|
Multiculturalism
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
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 |
|
|
| arctic |
Multiculturalism used to be the buzz word in Australia, all the major political parties were preaching it as the way forward, and we prided ourselved on how well different cultures/religions etc. were able to intergrate in to Australian society.
Then the government started locking up refugees and effectivley throwing away the key.
Long story short, I haven't heard the word used for ages :(
A tad off topic, but hey, food for thought :thepirate |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I wholeheartedly agree with Arbiter on this issue. Multiculturalism is a puny attempt to fight racism with racism. It also fails to ackgnowledge the simple facts that not all cultures are equal in all aspetes. Furthermore, when comparing two cultures, it insists on viewing a culture as a whole instead ov viewing it as a group of aspects. And the most importnat thing, it superimposes the rights and needs of specific cultures above rights and needs of individuals. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
That piece of writing is so propagandized and ethnocentric it loses any value that it might of had.
I don't think their are many people in the multicultural movement who would argue that multiculturalism means that anyone can do anything then want based on their culture. Exploitative practices are still exploitative and not reasonable regardless of culture.
What multicultism is attempting to provide is a framework whereas racism will eventually disappear. We should be taught by teachers from a variety of backgrounds in schools. And we should learn a variety of different cultures traditions and histories.
| 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. |
Clearly what is being said here is that school should train minorities to fight for their rights and to actively work towards changing the system to make it more equal. As a result of this power and money will become equally distributed. They are not arguing that the power and money should just be collected and redistributed equally, as you said. They are just attempting to express that in a perfect world it WOULD be and that students should be trained to work towards that.
| 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. |
Again, you interpret this through biased eyes that are intent to pull out some unspoken hidden meaning. What this is attempting to say is that within education its important for children to get an education that involves dealing with nationalities as diverse as the class is. Nowhere does it say that unqualified people should be teaching simply on the basis of their race. It clearly says, "and to the greatest extent possible racially, culturally and linguisticly diverse". The statement of, "greatest extent possibly" clearly demonstrates that this is within the realm of qualified professionals.
If you can somehow demostrate a causal link between the multicultural movement and increased racism then please do. But until you can then all your doing is singing rhetoric. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| I do however think Vesa makes a good point about multiculturalism being used to exploit vulnerable groups. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Well, I know this was directed at Arbiter, but I'll add some of my own opinions here, as they are in disagreement with what you've written.
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
What multicultism is attempting to provide is a framework whereas racism will eventually disappear. |
And how is it achieving that? By giving aid to non-white races. It's as racist as it can be. The only exception is that while the regular racism supports dominant race, this one supports margenal races in the society.
| quote: | | We should be taught by teachers from a variety of backgrounds in schools. And we should learn a variety of different cultures traditions and histories. |
No, the teacher selection should be based on their knowledge, intelligence and social skills, not based on their ethnicity.
| quote: | | Clearly what is being said here is that school should train minorities to fight for their rights and to actively work towards changing the system to make it more equal. As a result of this power and money will become equally distributed. They are not arguing that the power and money should just be collected and redistributed equally, as you said. They are just attempting to express that in a perfect world it WOULD be and that students should be trained to work towards that. |
In most western civilized countries, minorities have exactly the same rights as native citizens. Even more so, many receive additional funding in order to support their local culture. The reason wealth is unequally distributed exists way back in the history, and has nothing to do with current state of matters. The fact of the matter is that almost all employees look at credentials rather than race. If a black person has better results at a university than a white person, the black person will be admitted for the job, and vice versa. That is the way it is, and it is the way it should be. A black person should NOT be given the edge just because his race is generally poorer. May I add that the whole multiculturalism idea stems from the US, because that is a country where wealth can be almost directly linked to race. Giving aid to the poor is of course a worthy and noble goal, but all poor should be treated equally.
| quote: | | Again, you interpret this through biased eyes that are intent to pull out some unspoken hidden meaning. What this is attempting to say is that within education its important for children to get an education that involves dealing with nationalities as diverse as the class is. Nowhere does it say that unqualified people should be teaching simply on the basis of their race. It clearly says, "and to the greatest extent possible racially, culturally and linguisticly diverse". The statement of, "greatest extent possibly" clearly demonstrates that this is within the realm of qualified professionals. |
Heh, if the only intent was to provide children with some knowledge about other cultures, then it would be tolerable. But negative aspects of multiculturalism also exist, and those are primarily affirmative action and positive discrimination. Besides, a simple fact is that some cultures are not as advanced/tolerand/good as others. So having children educated in the manners of those cultures could have the opposite effect of stupidifying them instead of broadening their horizons.
| quote: | | If you can somehow demostrate a causal link between the multicultural movement and increased racism then please do. But until you can then all your doing is singing rhetoric. |
As I've said, affirmative action and positive discrimination are aspects of racism. The only difference from standard racism is that they're beneficiary to the minority races. So if you put yourself in a position of a white person who lost the business proposal to a person with weaker credentials, but that happened to be black, you can guess that in some cases white people will start to hate the minorities, since their race had direct impact on the subject's life. If you let minorities from primitive and barbaric cultures keep their traditions, like genital mutilation and forced marriages that Arbiter mentioned, of course they'll be regarded as primitive pigs in the rest of the society. As I've said, multiculturalism has some positive aspects, but the simple thing is that more radical ideas of multiculturalist movement are outright racist. And since for every reaction there's a counterreaction, the racism of the minorities will most probably be counterbalanced with the racism of the majorities. |
|
|
| AnotherWay83 |
agree with arbiter 100%...the only way to fight racism is to stop using one's ethnicity as a criteria for anything...things should be based solely on individual merit IMO...great post arbiter
i also think that having different groups following completely different traditions and speaking totally different languages promotes segregation, (which is not really racism) in which you get places which are diverse numerically but not in the highest sense of the word...meaning you won't find alot of interracial mixing...u mite see many different ehtnic groups but these groups will be homogenous...so this "diversity" will ultimately come at the cost of unity...not a good deal, im sure u'll agree... |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnotherWay83
agree with arbiter 100%...the only way to fight racism is to stop using one's ethnicity as a criteria for anything...things should be based solely on individual merit IMO...great post arbiter
|
I agree completelly that things should be only based on individual merit. Unfortunatelly in the western world of today that is not true, people do make decisions based on ethnicity and as long as they do its essential for the government to attempt to control racist hiring policies. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
It should go without saying that there are varying degrees of Multiculturalism. When it's used to support the idea that integrating the best aspects of a diverse variety of backgrounds and cultures into a single cohesive culture, I strongly support the idea. The problem is that organizations and politicians who support the "multicultural perspective" rarely stop there.
Most, if not all, support affirmative action (for example). The underlying premise of affirmative action (or any race-based policy) is racial collectivism, that is, the belief that the individual is little more than an interchangeable part in a racial collective. If you treat people as individuals, race-based policies such as affirmative action quickly reduce to absurdity, as there is nothing stopping an individual white person from having the same economic obstacles to success as an individual member of a minority, or an individual member of a minority from having the same economic advantages that an individual white person may have. It is only when you treat them as a racial collective, saying that white people (typically) have it easier than minorities that such an argument holds any rational clout.
It shouldn’t be very difficult to see how this perpetuates racial violence. If we are consider situations of violence, for example, in terms of racial collectives rather than individuals, then we cannot say that an individual white person killed an individual member of a minority. Rather, we must say that whites committed an act of murder against minorities. In this case, why not punish all whites, rather than just the individual that chose to commit an act of murder? It seems quite absurd, obviously, but this precise attitude is alarmingly prevalent in the world today. In the Middle East, Palestinians blow up random Israelis because of acts of violence by other Israelis against other Palestinians. Then, the Israelis retaliate against still other Palestinians. And so it is in much of Africa, in the Balkans, and almost anywhere in the world you find conflict between ethnic groups. If in each of these cases the incidents of violence were regarded as the acts of individuals, rather than as the acts of racial collectives, these cyclical retaliations wouldn’t make any sense.
The problem is, quite simply, that to many Multiculturalists (especially those extreme enough to “take it up as a cause”), racial collectivism is an inseparable component of their philosophy. The cure is individualism. Instead of embracing racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity, we should be embracing individual diversity. Instead of classifying one another into various races, ethnicities, and cultural identities, we must recognize each and every one of us as an individual.
The only collective we need classify ourselves as is humans. Anything further than that is inherently discriminative. Remember, distinction and discrimination differ only in connotation.
Best Wishes,
Arbiter |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| I agree everyone should be seen as an individual. We shouldnt look and judge people on the basis of race, or sex or anything else. Unfortunetelly a lot of people still do. And until they don't we are going to have to programs like affirmative action, and we're going to have to look at hate crimes and discrimination. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
I agree everyone should be seen as an individual. We shouldnt look and judge people on the basis of race, or sex or anything else. Unfortunetelly a lot of people still do. And until they don't we are going to have to programs like affirmative action, and we're going to have to look at hate crimes and discrimination. |
Yes, except that affirmative action is wrong way to go about the problem. The best way to stop racism is to stop differentiating people based on their race. And affirmative action is doing exactly the opposite. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Arbiter-
A very nice post. Your last post regarding individualism was well stated, and put some things into perspective for me and my own view of affirmative action.
However I tend to disagree with you on your view on what you may consider most supporters of affirmative action being multiculturalists. I personally consider affirmative action being a means of giving opportunity to the minority. Those same opportunities are much more likely given to the majority. Just out of curiousity, I found something interesting that confirmed my suspicions on minorities and their difficulties with reaching higher levels of education:
| quote: | The brutality of racism continues relatively unfettered: African Americans have the highest poverty rate at 33.1 percent; for Latinos it is 30.6 percent; for Asians, 15.3 percent; and for whites, 12.2 percent. (S.F. Examiner, October 7, 1994). In 1992, 46.6 percent of Black children under age 18 lived in poverty, compared with 16.9 percent of white children. Black babies are twice as likely to die within the first year of life as white babies. (S.F. Examiner, January 4, 1995). In early 1995, the national unemployment rate for Latinos equalled that of African Americans for the first time -- both being much higher than the rate for whites. (N.Y. Times, April 27, 1995).
Given these conditions it is not surprising that an American Council on Education survey found that Black and Latino students are less likely to complete high school and attend college than whites. Prospects for minority students in substandard schools remain dismal. About 96 percent of Latino and 95 percent of African American high school students cannot meet the University of California's admissions requirements. (S.F. Examiner, March 17, 1995). With tuition increasing, and competition for scholarships growing (along with a legal attack on race-based scholarship programs), higher education will soon be out of reach for an increasing number of students of color.
Source: http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/FAQS/SAAD/001/006a
|
Now I know this somewhat falls into exactly what you are referring to as racial collectivism, and that the individual in of itself is not so much accounted for as the group. However, when a group has less likelihood to succeed, then I think exceptions should be made to give equal opportunity, which is what I think Affirmative Action supporters believe.
However, in the grand scheme of things, I also believe that employment and job placement should be given to that whom is most qualified, regardless of race. You took me to task about this a while back, and I agree this should be taken into account. When my wife was in a car accident, and had to have 5 hr. surgery on her hip, I wanted the most qualified person to perform the job, race excluded. Fortunately, I believe we did receive just that. However, I think a balance must be maintained somehow between giving equal opportunity amongst minorities to the majority, and allowing the most qualified to perform a given task.
How is that balance maintained? I wish I had a clue. |
|
|
|
|
