A new essay by the European writer Wolfgang Bruno:
The bombings in London have finally put the multicultural idea under closer scrutiny. As Mark Steyn points out, you can't assimilate with a nullity.Helmut Schmidt, the former German chancellor, asserted that multiculturalism can only work under authoritarian regimes, not in democratic ones. At its deepest level, multiculturalism represents a denial of all Western claims to truth.
The purpose of multiculturalism is to extirpate the truly free cultures by asserting that they are equivalent to primitive, Islamic cultures. The idea is kept alive by repeating myths about the "tolerant" Islamic rule in Spain. If all cultures and religions are equally worthy of respect, why didn't the West remain in the age when we burned witches and held slaves?
We progressed and left Islam behind because we possessed the ability to criticize ourselves and move on. The only cultures worthy of respect are those who can withstand scrutiny. If yours is too weak to survive this treatment, then you do not belong in a Western society.
The West is a revolutionary civilization in our emphasis on the individual. As former Bosnian President Izetbegovic wrote, "…a Muslim generally does not exist as an individual." This is one of the reasons why Muslims hate and fear the West more than traditional civilizations such as China. However, even though the West gave birth to the idea of the individual, it also gave rise to its anti-thesis, collectivist ideologies such as Communism and Fascism.
Europe thrived and remained dynamic as long as it stuck to individualism. It has slowly declined ever since Utopian; collectivist ideologies poisoned its bloodstream. In multiculturalism, the individual is reduced to being a member of a "tribe", be that of the black tribe vs. the white tribe, the Catholic tribe vs. the Protestant tribe, or the Muslim tribe vs. all the other tribes.Islam, with its Muslim community or "Ummah" roughly being an enlarged Arab tribe of old, is well suited for this line of thinking. Some claim that multiculturalism works just fine as long as you keep Islam out of the equation. That's not the case. One of the reasons why the insanity of using sharia law has been seriously considered in Canada is that Canada was from the outset a weak nation. Canadians have for so long pandered to their French-speaking community that appeasing ethnic minorities has become something of a national habit.
This proves the maxim that although being bilingual can be a great advantage for an individual, it is a tragedy for a country. Kenan Malik has demonstrated how multiculturalism and racism share similar traits - both ideologies separate and define groups of people in terms of skin color. The motto of the multicultural crowd could thus be "separate, but equal." As every American school kid knows, there is no such thing. Multiculturalism is apartheid with lip gloss, tribalism recycled. It is the bastard child of the other collectivist ideologies of the 20th century: Fascism and communism. Which helps explain why Western groups on both the extreme left and the extreme right frequently have a cozy relationship with Islam: It is a marriage of convenience between a pre-modern culture and modern totalitarian ideologies based on mutual disdain for Western individualism.
The entire leftist worldview is based upon the idea that certain groups of people oppress other groups of people. Leftists need oppressed groups, and Muslims need to explain away their own failures by claiming to be oppressed. It's a perfect match. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has stated that "the left is exactly like the Muslims," disappointed her Socialist party by insisting on being an individual, rather than a mere representative of the oppressed group.
This is one of the reasons why quotas for different ethnic groups are dangerous. They cement the notion of belonging to a specific "tribe" opposed to other "tribes." This could prove lethal for a country as diverse as the United States: In the tribal culture, the emphasis is on the tribe or on a collective entity. Individuals exist only in relation to the tribe or to a subset of the tribe. In a modern culture the emphasis is on the individual - as in the US Constitution, "...each is endowed..." "Honor killings" are an outgrowth of a tribal culture, in that a woman's life is of secondary importance in comparison with her family's "honor." "Romantic love" is a very early symptom of modern culture, in that a person would act on a feeling of emotional attraction for another person, regardless of the impact on his/her family's status. Because of this change in emphasis, many tribal cultures cannot survive - there is not enough benefit to the individual (newly aware of his/her individuality) to call him/her back into the fold.
Maybe some of the high regard for the concept stems from mixing up the word "multicultural" with "multiracial". If you want to run a successful business in the 21st century, it could mean hiring an Indian IT manager, a Chinese engineer, an American accountant, an Italian designer and a South African salesman. Refusing to hire people because of their skin color maybe makes you a bad person, but first of all, it makes you a bad capitalist.
The USA can remain a powerful, multiracial country of dynamic individuals, or it can disintegrate into a multicultural chaos of clashing tribes. Western civilization is sometimes presented, both by people attacking it and by people claiming to defend it, as something "white". It is true that many of its greatest thinkers were of European origin. They should be honored, not reviled as "dead, white males." But the West has long since moved beyond this. One of the greatest defenders of Western values in Europe today is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an African woman. One of the toughest intellectuals defending Western liberal democracy is Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani man.
Contrast this with the actions of London Mayor Ken Livingstone or the books of Karen Armstrong. On one hand, this should make people of European stock proud: There are people who risk their lives and choose our culture over that of their ancestors simply because they think it is worth defending. Perhaps we should treat it less carelessly, then? On the other hand, it should put us to shame: Are we really so decadent that we need to import people to defend our own civilization? Maybe we deserve some of the contempt Muslims heap upon us?
Diana West points out that renouncing the multicultural creed "…in the West, that's the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death, the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs." She's wrong. Pim Fortuyn was killed by a Left-wing activist who claimed to be defending Dutch Muslims. Fortuyn was essentially executed for being a multicultural heretic. Which is another trait Islam and multiculturalism have in common: Their apostates risk losing their jobs, their reputations and, yes, sometimes even their lives.
Multiculturalism is a medieval concept. Unless defeated, it may well generate medieval results. We cannot win the fight against Islam unless we dismantle the ideology that rolls out the red carpet for it. It is no exaggeration to state that this is the most important battle of our age.
Wolfgang Bruno is a European author. He is writing a book about the Internet movement of ex-Muslims. All of Bruno's essays can be republished and reproduced for free by anybody who wants to, as long as credit is given to the author.
I've never heard of Wolfgang Bruno, but after reading this essay I must read all of his work. Rarely have I found such clarity of thought so succinctly expressed (except by Hugh, of course).
Bruno is able to go right to the heart of the matter and speak forthrightly and fearlessly. Wish our leaders could have even half of his thinking ability.
Much food for thought here.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Are ALL "alternative cultures" like Islam, i.e. to they all seek to destry Western, secular, liberal democracy? Of course not.
So instead of "let's get rid of multiculturalism", how about "let's get rid of Islam"?
Unless of course, "we" hate the liberals as much as we hate the Islamofacists.... but that couldn't be the case, could it?
....why didn't the West remain in the age when we burned witches and held slaves?
Because liberals were brave enough to stand up and say that such things needed to be stopped. Liberalism, secularism, feminism, etc. are what made our culture better than Islam.
Jen - all Wolfgang Bruno's stuff is excellent. He really has his head screwed on.
For too long the orthodoxy of multiculturalism went unchallenged for fear of accusations of racism. But even Trevor Phillips, the PC Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has recently started to question this pernicious doctrine. This is a silly doctrine whatever the circumstances, but particularly when you're dealing with Islam. Islam is above all mono-cultural, since it imposes, or tries to impose, 7th century Arab culture on the whole world. While London's Chinatown or Stamford Hill's Hassidic Jews can exist happily side by side with other communities, the Muslim 'community' seeks to impose its reactionary values on the rest of society.
Multiculturalism has been embraced by the Left, yet it causes them to jettison many of the beliefs they apparently hold dear.
In a well known article entitled 'Tolerating Intolerance'. A (female!) professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo was quoted as saying that women are responsible for being raped by Muslim men because in a multicultural society they should dress more modestly. 'Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes...must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it'.
http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2002/3/bawer.html
Rape is presumably part of the diversity rainbow to be embraced along with chicken tikka massala. So much for feminism.
Gays are supposed to be the darlings of the left. However, I read on another blog that in tolerant Amsterdam the Tourist Authority has issued a warning to gay tourists that they need to be very aware of the danger of being attacked because some 'communities' do not 'condone' their homosexuality. Apparently young Muslim men are 'expressing' their 'anger' about 'racism' by attacking gay men in the street because gay men are symbols of the 'white male racist establishment'. If I were a Cockney, I'd say, 'Would you Adam and Eve it?'! (But I'm from Lancashire so I'll say, 'Daft buggers'.)
Condemning all multiculturism is just as lazy as condoning all multiculturism.
Why not exercise some discrimination instead?
For example, I love Japanese culture. Is my love of Japanese culture wrong?
Just because Islam is destructive, don't decry all other cultures. There is much to learn in a lot of cultures, without being stupid and lazy and just blandly accepting all and sundry without investigating them to see if they are worth importing.
True multiculturism involves examining the best that the world has to offer, and rejecting the worst. We haven't done that. We just accepted everything, without examining whether it suited us.
I think that the real problem is just laziness and a refusal exercise discrimination.
Multiculturalism is the foul offspring--the Rosemary's Baby, if you will--of moral relativism and self-loathing leftism.
I think this is a brilliant essay. I would make one other point. I wouldn't over-analyze the motivations of some advocates of "multi-culturalism." I think for many, it boils down to simple jeolousy. The free market system has produced the most economically advanced society in history. It has freed countless people from a subsistence life, improved the quality of life of people across the globe and produced previously unimaginable advances in science and technology. It has accomplished this by allowing individuals from all walks of life to engage in commerce; to take risks, enter into contracts freely, and succeed or fail based on their own efforts, ideas and talents. The academic types that advocate multiculturalism exist outside this framework. They have very little input and very little influence on the economy. And this bothers them. I believe the multicultural advocates resent the fact that so many people without advanced degrees, so many "ordinary" people, have been the true driving force of the quality of life enjoyed by those in the West. So they have to try and destroy this through multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a coping strategy designed by certain academics who can't come to grips with their own irrelevance.
I hate liberals.
Voltaire - multiculturalism isn't the same thing as liking or being interested in other cultures. It is the dogma that all cultures are of equal worth and that we must not judge or discriminate. Presumably your admiration of Japanese culture does not extend to vending machines that sell schoolgirls' underwear, or young men never emerging from their bedroom?
I like spicy food but I don't like the caste system, suttee or honour killings. I'm judging these by my (superior) Western standards and find them wanting.
"Some claim that multiculturalism works just fine as long as you keep Islam out of the equation. That's not the case."
I disagree, multiculturalism has worked well enough in the UK if you take Islam out of the equation. Indian Hindus, Afro-Caribbeans, African Christians, East European Jews, Chinese, and various others have all managed to retain their identities and be British at the same time. Only Muslims have failed. Only Muslims have formed terrorist groups here. Only Muslims have their own "parliament". Only Muslims refused to attend a memorial to the biggest genocide in recent history. Only Muslims have the audacity to be offended by pictures of animals in the benefit offices they claim from. The tradgedy is that their repellant attitudes and behaviour will alienate the British from other ethnic and religious communities. This must not be allowed to happen; the debate must be moved away from "immigration" and on to "Islam".
Some posters here seem confused about Multiculturalism.
First of all, always beware of any "isms".
Multiculuralism is an ideology, a dogma. It is not the same thing as respect, and rationally limited tolerance, for other cultures and ways of life.
The central tenet of the dogma of Multiculturalism is that no culture, and no cultural practice, can be claimed to be superior to any other.
(Of course, with Leftist supporters of this dogma, we quickly run into incoherent self-contradictions, since they are so quick to denigrate as inferior many aspects of Judaeo-Christian culture, and even modern secular Western culture, in comparison with their pet noire, the Third World Noble Savage.)
The lie of multiculturalism ended in England on 7/7.
The only culture promoted by the State in England should be English culture - just as Welsh culture is promoted in Wales & Scottish culture in Scotland.
If you cannot "buy in" to that culture, may I suggest that you leave us to it whilst sailing away into the sunset from the white cliffs of Dover.
Islam, Liberals, the EUrabian continent & Multiculturalism are bigger threats to England than Hitler, Stalin, The Vikings, The Romans, The Normans & The Saxons put together.
(Sorry if I missed off any invaders & usurpers from the list)
Dr. Pepper, so many people misunderstand the real meaning of multiculturalism, believing that it is the opposite of racism. The biggest threat of multiculturalism is that its primary ideological objective is to expirtate Western culture, just as Mr. Bruno explains in his article.
We have all witnessed first hand how we, as Westerners, are the ones who must make all of the sacrifices, all of the concessions, and all of the compromises to accomodate immigrants from disparate cultures. Our culture is being slowly smothered by the left-wing, politically correct crowd who without our approval or consent, is erasing our cherished, time-honored traditions like Christimas celebrations, all references to the Judeo/Christian heritage of America, and quite literally, our way of life. No nation can survive when it becomes divided up into dozens of competing ethnic groups and majority interests are ignored or excluded. Of course, at the present rate of third-world immigration to America, whites will not be the majority much longer.
Multiculturalism is an abomination that amounts to nothing more than Western cultural suicide. No non-white, non-Christian nation on earth has allowed its society to be overrun with anglo Christians or any other disparate group of people that do not share the same religious and cultural conventions. The only people stupid enough to allow the mass influx of people with incompatible religious/cultural beliefs are Europeans and the descendants of Europeans; America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The deleterious effects of third world immigration are finally becoming evident to the average citizen of these nations, but their ruling elites have no intention of changing course.
When the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, spearheaded by the despicable Ted Kennedy was passed, its proponents assured the suckers in Congress and the American people that it would not change the face of America. America is not and will never be the same place, thanks to these lying, deceitful men. And with rampant illegal and legal third-world immigration, it continues to only get worse.
Susan - I agree with most of that, but I don't think skin colour has anything to do with it. Culture and ethnicity are not the same.
In Britain Hindus are the same race as Muslims, by and large, and yet have integrated much better. The difference is belief, not race.
I got the following letter (excerpted) from one of my devoted fans:
"As for that article on individualism, thanks so much.
Last night I woke up around 2am and started reading that article. In less than 10 minutes I was sound asleep again. Thanks.
Next time you send me some sleep-inducing article about the whichness of the what, I will return the favour with a nice article on the tcp/ip protocols
and applications in modern networking systems, the very heart of the Internet."
OK, it's not for everybody. My friend is a bright fellow who complained loudly about a post on Thomas Hobbes. He was outright insulting over a post on Marx. He flipped when he saw a longish piece on von Herder. He's one of many here at the Fortress who refuse to read my blog.
We work in a barricaded building, the doors locked and the windows covered, bolts and bars, and we're armed to the teeth in here. No fear of Muslim terrorists coming to behead us, it's the drug gangs. It's the multi-culturalist nightmare of inclusivity in the flesh and bone. It is scarey here sometimes. But what worries our friends more than anything? America! They obsess about Bush.
Today, like most days, we'll very likely have to do something to at least someone. In the meantime, I'll take time out to finish a blog piece on Neil Postman, Marx, and Hegel on history and historicism. Believe it or not, this stuff is essential to know if we are to understand, as KJ and others obviously do not, that Liberalism is revolution, that communitarianism is fascism, that history is progressivism, and that mono-culture is known as multi-culture. It's all there by now in skeletal form, and I add daily to it, as boring and unreadable as it might be.
Who knows, for example, that Fitche is a prime mover of fascist multi-culturalism? Who cares?
It's essential that we know these things if we're to clearly see the direction we've taken into the arms of the Counter-Enlightenment, of the Left embracing the Right, and the both of them becoming full-blown fascism.
I would love to have clear-minded contributors to my blog. Some writers here are so well informed and intelligently critical that I am humbled and proud to share your company.
If you have an interest in the Counter Enlightenment and Romantic origins of Left dhimmi fascism, and really, don't we all, please feel free to contact me to submit full length essays to No Dhimmitude.
I don't get much in the way of comments but I do get significant readership from areas of government and education that might make some difference at some point. If you liked Bruno's piece and you write more lucidly than I, please submit you essays.
dag dot walker at gee mail dot com
Speaking of al Andalus, the BBC are running a dhimmitude special tonight at 11:50pm designed to brainwash us still further into respecting the unrespectable (ie. Islam).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=today&service_id=4223&filename=20051003/20051003_2350_4223_31475_30
Multiculturalism, that bizarre ideology, for which there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence, states that all cultures and all belief systems associated with those cultures are of equal worth, and no moral judgements can be made.
Therefore, Western Values concerning freedom of speech and equal rights, regardless of race or sex are to be considered of equal worth to Islamic teachings in the Qur’an, where a woman’s inheritance is half that of a mans (4:11), where the punishment for thievery is amputation (5:83) and apostasy (leaving Islam) is punishable by death (4:89).
Multiculturalism, that bizarre ideology, for which there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence, states that all cultures and all belief systems associated with those cultures are compatible and can co-exist in peaceful harmony.
In Islam, the Qur’an teaches Muslims not to be friendly with non-Muslims or to trust them (3:28, 4:139, 4:144, 5:57 5:51). It also advocates that non-Muslims are the associates of Satan (4:76) and warns of severe punishment to those Muslims who try to be in affable terms with them (5:80). A Muslim convert must not be in congenial terms even with his non-Muslim parents (9:23) or other relatives (58:22). The Qur’an says that non-Muslims are open enemies of Islam (4:101, 60:1, 60:13) Muslims are commanded to be harsh and ruthless with them (9:73, 48:29, 66:9), to terrorise them (8:12), to humiliate them (9:29), to make war on them (2:216, 9:123) and to murder them wherever they are found (9:5). They are also told to fight on until Islam is the only religion (8:39).
A true Muslim must follow all of the Qur’an’s commands. In Islamic teachings, it is the word of God, truth for all time. It cannot be changed, reasoned with or debated. Therefore, it is obligatory for Muslims to dislike and wage war on non-Muslims. Yet we are to believe that any conflict in a Western multicultural society can only be the fault of the beleaguered indigenous Western population, who if only would make more effort and not be so prejudiced, would make the multiculturalists dream a reality.
But Multiculturalism is merely a dream of bleary eyed fantasists, whose beliefs in fairytale imaginings has stopped them seeing reality. Multiculturalism is also a lie spun by apologists for Islam, politicians and academic elite, whose favours have been bought, or bought off, to deflect any criticism away from Islam.
Yet, there is one monster in that bleary eyed fantasy, which is Multiculturalism. That monster, that creature of the night is the West, whose past colonialism and Imperialism is the reason for all of the world’s ills today. This fabric of lies is spun by the proponents of Islam and the left, both whose hatred of the West drives them on to destroy that culture. This lie also has to be spun for Multiculturalism to work, as it is essential for the Western population to despise their own culture, so that they will eagerly accept other cultures in their midst as opposed to holding on to and believing in their own past and identity. So the West is constantly on trial, by Islamists and the Left in the media for its past sins. It is forever to be in the dock, mumbling and stumbling out apologies for previous Western Colonialism, while the achievements of that culture, such as the development of modern science, which the entire world has benefited from, are to be completely dismissed.
Islam is only compatable with itself, and Multiculturalism,that bizarre ideology, for which there isn't the slightest bit of evidence, is a lie.
Its not the colour of your skin that matters, but rather what you believe inside your head.
This is a spiritual war, one of ideas, not one of territory, or tribe. The weak will perish (from what I see, unfortunately the West, and the strong, disciplined ideas will flourish, Islam).
You cannot when a war, when you have no heritage. Multicultural societies were introduced to water down the dominant Judeo-Christian heritage we once had.
We have no heritage. We have no culture. We have no victory.
Interesting point about Canada - it being a weak nation. I totally agree. I lived there for many years and noticed the deliberate quashing of English Canada's identity. Quebec was very clear on who it was, its culture, and still is. Even though Quebec pisses me off a lot, I do admire her pride in herself. The Rest of Canada (ROC) was told there was no Canadian culture, that the only culture we had was a multicultural one - "a lovely mix of foreign cultures". I could always see a Canadian identity & culture. Perhaps because I was Australian, and looking at it from a different perspective. Or perhaps because I just hated that PeeCee rubbish they kept preaching, and refused to feel ashamed of my European heritage.
When my kids went to primary school there, they learned so little of Canadian history - the European-based part of it. When I queried the teacher, she said because it was too Eurocentric, and would offend minorities. She was referring to the nasty European colonisation of Canada, of course, and the way it was responsible for the genocide of the all the lovely, peaceful native Indian tribes. Instead my kids studied native Indian tribes in such depth it was unbelieveable. I have no problem with that, but 5 months spent studying one Indian tribe is a bit much. It wasn't the most complex civilization and that time could have been spent learning about several cultures, but that would have been Eurocentric and offensive to minorities apparently. So my kids never learned about how their European ancestors had a hand in the building of their country, other than what I and my husband taught them. Sad.
There's a department store in Canada called The Hudson Bay Company. One of the oldest stores in the world, had its early beginnings in the fur trade and exploration of Canada. Fascinating actually. I'd say most Canadian kids now only know it as a department store. Because it would be too Eurocentric & offensive to minorities to think of it as anything else these days.
Okay, so Sharia failed there this round. But given how Canada's been indoctrinated all these years, I'm not sure how it'll fare the next round. I'm glad Australia isn't so weak about its own identity. But we have the same PC rabble here trying to change that.
Whether I've done it well or ill I did put up a lengthy piece on history. For those unfamiliar with him, may I recommend Neil Postman, one of my favorite educators, right up there with Spencer and Hugh. In the latter part of today's blog entry I quoted Postman on teaching history.
To paraphrase Georges Santayana, those who do not know history are clueless. If that, then they are also easily manipulated. One of the great benefits of this site isn't necessarily the factual details wew can get here and only here, but the lessons of history we get from each other in the dialogues, the personal histories, the insights into why things are as they are. We get, further, and what personally I appreciate more than anything, Spencer's model of a positive and honest intellectual. When Spencer addresses a question he does so honestly, and that is a lesson we can take to our readings of the histories we learn here. All the knowledge on Earth is worthless if we don't use it properly. We'd be worse off than clueless. We'd manipulate ourselves.
We must reclaim our understanding of history if we are to reclaim our struggle for the progress and expansion of Modernity. Understanding the concept of history, not just its details, is key. And then to use it wisely, that knowledge, is to triumph. To sit back and study the mind at work when we read Spencer and Hugh and others is to marvel at the beauty of the good in triumph over the evil bastards who run our school systems into the muck.
I don't know of a university of Spencers. It's late in the game for this post, but if you know of a place where our doctors are honest, let me know.
If you're up to reading a bit about Hegel, it's there, as promised.
http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com
Susan - I agree with most of that, but I don't think skin colour has anything to do with it. Culture and ethnicity are not the same.
In Britain Hindus are the same race as Muslims, by and large, and yet have integrated much better. The difference is belief, not race.
Posted by: Interested at October 3, 2005 02:02 PM
Skin color doesn't matter to me, it matters to THEM. Muslims toss around accusations of "racism" constantly, whether they are whining about Islmophobia or the fact that many muslims aren't white. Playing the race card has become second nature to many people, including muslims.
No, culture and ethnicity are not the same but certain cultures are dominated by specific ethnicities, Hindus are a good example. They aren't white and they practice a non-Western culture. I happen to be very fond of people from India; my physician is Indian and I adore her. Other than a sort of British accent, she's as American as I am and she has only been here for about ten years.
I am not a racist and skin color is irrelevant to me. I was only trying to point out that people from non-white, non-Christian cultures revere, sustain, and preserve them, sometimes with a vengeance. I happen to be of the opinion that if you want to practice your native culture, you should remain in your native country. It's one thing to respect and retain the essence of your heritage, keep it alive and pass it along to your children. But when you immigrate to another country, you should assimilate and become a part of that culture.
Pepper has it right, kj misses the point.
The diversity of the cultural mosaic is enriching to any society. If not repressed by a monoculture like Islam, it occurs and flourishes naturally, particularly in an age characterized by the extensive movement of people.
Multiculturalism is an ideological construct, based on the fallacy of relativism.
I think some of the above posters misunderstand what "multiculturalism" means. What I gather from attending grade nine social studies classes in Canada in the days of yore is that Muticulturalism, as a policy, means that we accept that there are many different, atomic "cultures" and that we attempt to preserve them exactly as they are without allowing one to "contaminate" the other. This is supposedly in contrast to the American "melting pot" where the various cultures influence each other, and ultimately the best elements of each are adopted by all. We're supposed to think of a multicultural society, on the other hand, as a sort of patchwork quilt, with disparate elements grafted together.
In my mind, MCism is just a cynical political idea intended to pander to everybody, but really only benefiting politicians and cultures with something to hide.
I think some of the above posters misunderstand what "multiculturalism" means. What I gather from attending grade nine social studies classes in Canada in the days of yore is that Muticulturalism, as a policy, means that we accept that there are many different, atomic "cultures" and that we attempt to preserve them exactly as they are without allowing one to "contaminate" the other. This is supposedly in contrast to the American "melting pot" where the various cultures influence each other, and ultimately the best elements of each are adopted by all. We're supposed to think of a multicultural society, on the other hand, as a sort of patchwork quilt, with disparate elements grafted together.
In my mind, MCism is just a cynical political idea intended to pander to everybody, but really only benefiting politicians and cultures with something to hide.
I think some of the above posters misunderstand what "multiculturalism" means. What I gather from attending grade nine social studies classes in Canada in the days of yore is that Muticulturalism, as a policy, means that we accept that there are many different, atomic "cultures" and that we attempt to preserve them exactly as they are without allowing one to "contaminate" the other. This is supposedly in contrast to the American "melting pot" where the various cultures influence each other, and ultimately the best elements of each are adopted by all. We're supposed to think of a multicultural society, on the other hand, as a sort of patchwork quilt, with disparate elements grafted together.
In my mind, MCism is just a cynical political idea intended to pander to everybody, but really only benefiting politicians and cultures with something to hide.
I think some of the above posters misunderstand what "multiculturalism" means. What I gather from attending grade nine social studies classes in Canada in the days of yore is that Muticulturalism, as a policy, means that we accept that there are many different, atomic "cultures" and that we attempt to preserve them exactly as they are without allowing one to "contaminate" the other. This is supposedly in contrast to the American "melting pot" where the various cultures influence each other, and ultimately the best elements of each are adopted by all. We're supposed to think of a multicultural society, on the other hand, as a sort of patchwork quilt, with disparate elements grafted together.
In my mind, MCism is just a cynical political idea intended to pander to everybody, but really only benefiting politicians and cultures with something to hide.
I think some of the above posters misunderstand what "multiculturalism" means. What I gather from attending grade nine social studies classes in Canada in the days of yore is that Muticulturalism, as a policy, means that we accept that there are many different, atomic "cultures" and that we attempt to preserve them exactly as they are without allowing one to "contaminate" the other. This is supposedly in contrast to the American "melting pot" where the various cultures influence each other, and ultimately the best elements of each are adopted by all. We're supposed to think of a multicultural society, on the other hand, as a sort of patchwork quilt, with disparate elements grafted together.
In my mind, MCism is just a cynical political idea intended to pander to everybody, but really only benefiting politicians and cultures with something to hide.
Susan,
"The biggest threat of multiculturalism is that its primary ideological objective is to expirtate Western culture"
Yes that is its primary objective, but its representatives either engage in deception by dressing it up as "respect for all cultures, no culture is inferior than any other"; or they are dimwits who don't see the inherent contradiction of their relativism + their denigration of Western culture.
You're also right about how Muslims play the race card. That's why the radio commentator Mike Savage said, "this is a race war", because he knows Muslim are adroitly using the racial issue inherent to Third World vs. the West geopolitics of which they have become, since the demise (or at least extreme diminution) of Communist world revolution, the chief anti-Imperialistic (but actually crypto-Imperialistic) agitators.
Islam could not have gained the foothold & power it has in the West without the collaboration of the Liberals.
That is a fact.
That is why I hate Western Liberals.
And the "great achievements" of "Liberalism" in the West - are these items really just down to Liberals, or are they just evolution & progress in enlightened societies where positive economics have given us the time to eductae & develop?
No, liberals are as much an enemy of our heritage, culture & values in England as Islam.
"educate" mmm
'Unless of course, "we" hate the liberals as much as we hate the Islamofacists.... but that couldn't be the case, could it?'~kj
Nope. "We" don't hate people who won't think things thru, and allow themselves to be blindly led by others who do- leadership like the islamofascists and DNC.
It is not the goals (of liberals) but the methods by which they are achieved- which methods are looking more Fascistic all the time.
Look at what Governor Pinchot said about the need for protecting the environment, nearly a hundred years ago- and then compare to what 'environmentialists' say today, as an example.
Cornelius,
"The diversity of the cultural mosaic is enriching to any society. If not repressed by a monoculture like Islam,..."
I think your observation may be slightly confusing. Diversity in itself does not enrich.
It appears spontaneously (or “naturally” as you said) as one of the aspects, or expression of an overall enrichment. (But it may also be a symptom of decadence, anarchy and chaos - for example in the last days of the Roman Empire)
Also, although I think I know what you mean by "monoculture" - isn't there a better word/expression than that? Just asking…
Sorry about the quintuple(!) post above.
Well Thomas, I'd certainly agree that diversity may or may not be beneficial to a society depending on its nature and extent. The 'tower of babel' phenomenon is very real and certainly not conducive to societal cohesion.
On the whole though, it would be hard to argue that cultural diversity isn't enriching. The choice of eating Italian....or Mexican...or Chinese...is just a metaphor for the broader choices available to consumers of goods, services and the arts in a culturally diverse setting. Add to this the enriching possibilities involved in human interaction...for example the allure of exoticism found in a friend or a member of the opposite sex, and you have all the ingredients for a more interesting life.
As for the word monoculture, perhaps it is faulty only because it is not entirely accurate in this context; Islam is supremacist and discriminatory no doubt, but it DOES confer upon subserviant religions certain prerogatives...even if the exercise of these prerogatives is periodically precarious, subject to the whims of both Muslim pontentates and the Muslim street.
I agree with "interested". The probleme has noting to do with race, but rather with beliefs.
Here in Canada Hindu immigrants from India have done very, very well and their contributions are many and varied. Their presence here (and that of Sikhs, as well) is truly an ASSET.
Yet their skin colour, their "race" is identical to that of Pakistan's inhabitants.