Columnist Diana West argues that to defeat jihad and achieve victory in the global war, we must first undercut multiculturalism. (*)
It does appear that the crazy dream of everyone living in harmony is exposed for what it is now, and can no longer be taken seriously by any reasonable person.
This notion of multiculturalism as a foundation stone for modern jihad is interesting. It’s worthy of further development.
Latino Pundit provides a spark of insight and disagrees with my argument against multiculturalism. (*) My argument was made a while back. (†)
Latino Pundit characterizes my point as “multiculturalism = sludge.” Of course, that overgeneralizes what I said. To be precise, I depicted multiculturalism as a process. The end result of this process I described as negative.
Furthermore, he equates multiculturalism with that which is Hispanic in the USA. To me, the word multiculturalism is not so specific. I view multiculturalism instead as an ideology that is not associated with any particular culture.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining one’s culture or promoting it. It is wrong, however, to promote one culture at the expense of another where the culture that declines is harmless.
America has a culture. Its emblems include baseball, fireworks on the Fourth of July, the nomadic experience, hamburgers, and hot dogs. It is a tradition of free associations and a reverence for justice over any reverence for authority. It is a culture founded upon an interesting combination of English, American Indian, and other cultures.
Those who criticize the United States as an imperialistic aggressor believe this American culture should be scoured off the Earth. One may begin to achieve this goal by portraying American culture as evil and every other culture as good. This is the perspective of multiculturalism as it applies to America.
What is multiculturalism, really? Is it a snide, underhanded reference to one culture in particular that is supposedly disliked? Is it an ideology? On the other hand, is it merely a distraction?
The real argument seems to be which culture is good and which is bad. This real argument can be avoided by hiding under the cloak of multiculturalism, One can claim superior moral authority on a subject by defining one’s enemies as evil because they defend “evil” and attack “good.” In this way, multiculturalism can help an advocate presume the conclusion in such a way that it is difficult for an audience to detect.
All of this comes from the notion that a culture is something so distinct that it must be considered to have a “purity,” as Latino Pundit references. As he forcefully notes, however, cultures tend to have so many interactions with other cultures that it is probably impossible to precisely distinguish between cultures. Insofar as cultures are not monoliths, they cannot be ranked in order of merit.
Yet, the first lesson of politics is that different groups of people are different enough to matter in the course of daily lives. To use an example, an American might sit on a chair, cross his legs, and show the sole of his foot to a person he is talking to, without failing to be polite. In Arab culture, however, that would be impolite.
Latino Pundit is correct that there is no “purity” of any culture that has any value worth protecting. That does not lead to the conclusion, however, that all cultures are the same. A roughly drawn difference is still a difference.
Multiculturalism appears only superficially to argue that all cultures are equal. In practical effect, if all cultures are equal, than any greatly successful culture would scandalize our presumption of relativistic equivalence. To defend the presumption requires a redefining of success or thriving as aggression and imperialism.
Most proponents of multiculturalism are merely confused. They do not deserve harsh criticism. They deserve a chance to see the light. I am not someone who has all the answers. I once was a forceful proponent of multiculturalism myself.
In conclusion, we should not reference multiculturalism because it is a crutch to shepherd along the weak case for destroying whatever is strong because it is strong without regard for whether it is just. If multiculturalism can then be defined as an ideology, we can see how it leads to the process of shredding existing cultures, regardless of whether they have merit. If multiculturalism really would turn American culture into mulch, then it would do the same for any other culture as well.
If we wish to say American culture is good or bad or some other culture is good or bad, we should be as specific with our examples as possible. It is far more useful to say, “American policy as it concerns the environment in Tanzania is bad,” or “American movies promote violence and immorality,” than it is to say, for example, “America is bad.”
Think of culture as a meal that you are preparing. Do you take exactly one teaspoon of every item you’ve got in the pantry, and put it into the pot and heat it? Or do you carefully select the ingredients? A culture is a mix of different ingredients, and not just any mix works.
Think of culture as a field of crops. You’ve got the crops in the field, and you’ve got weeds. You have to get rid of the weeds. Do you kill everything growing in the field to get at the weeds—sterlization—or do you just try to get rid of the weeds, leaving the crops to grow? If there is racism or another problem in a culture, you target that problem. You don’t get rid of the whole culture.
Think of culture as physical matter. It might be a gold nugget, or a chunk of ice. It’s made up of only one or two elements. It’s boring. Now add some diversity. Instead of something boring and entirely uniform, it’s interesting. As a mix of elements, it might be a rock, a pond, or a tree. Now add more and more diversity. Eventually you have nothing but sludge, entropy, or primordial ooze. Some diversity is beneficial, but an unlimited amount of diversity results in uselessness and death. Thus, diversity is important to life and culture, but diversity cannot be the highest goal of life or culture.
Multiculturalism takes cultures and turns them into mulch. That’s why a good nickname for multiculturalism would be “multure.”
Today, the official policy of the US and other Western countries is multiculturalism. There is no simple definition of multiculturalism, because the various parts of it contradict the other parts. All cultures are equal, and all should be free, except that Christianity and European culture should die. And so on.
Multiculturalism does not make logical sense unless you think of it as the ideology of reverse imperialism. In the imperialist age, Europeans were required go forth to the “uncivilized” world and set the people there on the path of “enlightenment.” Now, the situation is reversed. The non-European, “enlightened” world is required to go forth into Europe and America and teach us respect for “diversity” and generally to “enrich” us.
It should not be difficult to see that not only was imperialism wrong, but that reverse imperialism is wrong, too.
The plain fact is that we can learn about and respect other cultures without destroying our own. As that is the fact that multiculturalism at its heart must deny, multiculturalism must be cast aside, or our cultures will die.
Instead of multiculturalism and diversity, the leading goals of cultural, racial, and ethnic interactions should be equality and respect. We can have equality and respect without multiculturalism or diversity. European-derived cultures cannot survive if their highest goal remains diversity. No culture can. Every culture is worthy of respect and survival.
I oppose racism, imperialism, and multiculturalism. I support equality, the free exchange of ideas, liberty, and the survival of my culture. I hope other people agree with me on these basic premises, substituting their own culture if it differs from mine, but realistically, some will disagree.
Part of my culture is improving my culture. That means solving problems in my culture like, for example, racism. It doesn’t mean destroying my culture. My culture has a right to exist, just like every other culture.
Lawrence Auster has a critical four-part series on multiculturalism. Part One (*) Part Two (†) Part Three (‡) Part Four (§)
Tom Krannawitter takes a good stab at multiculturalism. (**)
Varsha Bosle has a critical commentary on how expansionist-minded Muslims exploit multiculturalism. (††)
Lawrence Auster has a separate, interesting article about “anti-racism.” (‡‡) If “anti-racism” means opposing racism, then I’m for anti-racism. If “anti-racism” means “multiculturalism,” then I’m against it.
What Auster describes in that article seems to be reverse imperialism. The supposed “enlightened” person teaches the people of European descent how to be “better” human beings by abandoning their culture.
It’s the mirror reverse of what occurred when Europeans invaded and colonized the lands and cultures of the people they called “savages” so many years ago during the age of imperialism. Except that instead of European imperialists teaching the European version of table manners and Christianity to the “savages,” the new regime is a non-European college professor teaching the “enlightenment” of multiculturalism to the “racist white savages.” It’s still wrong, no matter who is the imperialist, and who is the victim. Imperialism and reverse imperialism are both wrong.
Our cultures are being chopped to bits and heaped on the mulch pile. Perhaps one day the remnants will serve as fertilizer, to “enrich” some other culture entirely different from our own.
I do not look forward to that day of multure. I look forward to the day when humanity will steer a different course, when we all respect one another and our distinct cultures.
Update: 20 July 2004. One Fine Jay disagrees. (§§)
Try to guess who said this.
[T]he educated have an obligation to work to close the cultural gaps that divide our nation and our world. In the wake of the September 11th attacks, it would have been easy, in our grief and our anger, to retreat behind a wall of defeatism and discrimination. But that is not the American way. We did not close our borders to the tens of thousands of students from Muslim countries seeking to study here. Even as we have done the necessary and important work of improving our visa screening, we have continued to welcome people from other nations and we need to do more to let people know that they are indeed welcome. This response says a lot about our Nation. At a fundamental level, it underscores our faith in diversity and individual rights.
The intellectual foundation of terrorism - just like that of slavery and segregation - rests on arbitrarily dividing the human race into friends and enemies, even human and non-human. The perpetrators of 9/11 were people who believed that differences are a license to kill. One of the great benefits of the years you have spent on this campus is the extraordinary diversity you have been exposed to. You know better than most of the world that differences should not be a source of fear, but an opportunity to learn.
Whatever field or profession you choose for your life’s work, you will continue to meet people from different areas, different backgrounds, different cultures, and different religions. Because of what you have learned here, you will always carry with you the obligation to help bridge divides in culture and understanding.…
All people are bound together by several common desires. Never make the mistake of assuming that some people do not share your desire to live freely … to think and believe as they see fit … to raise a family and educate their children. Never make the mistake of assuming that some people do not desire the freedom to chart their own courses in life.
(*) It was Dr Condoleeza Rice, head of the National Security Council, on 7 May 2004.
Dr Rice has become an American icon. I have a high opinion of her. Few criticize her except those on the Left who are firmly antiwar. Thus, I tread hesitantly.
I generally like what she said, but there are two things wrong with the quoted portion of her speech.
The first error is Dr Rice’s unwillingness to consider the need to halt immigration and student visas from Middle Eastern countries as a necessary step. This is a war. Our three stated national war goals are: (1) preserve national security; (2) preserve civil rights (including privacy); and (3) preserve the open borders immigration policy. Unfortunately, in this real world, we can only realistically achieve two out of those three goals. The question is: which two?
In that we strive for all three of these contradictory goals, we put the achievement of each of the three goals in jeopardy. Dr Rice’s unwillingness to consider this dilemma is not helpful to winning the war.
Our war goals should be revised to (1) win the war; (2) preserve national security; and (3) preserve civil rights (including privacy). Note that “win the war” should be an enunciated goal. There is no dilemma in achieving all three of these goals, because open borders are not among them.
The second error is how Dr Rice both says that we Americans must learn from the diverse cultures and peoples of the world, and yet the diverse cultures and peoples of the world must all have an American sense of freedom. This is a plain contradiction. Who will do the teaching and who will do the learning exactly? I don’t know why everyone does not see that this common multicultural expression of “diversity” contains within it a dire contradiction. Perhaps there is a compromise where diversity could generally be helpful to America and to the world, but what Dr Rice said is surely impossible.
(I should make my position plainly apparent. I oppose multiculturalism and racism. I support racial equality and universal human liberty.)
Dr Rice was speaking at a commencement, and thus her remarks can be considered somewhat informal. Nevertheless, I find them to be an accurate statement of our national policy under the Bush Administration. And that I find chilling.
The problem is not just with Condoleeza Rice, or with the Bush Administration. The problem is that our entire national leadership needs to think more clearly on the intertwining problems of terrorism and multiculturalism
This is a war. Happy talk will not win it. Bringing the fight to the enemy will. Unless we rethink our direction, the Al Qaeda flag will fly over the White House, and no amount of diversity rhetoric will save our freedom.
The National Endowment for the Arts has detected a literary crisis in America. Our reading of literature has dropped off the cliff. (*) It may be just an assertion, but I believe one of the culprits is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism infects recent prose and poems. Every sub-group needs to get its homage. Multiculturalism also infects the reader’s sensibility. It is less socially advantageous today to have read Herman Melville or F Scott Fitzgerald than it was a few years ago. Today, for maximum social utility, you need to have read something that is diverse instead of something that is good. While some readers do pick up Ellison’s Invisible Man or a Toni Morrison novel or another book of worth, too many seekers of diverse literature find unrewarding trash that can leave them feeling discouraged, feeling that reading is generally not worth their time. It’s not just America. It’s everywhere.
We watch movies and television, and fill our minds with the mindless wretchedness of those forms. Radio is no alternative, in my opinion, as commercials seemingly fill up every available on-air minute, even on public radio.
We read things on the Internet, but they are temporal and often useless. Online writing is closer kin to chicken scratching than literature. It’s good for politics, but bad as art.
In the end, we have a dumbed-down culture, because we try to appeal to the broadest, most diverse group possible. The broader the appeal must be, the lower the common denominator.
As our country’s population soars above the 300 million point, and cities become choked with humanity, social chaos and misery become the norms for most Americans. In our sprawling urban nightmare, fewer and fewer have time to read a book.
What is to be done? Bolt down the bookshelves and hold on. Teach our kids well that which is good and to disdain pop culture. In a few generations the population of America and of the world will begin to decrease, and things will start to get easier. Order and sanity will return. Until then, the stupefying mass culture will continue to arrogate to itself the office of the leading cultural signifier, the phallogocentric core to the civilized, increasingly irrelevant periphery. Irrationality will spasmodically break out into violence, as on 9/11. Meanwhile, humble, small, intelligent things like books and paintings will continue to suffer.
There will be morning for human culture once again, but not for some time.
Here is one example of someone who is just trying to hold on. Lynne Truss is a clear voice against the epidemic of misspelling. (†) I have to confess to my share of misspelling, but I seek to correct my errors.
Like Lynne Truss, we have to just hold on to our culture and pass it down, for otherwise it go extinct. Our task requires of us those ancient virtues like versatility, courage, and love, but living up to them is within our power.
The Orkut.com service by Google is a vain attempt to quantify social prestige. While I am one of those who looks with scorn and disdain at such hubris, I admit to a degree of fascination with the recently reported brouhaha occurring within the Orkut community.
It’s important to know that Orkut membership is only open by invitation. You must know someone there to login. When I receive an Orkut invitation, I promptly delete it.
Designed by US–based Google, Orkut began primarily as an English-speaking site. Today, however, thanks to its invitation system, over 41% of Orkut users are Portuguese-speaking Brazilians, and only about 23% are Americans. (*)
A few English speakers are now openly complaining about feeling excluded on Orkut. In their view, what was once an English-speaking service is swiftly losing its Anglophone identity in favor of a Portuguese-speaking identity.
Tammy Soldaat, a Canadian, got a sample of Brazilian wrath recently when she posted a message asking whether her community site on body piercing should be exclusive to people who speak English.
Brazilian Orkut users quickly labeled her a “nazi” and “xenophobe.”
“After that I understood why everyone is complaining about these people, why they’re being called the ‘plague of Orkut,”‘ she said in a site called “Crazy Brazilian Invasion.”
(†) Obviously, this is just an online community that we are talking about. There is no reason to think that someone like Soldaat is a “nazi” or a “xenophobe.” Those charges appear to be totally spurious.
This just begs for someone to say something profound about multiculturalism, and the open borders immigration policy. Yet, what would there be to say? The story writes itself.
If you want a community that survives and retains its cultural identity, you have to be willing to exclude others. If you wish, you can include a few outsiders, but only to a point. If you value your own community, you have to at some point protect it by excluding outsiders or it will eventually be destroyed by outsiders who don’t like your community. There is no way around that.
Like several others, I react with great distaste to the Orkut concept that friendship could be represented in a software program. Thus, I have no personal interest in whether Orkut survives, or what is Orkut’s identity. I just find it to be an interesting story.
David Warren attacks multiculturalism as elitist. (*)
Paul Gottfried writes about how the West is indulging radical Muslims who have emigrated to the West. (*)
He does not draw the next two conclusions, both of supreme importance.
The first is that we are indulging radical Islamists who have come to our society because so many of us have come to hate our society, our culture, and our civilization. What corrupts us is falsely thought to help us.
The second is that radical Islamists find multiculturalism in the West to be not a new, strange, liberal innovation; but instead to be quite familiar environs. The master/servant relationship between radical Islamist and Western man whose culture is worth nothing is the perfect equivalence of the Muslim and dhimmi (Christian or Jew) of countries that have enacted full sharia—radical Islamic law. The radical Islamist who is demanding special rights in the West is not doing anything extraordinary from his point of view. He is claiming the superior level of rights he believes is his due as a Muslim.
Katha Pollitt draws a line between women’s individual rights and the group rights of the limited few cultures for which multiculturalism demands respect. (*) If it is true to itself, feminism cannot tolerate cultural relativism.
The philosophy of multiculturalism is the aesthetic preference and moral demand for a diverse mix of cultures. (*)
Unfortunately, multiculturalism is hobbled horribly by its own internal contradictions. Multiculturalism embraces cultures as they are, and urges a cultural exchange of ideas, customs, and values. This does not take into account that in some cultures, exchanges with other cultures of ideas, customs, and values are disfavored or even prohibited. For example, in modern day militant Islamism, other cultures are shunned, deprecated, and sometimes attacked.
When dealing with inward-driven cultures like militant Islamism, multiculturalists must obey two paradoxical injunctions. First, the multiculturalist must show respect for that culture by attempting to learn about it and communicate with its members, interacting with it, influencing it, and being influenced by it. Second, the multiculturalist must show respect for the inward-driven culture’s injunction against interactions with members of other cultures. A multiculturalist is supposed to embrace a culture that wants nothing to do with him, except perhaps to kill him.
Therefore, when multiculturalists think about radical Islamism, for example, they are caught in an ideological trap. How can you respectfully interact with a culture that authentically disapproves of interaction? The only safe way for a multiculturalist to proceed is to focus on the non-threatening aspects of such a culture, and to avoid any consideration of its threatening aspects. Taken to an extreme, a multiculturalist would surrender where defense is possible.
Multiculturalism is an elite fantasy made possible only through societal opulence and security. Those who would hold to such an idea without a mantle of protection would quickly be forced to reconcile their views. To the extent that multiculturalism interferes with the self-defense of many innocent people, it is immoral.
It is plain that one of the worst aspects of paleoliberalism is its adherence to multiculturalism.
On December 14, 2000, in Wichita, Kansas, a horrific, unparalleled sequence of savage, depraved acts occurred. The criminals were black; the victims white. On trial now are the two black men accused of the crime. Right-wingers are attempting to use the facts of the case to realign the ongoing discussion of racial politics in America more to their liking.
(more…)