-
Notice: This is a working paper which will be continuously be amended as needed.
Difference between integration and multiculturalism
Integration is essentially a political correct terminology for assimilation of culture into mainstream or original society. It is the adoption of any foreigners who are willing to reside in a host country to become an integral part of society and leaving behind any support for background country.
Put is simply, a new migrant would pledge allegiance to the host country above all else abiding by the rule of law and responsibilities while accepting the new values he/she requires to practice.
This reference is never seen as an absolute term, which brings to another question, to what degree of integration is acceptable?
On the other hand multiculturalism is about accommodation of new migrants which brings new values and skills which are beneficial to the host country overall. The closest analogy is if a husband marries a son, both extended families would adopt each other’s values. They may have conflict of interests such as organisations and customs, but both would readily converge and create a new organic order in which there is collaboration from all parties involved.
However, obviously the scope of multiculturalism is more than a duality relationship between a husband and a wife. It is to do with diverse ethnical and religious backgrounds which can make the whole post-structuralist formation or simply ‘a unifying identity’ much harder to pinpoint.
Case Study: Cabramatta
Cabramatta’s Cultural Makeover
Cabramatta is located in South-West outskirt of Sydney comprising of mainly Asian ethnic origins. It has a significantly large population of Vietnamese population who escaped the war-torn Vietnam and being accepted into Australia as refugees. Population quickly expanded in 1980s to accommodate a new wave of refugees bring with them nuclear families.
Until recently, it was synonymous with crimes such as drug trafficking, alcohol abuse and other criminal activities in which many drug addicts commit, including assault and robbery. Many locals especially in the commercial and retail centre of Cabramatta would be regularly confronted with fear such being part of the ‘spill-over’ effect of such drug activity which plagued the suburban streets.
Sydneysiders (people of Sydney) would stereotype Cabramatta as a crime ridden suburb caused by first generation migrants who originally escaped from war ravaged countries, and brought their crime with them to Sydney. Younger generations would often be secluded in their own ethnicity and never have initiative to communicate with broader society through employment, education and other form of active contacts. Thus, many Sydneysiders feel it is a country within a country with its own culture, its own values and customs which are not compatible with mainstream Australian society.
There has been a de facto comfort zone created by such stereotype where the East would never travel to West unless being compelled, as it does not benefit them from leaving their well adopted location, whether it’s the North Shore, the South or the Eastern Suburbs.
Since the turn of 21st century, along with the state of New South Wales government and the local council vowed to clean the streets through better policing and community consultations in making the suburb more attractive and resume in building-up its slow, but important reputation.
According to the article, commerce as improved dramatically in response to the reduction in criminal activities in the area, but does not necessary mean criminal activity overall, just done elsewhere. The grass-root approach was to allow the younger generations to have opportunities for employment through improvement in commercial business such as restaurants, retail and office. If more younger generations are employed, then they have less tendency to commit petty crimes since their prosperity will be requestioned by society.
