Chapter 26 Multicultural Citizenship
I found the first half of this reading to be very easy to understand, however the second half is hazy to me. Kymlicka early on in the reading points out how generalizations on what multiculturalism is can be misleading. I believe that defining the term “multiculturalism” can be extremely difficult. Basically what I think multiculturalism to be is where many different cultures exist in one large society. The nation in which the groups of cultures live, practice their own traditions while coexisting with other cultures. As defined by dictionary.com, “Multiculturalism is the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation” (Dictionary.com).

Kymlicka points out how there is two broad patterns of cultural diversity. As stated by Kymlicka, “In the first case, cultural diversity arises from the incorporation of previously self-governing territorially concentrated cultures into a larger state. These incorporated cultures, which I call ‘nation minorities’, typically with to maintain themselves as distinct societies alongside the majority culture, and demand various forms of autonomy of self-government to ensure their survival as distinct societies” (Kymlicka pg. 270). The second pattern of cultural diversity is when immigrants move to a different country and basically assimilate to the larger society’s culture, customs and values. In the second pattern, it is not the individual’s goal to continue carrying their past ethnic identity alongside with the newer identity.

It is described how there are also different ways cultures have been integrated into a country. The first way in which a culture can be incorporated into another country is when a culture is conquered by another and by colonizing settlers. Kymlicka provides a good example of how cultures were involuntarily mixed with another country. Kymlicka describes, “For example, there are a number of national minorities in the United States, including the American Indians, Puerto Ricans, the descendants of Mexicans living in the south-west when the United States annexed Texas, New Mexico, and California after the Mexican War of 1846-1848” (Kymlicka pg. 271). This is an example how a culture that was once recognized as sovereign, was then controlled by another country by colonization.

Cultures have not always had the luxury of practicing their traditions freely. Before the 1960’s, any immigrant migrating to Australia, Canada and the United States were expected to assimilate their customs to what the “norm” of that country they were moving to was. This idea of assimilating different cultures into one large one was called ‘Anglo-conformity’. One of the cultures that suffered the most from this ‘Anglo-conformity’ was the Native Americans. The reason for assimilation was because the government believed it was vital for political stability. This form of assimilating all cultures into on completely contradicts the idea of the ‘melting-pot’. By the 1970’s the model of ‘Anglo-conformity’ and assimilation was disregarded. What happened was the government was under too much pressure by all the immigrants because they wanted back the right to be able to practice their born culture. Soon after, the government gave into the immigrant’s demands to allow different cultures to coexist.

This change in 1970’s was a huge turning point allowing all cultures to be allowed to practice their old customs that were once outlawed for many years. Kymlicka talks about how there are two types of cultural pluralism. The first type of cultural pluralism is multination which means the culture became immigrant when they were colonized. The second type of cultural pluralism is called polyethnic. Polyethnic is a type of immigration that is by choice when one person or a family decides to move to another country. The United States and Canada can both be looked at as multinational and polyethnic.

Individual rights and collective rights
I found this section of the reading to be somewhat difficult. I really did not understand what was being said because the author assumed the reader already knew what he was talking about.
I actually looked up what individual rights and collective rights meant and found a more clear definition. Individual rights and collective rights is defined as, “A prominent issue in human rights is the between collective rights and individual rights. Collective rights protect a group of people, while individual rights protect the individual.” Kymlicka goes on to talk about how individual rights vs. collective rights are unhelpful. He then goes on to talk about two different kinds of claims ethnic or national groups might make. The first claim is going against its own members of the ethnic group and the second claim is against the larger society. It is thought that both claims help protect the ethnic communities.

There are also two types of destabilizing impact. As stated by Kymlicka, “Internal dissent (e.g. the decision of individual members not to follow traditional practices or customs), whereas the second is intended to protect the group from the impact of external decisions (e.g. the economic or political decisions of the larger society)” (Kymlicka pg. 274). Kymlicka then goes on to talk about how polethnic rights could be used to impose internal restrictions. This would then give minority groups the legal power to impose their old traditions on its members. As stated by Kymilcka, “Ethnic groups could demand the right to take their children out of school before the legally prescribed age, so as to reduce the chances that the child will leave the community; or the right to continue traditional customs such as clitoridectomy or compulsory arranged marriages that violate existing laws regarding informed consent” (Kymlicka pg.276)

Kymlicka then goes on to talk about how it is vital for individuals to take pride in their community and their culture. If individuals lose pride for their culture, it will disappear and other cultures will take over and change it. Cultures need to be preserved or else they will disappear.