoria Province estimates nearly half of the 19,062 Vietnamese in the city do not speak English very well or at all. The same is true of almost one-third of the Turkish and Chinese immigrants.

English is the official language here, but there is an interpreting and translating service for all Victorian provincial government departments. Immigrants are encouraged to learn English, but are not forced to give up their homeland language.

"Multiculturalism is especially helpful in helping those who arrive when they are in the middle or older age group," says the Rev. Cedomir Videkanic of the St. Stefan Serbian Orthodox Church in the suburb of Keysborough. i

The Victorian Office of Ethnic Affairs has concluded that racial vilification was a problem for a substantial minority. In a report, however, the Office added, "Our impression is that most people experience very few if any incidents directed against them personally, or against people they know and that many of the incidents are relatively minor in effect (e.g. being subjected to words which are offensive but not threatening)."

Despite the glitches, multiculturalism is better than the past. In the 1950s and 60s, Australia operated under the doctrine of assimilation. People moving to Australia were encouraged to give up their culture and language. "It was a pretty arrogant country--born just yesterday--and telling people whose cultures go back two or three thousand years to just drop it and forget about it. Become an Australian overnight," says Sauro Antonelli, manager of the Victorian Office of Ethnic Affairs.

(Christian Science Monitor)

Outlines Responding to "Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation"

1. Thesis: Multiculturalism versus Assimilation

SP 1: Multiculturalism causes freedom and can prevent political troubles.

SP 2: Multiculturalism is especially helpful for people who are in the middle age and older, because they aren't forced to give up their own language to learn a new one.

SP 3: Assimilation delays the possibility to make experiences.

SP 4: Experiences with Assimilation have taught the policy that multiculturalism works better.

2. Thesis: Australia has a policy of multiculturalism.

SP 1: Many different ethnic groups live together in peace.

SP 2: Australia's provincial government departments have an interpreting and translation service for immigrants.

SP 3: Immigrants are not forced to give up their language or culture.

3. Thesis: A working multicultural society is rather an exeption than normalcy.

SP 1: All over the world, there are ethnic conflicts which are the result of two peoples having to live together in one state.

SP 2: Especially in social troublespots, different nationalities are often hostile against each other.

SP 3: Conflicts and prejudice are suppressed in daily life, but they can easily return if there is an occasion.

4. Thesis: It is much better to have a multicultural society like Australia than a society where assimilation is practiced.

SP 1: The different ethnic groups live together in peace.

SP 2: It exists one official language but also interpreting and translation for those who not not understand is practiced.

SP 3: Multiculturalism is especially helpful for those who arrive when they are in the middle or old age.

SP 4: The past politics of assimilation shows that multiculturalism is much better and peaceful.

5. Thesis: The advantages of assimilation can't be neglected.

SP 1: People will have less difficulities to get into contact with each other (immigrants and inhabitants), because there will also be less prejudice.

SP 2: Immigrants who want to learn the country's language, might have better conditions, because it shall be easier for them to get integrated and accepted within society. Therefore they will have the possibility to talk to others.

SP 3: If people will be able to work out and to comment on their problems occurring from being immigrant, having a different colour or anything else, together with the native population, they will have enough power to fight against any crime coming from neo fascism.

6. Thesis: Australia's policy of multiculturalism does not reflect the reality.

SP 1: Aborigines are not integrated into the Australian society.

SP 2: Sydney has the second most crime rate in the world.

SP 3: Conformity before assimilation applies to Australia too.

SP 4: The Immigration Law in Australia is one of the strictest in the world.

7. Thesis: Multiculturalism does not fight racism in it's roots.

SP 1: Some cultures are integrated, still racism exists.

SP 2: Roots of racism are social problems, not cultural problems.

SP 3: Immigrants are used as scapegoats, not because of their culture, but to deflect from economical problems.

8. Thesis: Australia's politics of integrating foreign immigrants takes part to make it a country of peace and understanding.

SP 1: The government supports the right of social equality for all people.

SP 2: Though English is the main language, in some provincial departements are offered an interpreting and translating service for many different languages.

SP 3: Immigrants are not forced to give up their homeland culture and language.

SP 4: There are people living together who would fight in their native countries against each other.

My comments on these outlines:

1. Not a thesis. SP 1 is not clear because the phrase "causes freedom" is not clear ("verursacht Freiheit"?), and it is not clear how this "freedom" can prevent political strife. If these are meant as two separate points, they should be in two separate paragraphs. SP 2 purports to explain something said (but not explained) in the text, which is fine, but the explanation sounds illogical. The missing link is the notion that it is harder for older people to learn a new language than for younger people. Note that this point needs explanation, too. It is probably common knowledge that children learn new languages more easily than adults, but does this apply to younger adults vs. older adults as well? SP 3 is totally obscure. SP 4 is not clear, and seems illogical. How would (presumably bad) experience with assimilation show that multiculturalism is better? "Better" in what way?

2. The thesis and SPs are ok, but they simply summarize the text. The thesis should express your opinion about something said in the text. If you agree with the text, you must add something to what the author says.

3. This thesis commits you to giving many examples of unsuccessful multiculturalism. In addition, you must divide the examples to fit the three categories (two if SP 1 is general) you've established: 1) peoples having to live together, 2) in social trouble spots, and 3) where conflict is normally suppressed. This might prove difficult. A simpler plan would be to divide the examples geographically (by country or region), chronologically (historical, contemporary), or perhaps by reasons for conflict (religious, economic, racial).

4. SP 1-3 merely repeat what is in the text. SP 4 also paraphrases the last paragraph of the text, but the text does not make the point. It only says that the previous policy of assimilation in Australia was "arrogant." SP 4 would have to explain why the previous policy was "worse" and, specifically, less "peaceful." Do you have the information necessary to do this?

5. The thesis seems to be taken from Essay 4, and the negation is as unnecessary and troublesome as it is there. Are you going to explain why we "cannot neglect" the advantages of assimilation, or are you going to describe and explain the advantages? SP 1 seems illogical. I think you mean "so," not "because." SP 2 is ok, but why "might," and what does "conditions" mean? SP 3 is poorly expressed, but what I understand is: "Assimilation encourages immigrants to learn the indigenous language, and this allows them to communicate better with the natives, which should in turn give them more power to fight against anti-foreigner tendencies." If that's what you mean, ok.

6. SP 1 seems to confuse "multiculturalism" with "integration." The relation between the thesis and SP 1 is not clear. Sidney's high crime rate does not mean multiculturalism in Australia is not "real." Perhaps the thesis should be broadened to something like: "Australia's policy of multiculturalism is not as positive as the CSM article makes it appear." But then you would have to relate SP 1 to that, i.e., show how the non-assimilation of the aborigines has had negative consequences. SP 3 is totally obscure. SP 4 is clear, but its relation even to multiculturalism as a general subject, much less the thesis here, is not clear. Why do immigration restrictions make Australian multiculturalism less "real"? Do you mean these restrictions discriminate against certain nationalities or ethnic groups, and this shows that the Australian government is less tolerant than the article implies?

7. As in 6, SP 1 confuses "integration" with "multiculturalism." "Cultural" and "social" problems are not readily distinguishable, so SP 2 is obscure. SP 3 seems to contradict the thesis. If scapegoating foreigners is a reflection of economic ills, then economics, not racism (as the thesis implies), is the basic problem.

8. First, let's substitute "integrating..." with "multiculturalism" (see 6, 7), and "understanding" with "tolerance," since I think this is what you mean: "Australia's policy of multiculturalism helps make it a country of peace and tolerance." This elevates the main message of the text to a rather grandiose (exaggerated) thesis, which would be easier to justify if you narrowed it and toned it down a bit to, for example, "...makes it a more peaceful country." But this is the main point of the text, and SP 2-4 are also made in the text. What are you going to say (about SP 2-4) that is not in the text? Can you add details about Australian life that will make these same points without simply repeating or paraphrasing what is in the text? Or (more realistically) do you want to explain why or how social equality, translation services, and retaining cultural identity foster peace? (SP 4 does not support the thesis; it simply restates it.) This would be ok, since you would be spelling out what is only implied in the text. Still, your TSs should not repeat what is in the text but build on them to make your further points. SP 2, for example, could begin "The existence of translation services promotes peace because..." (you finish the sentence!). SP 3: "Retaining one's cultural identity promotes peace because..." What about SP 1? First you have to argue that multiculturalism promotes social equality, which is the one point that is not made in the text (this might be difficult), and then argue that social equality promotes peace (less difficult). So your TS 1 would have to look something like this: "Multiculturalism promotes social equality, which promotes peace."