|
Multiculturalism
Particularly within the past two decades, a new political philosophy seems to have risen to great prominence under the name "Multiculturalism." This global pandemic is particularly strong in traditionally "western" nations, including most of Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United States and Canada. Unfortunately, this political philosophy poses a greater thread to the ideals of freedom, justice, and reason than any other since Mussolini's conception of Fascism.
Definition:
A sound definition of "Multiculturalism" is quite difficult to formulate. A dictionary definition of the term(1) reads:
| quote: | | the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country |
However, to gain a more precise understanding about what this philosophy implies, I think it's more prudent to examine the words of some of its most steadfast proponents. One such organization is The National Association for Multicultural Education.
For the most part, they describe their philosophy in vague, obfuscatory terms, presenting their philosophy in the form of meaningless platitudes rather than attempting to elucidate a precise description of what principles they stand for:
| quote: | Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. It affirms our need to prepare student for their responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the role schools can play in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society.
|
| quote: | Multicultural education advocates the belief that students and their life histories and experiences should be placed at the center of the teaching and learning process and that pedagogy should occur in a context that is familiar to students and that addresses multiple ways of thinking. In addition, teachers and students must critically analyze oppression and power relations in their communities, society and the world.
|
| quote: | Recognizing that equality and equity are not the same thing, multicultural education attempts to offer all students an equitable educational opportunity, while at the same time, encouraging students to critique society in the interest of social justice.
|
This sounds all fine and dandy, but unfortunately they simultaneously slip up and expose themselves for what they really are: hypocrites and moral relativists who stand directly opposed to freedom and individualism. Consider these statements, taken from the same resolution(2):
| quote: | | It prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in organizations and institutions by providing the knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the redistribution of power and income among diverse groups. |
For an organization that claims to "[recognize] that equality and equity are not the same thing...", they seem to rather quickly jump to the conclusion that power and income should be divided equally among "diverse groups."
| quote: | To accomplish these goals, multicultural education demands a school staff that is culturally competent, and to the greatest extent possible racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse. Staff must be multiculturally literate and capable of including and embracing families and communities to create an environment that is supportive of multiple perspectives, experiences, and democracy. Multicultural education requires comprehensive school reform as multicultural education must pervade all aspects of the school community and organization.
|
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse! Here's what they're really saying: "Schools must hire faculty and staff from as varied a cultural background as possible, regardless of the individual qualifications of each applicant. All faculty and staff must embrace and teach our philosophy and only our philosophy." The brutal irony? This philosophy is self-contradictory! Multiculturalists and xenophobes are certainly "diverse groups." And yet, they have none of their precious "tolerance" for xenophobes. I probably need proceed no further. Their philosophy, being inherently self-contradictory, has already been proven false. However for the sake of truth, I'll proceed to illuminate the absurdity of multiculturalist rhetoric and also briefly analyze the implications of the pervasiveness of this inherently fallacious doctrine.
Rhetoric:
In the summer of 2001, the United Kingdom suffered from the most severe outbreaks of racial violence in decades(3). In the aftermath of these riots, Britain's Home Secretary, David Blunkett, commissioned a study(4) to determine the source of the problem. Among the conclusions of this study were that "If we want social cohesion we need a sense of identity", therefore "immigrants had to shed traditions like forced marriages and genital mutilation if they wanted to live in Britain and that they needed to learn to speak English and adopt 'British norms'."(5)
The multiculturalist response?
| quote: | | Mr. Blunkett has insulted us all |
| quote: | | I feel no obligation to bring my daughter and son up to drink themselves to death in a pub for a laugh. |
So wrote columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.(6) Apparently, that's what "British norms" mean to her. One might suggest, then, that the natural suggestion would be to simply choose not to reside in Britain. But, of course not. That would be too simple - too logical. Rather, Ms. Alibhai-Brown believes that a superior methodology towards resolving these ethnic conflicts would be to change Britain's culture into one that openly tolerates and embraces all aspects of other cultures. She, apparently, doesn't see anything wrong with permitting forced marriages and genital mutilation in a "free" society.
There is a term for this philosophy. It's known as Moral Relativism. It is a philosophy which has been rejected by a near unanimous number of both secular and theistic ethicists and philosophers.(7)
One might wonder how, then, the multiculturalists have gained so much influence - given that they are quite clearly espousing a fundamentally flawed and self-contradictory doctrine, rooted in some of the most universally repudiated tenets in the philosophical tradition. The answer is actually quite simple. In a racially charged environment, they prey upon our emotions to create a fallacious false dilemma. Either, they say, we must:
1. Accept all cultures, including their practices, traditions, and philosophies as being inherently equal.
or
2. Claim that one culture, and therefore the people who practice it, may be superior to another. Namely, to be racist.
The problem with this hypothesis is that it rests upon the false premise that a group or individual and the culture that they practice are inseparable. That is to say, they assume that you cannot reject someone's culture as inherently immoral without rejecting the individual as inherently immoral as well. Quite clearly, this claim is false. Merely because an individual has been indoctrinated into a culture where values of right and wrong are misrepresented does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with that individual. Rather, it merely means that the individual has likely been deprived of the necessary education and background upon which the formulation of a set of ethical principles with a strong foundation in reason is possible. Regrettably, in the domain of politics it is usually the man who can shout his ideas most loudly and appeal to the emotions of as many people as possible, not the man with sound, coherent ideas who comes to power. In this environment, the multiculturalist need only play the racism trump card, and is automatically the victor in any debate, regardless of the fallacies inherent to his reasoning.
Implications:
It is difficult to properly gauge the long-term effects that a multiculturalist stranglehold on global politics might have. Truth, freedom, and justice are all endangered, either directly or indirectly by the multiculturalist agenda. However, the most obvious and immediate consequence that multiculturalism can be shown to produce is, ironically, resurgent racism. I submit the aforementioned race riots as evidence of this phenomenon.
Multiculturalists claim that their philosophy stands in direct opposition to racism. In fact, many go so far as to suggest that a multiculturalist worldview is the only solution to racism. This point of view, however, is not supported by reason. As Edwin A. Locke argues in a brilliant (and succinct) editorial for the Ayn Rand institute(8), there is but one cure for racism: individualism.
| quote: | It is now taken as a virtual axiom that the way to cure racism is through the promulgation of racial and ethnic diversity within corporations, universities, government agencies and other institutions. The diversity movement has many facets: diversity awareness, diversity training, diversity hiring and admissions, diversity promotions, and diversity accommodations (e.g., black student organizations and facilities at universities). The common feature in all these facets is: racial preference.
If diversity is the cure, however, why, instead of promoting racial harmony, has it brought racial division and conflict? The answer is not hard to discover. The unshakable fact is that you cannot cure racism with racism. To accept the diversity premise means to think in racial terms rather than in terms of individual character or merit. Taking jobs away from one group in order to compensate a second group to correct injustices caused by a third group who mistreated a fourth group at an earlier point in history (e.g., 1860) is absurd on the face of it and does not promote justice; rather, it does the opposite. Singling out one group for special favors (e.g., through affirmative action) breeds justified resentment and fuels the prejudices of real racists. People are individuals; they are not interchangeable ciphers in an amorphous collective.
|
If only the whole world could see the obviousness of the truth with such clarity! He continues:
| quote: | The traditional and essentially correct solution to the problem of racism has always been color-blindness. But this well-intentioned principle comes at the issue negatively. The correct principle is individuality awareness. In the job sphere there are only three essential things an employer needs to know about an individual applicant: (l) Does the person have the relevant ability and knowledge (or the capacity to learn readily)? (2) Is the person willing to exert the needed effort? and (3) Does the person have good character, e.g., honesty, integrity?
It will be argued that the above view is too “idealistic” in that people often make judgments of other people based on non-essential attributes such as skin color, gender, religion, nationality, etc. This, of course, does happen. But the solution is not to abandon the ideal but to implement it consistently. Thus, organizational training should focus not on diversity-worship but on how to objectively assess or measure ability, motivation and character in other people.
The proper alternative to diversity, that is, to focusing on the collective, is to focus on the individual and to treat each individual according to his or her own merits. Americans have always abhorred the concept of royalty, that is, granting status and privilege based on one’s hereditary caste, because it contradicts the principle that what counts are the self-made characteristics possessed by each individual. Americans should abhor racism, in any form, for the same reason.
|
I will never understand what it is about human beings that makes them so instinctively reliant on categorizations and subsequent generalizations, be they racial or otherwise. Why is it so difficult to judge a man based upon his own merits? Why is it so difficult to treat everyone the same, to hold them all to the same standard, regardless of their ethnicity, their culture?
Conclusion:
Multiculturalism is a doctrine that stands directly opposed to reason, truth, and individualism. Despite its claim to be directly opposed to racism, it in reality perpetuates racism - even makes it fashionable. It is a highly dangerous political doctrine which could have profoundly negative effects upon individual liberty wherever it gains strength. It is imperative that the public worldwide be educated about the inherently self-contradictory nature of the multiculturalist philosophy, and that it be exposed for the fraud that it is. With truth as our guide, reason as our sword, and liberty as our goal, we must slay this monster and put an end to its tyranny before it is too late.
References:
(1)http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dict...lticulturalism
(2)http://www.nameorg.org/resolutions/definition.html
(3)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1435958.stm
(4)http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrac...sion/index.html
(5)http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=109172 (requires $ membership)
(6)http://argument.independent.co.uk/r...sp?story=109203 (requires $ membership)
(7)James Rachels, "A Critique of Ethical Relativism," in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, ed. Louis P. Pojman (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1989), 322-23.
(8)http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/individualism.html
|
