The menace of multiculturalism
Suzanne Fields:
It's not easy to dislodge a trendy fad, particularly among the public intellectuals and the aspiring sophisticates of the chattering class, but "multiculturalism" may be getting an intellectual re-examination. The strivers so easily captured by the hula hoops of academic imagination have a long way to go, but the signs are there (and not a moment too soon).
"Multiculturalism" is the notion that all cultures are inherently equal; the notion should not only be tolerated, but encouraged. The Judeo-Christian values that undergirded the founding of our country and inspired the moral rules that bound us together in a common culture, honored even when honored in the breach, are to be held in doubt and suspicion. When these values were deconstructed, so that they no longer held us together, the literary, philosophical and historical canons of Western civilization changed.
Young people, naturally given to critiquing anything and everything their parents believe, became easily indoctrinated with the fashionable notions of multiculturalism. Disarmed, they could not defend the culture that produced their freedoms and the good life in which to enjoy those freedoms. They were soon not even capable of perceiving the consequences that flow from an inability to make distinctions. Instead of appreciating the self-correcting freedoms growing out of the common culture — leading to the end of slavery, the relief of oppressed women, and the civil-rights revolution that propelled blacks into the mainstream — the young were encouraged to focus on the negatives of Western history. The manifest shortcomings of other cultures were cheerfully ignored.
The great contemporary fault line of multiculturalism is the tolerance of Islamist barbarity that passes for understanding. This has led to the conspicuous inability to recognize the dark side of Islam that politicizes authentic religious faith and produces the terrorism that stalks the civilized world. Though only a small number of Muslims actually perceive murder as a religious duty, millions of Muslims support those who do, and many millions more conspicuously refrain from criticizing the evil-doers, either from fear or from a desire to see their faith became dominant across the world.
As a result, "multiculturalism" has become ideology that menaces a culture unable to defend itself. This multiculturalism undercuts assimilation and fosters an anti-American bias in favor of cultures determined to destroy our own. The British example says it all. Multiculturalism in England was shaped not only by academicians, but by civil servants, think tanks, minority pressure groups, center-left politicians, and what John O'Sullivan calls with irony "the Great and the Good." In The New Criterion magazine, he argues that certain government institutions, together with the popular media, created an ideology of "institutional correctness" of condescending anthropology. The British government, unrestrained by constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state, subsidized ethnic, religious, and linguistic ghettoes by supporting "faith schools," where minority children were encouraged to maintain the cultures their parents fled. In the interest of tolerance, men and women who knew better rationalized the suppression of women, genital mutilation and even "honor killings" by Muslims. Better to let the natives keep their quaint customs rather than impose common values that smack of "Britishness."
The bombings in London, however, changed the debate. When the British learned that their suicide bombers were home-grown, recruited from minorities who were not marginalized — the bombers had grown up playing cricket — multiculturalism as a guiding ideology was suddenly suspect. The Dutch before them had begun to rethink multiculturalism as well, when a radical Muslim murdered the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam for his criticism of Islamic suppression of women. The killer left an Islamist manifesto spiked to his breast.
Though not as daffy over multiculturalism as the Netherlands or Britain, America has been moving that way. The melting pot of assimilation, which has nurtured the American dream for more than two centuries, has become ever more suspect. A poll for the Pew Hispanic Center finds that 55 percent of Americans of Mexican descent consider themselves Mexicans first. A similar study of Muslim immigrants in Los Angeles finds that only 10 percent think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of the countries they abandoned for new lives here.
Multiculturalism has become both masochistic and condescending. Born of good and generous intentions, it inevitably led to cultural amnesia, sapping the strength of the common bond. "An unintended and beneficial consequence of the London bombings," writes John O'Sullivan, "is the transformation of the debate in Britain over multiculturalism." The clock is ticking here, too.
Multiculturalism versus rights
Demos: Abandon multiculturalism
Abolishing America (contd.): Muslims And Multiculturalism
Time to set some limits
Multiculturalism has fanned the flames of Islamic extremism
The price of multiculturalism
A victory for multiculti over common sense
Multicultural Britain is not working, says Tory chief
Europe's Angry Muslims
3 Comments:
Multicult is not some"trendy fad"; over a period of some thirty years it has risen to become the dominant ideology of our ruling elites. It is a program for the destruction of the traditional Western homelands as coherent nation-states rooted in a distinct culture and replacing them with amounts to sales districts. Three years ago John Fonte wrote an article describing the tenets of what he called Transnational Progressivism.
http://tinyurl.com/95w8
(...)
The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:
The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.
A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.
Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."
The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.
The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.
The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups.
Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.
Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"
The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.
MORE
Richard Poe fleshes out the meaning of the Multicult regime for those lacking in imagination:
http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=113
(..)
Under ordinary circumstances, no one would lose sleep over some crackpot theory circulating among UN bureaucrats. Unfortunately, for reasons that are still not entirely clear, virtually every government in the world appears to have embraced Transnational Progressivism, and is working around the clock to make global government a reality.
Fonte warns that the coming global regime will not respect liberal freedoms. Though couching his message in the polite euphemisms of academia, Fonte essentially suggests that the Tranzis will impose a kind of racialist police state, in which historically downtrodden or oppressed groups will be encouraged by the "elites" to rise up and get even with their former oppressors.
"Dominant" groups (I guess he means white men) will be forced to yield power to "oppressed" groups in all areas. In the economic sphere, the system will compel "dominant" people to give up their jobs to "oppressed" people, until every job category reflects the proportion of "oppressed" people in the population.
But it won’t stop there. The proportion of "oppressed" people in the population will constantly grow. That’s because another tenet of Tranzi-ism holds that "dominant" countries must welcome immigrants from "oppressed" countries in unlimited numbers.
If any "dominant" people protest, they will be jailed for "hate speech."
When I read Fonte’s essay, my first impulse was to yawn. He seemed to be stating the obvious. Anyone who has tuned into talk radio or surfed the Web in the last ten years already has a pretty good idea of what the "elites" are planning.
MORE
c
Anyone who has tuned into talk radio or surfed the Web in the last ten years already has a pretty good idea of what the "elites" are planning.
And with our two party system - and with both of those parties being pro-multicultural - there is unfortunately little that any of us can do about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home