4 Comments

Greetings:

Back in 1965, on my initial attempt at a college education, I had to take a basic sociology course. One concept that has stuck with me was referred to as “ethnocentrism,” which I understood to be the tendency of people to feel most comfortable within the people and culture in which they are raised.

Regrettably, this pervasive and normative condition has been successfully propagandized into “racism” by the multiculturalists. To paraphrase the Clintonism, “It’s the “multi” stupid.”

I find it very interesting that people on one hand espouse tolerance and equality and on the other are very candid about their criticism of multiculturalism. I must admit that I don’t understand. Does equality mean everyone being the same or sharing the same culture? Sure ethnocentrism and racism are not the same thing. The first is more innocent and naive sounding than the latter. But they are not unrelated.

Multiculturalism lately has come under attack and seems to be among the words whose meaning has been tweaked. ‘Freedom’ is another. It seems that those who oppose the concepts of multiculturalism and cultural-relativism want to change some of the basic premises of the dialog. Will many of the same concepts that were condemned under the label of prejudice be reopened and legitimized under a new name? One can imagine something like ‘realism’ doing that job, for instance.

No one wants to be called ‘racist’. This might be the most offensive word in the English language. It seems to diverge from the content of its meaning, become an ad hominim attack, and is completely ineffectual. So how can we address the issues. The whole argument for multiculturalism seems to be easily dismissed by calling it ‘politically correct’. One side screaming ‘racist’ and the other screaming ‘PC’ is futile and counterproductive. But these include important ideas that are the culmination of a long process of liberalization and that as a culture we have struggled for.

In an article for RealClearPolitics in 2006, Mr. Rose wrote: “I am a Dane because I look European, speak Danish, descend from centuries of other Scandinavians. But what about the dark, bearded new Danes who speak Arabic at home and poor Danish in the streets? We Europeans must make a profound cultural adjustment to understand that they, too, can be Danes.”

This brings up very interesting and important points. Admittedly, it reveals another difference that is perhaps cultural: as an American, this is hard to digest. At least it requires a certain sense of cultural-relativism to realize that Denmark is not as diverse as the United States. Otherwise, one is tempted to call it blatant racism or xenophobia. But on the other hand, of course we cannot be blind to differences among us.

Ultimately, we all face a more diverse future. It seems pointless to resist. There may be resistance on both sides, but we can only act within the limitations of our own circumstance. Criticizing another group that one only understands as an outsider is problematic and risks having little effect beyond offense. One argues the merits of his own culture in the terms of his own culture and so does the other guy. Multiculturalism and cultural-relativity as concepts are cerebral tools to help us deal with this future. But I don’t find the prospect of a diverse society particularly scary or unpleasant.

We and all our economic prosperity are complex products of history. Some time in the ineluctable future people will be discussing not what caused the rise of the West and what makes it so great, but what caused its demise.

…Sorry, I know it’s a really long post!

Greetings, Z-Lo, et al.

When I was a youngster, one of the things that my father spent much time trying to inculcate in my still unformed mind was his concept of hospitality. His concept followed pretty much from the “a man’s home is his castle” paradigm with a good bit of “when in Rome” added.

Thus, he expected that visitors to our house would remove their headgear upon entrance. Some of our neighbors expected visitors to remove their shoes upon entrance to their homes. There was no right or wrong to this, it was just proper rerspect to a fellow human being.

His bottom line, however, was not to disrespect someone else’s home or business and not to allow others to disrespect ours.

Multiculturalism seems to me to be in conflict with basic concept. Admittedly, there is the public/private space divide, but the hospitality concept is pretty fundamental and cross-cultural.

The two edges of the multiculturalism sword seem to me to be one for the already-arrived to express their displeasure with their current culture and the other for the newly/future arrivals to, if they care to, try to impose their culture on their new polity.

Now, way back when most immigrants came from Europe, new arrivals had exposure to and experience of the nation-state, be it good or bad. Nowadays, our new arrivals come from areas which include tribal and/or religiously based cultures.

Please don’t think me flippant, but it’s one thing to deal with Rwandans and another thing to deal with Hutus and Tutsis.

I don’t think multiculturalism has evolved, as an ideology, to a point where it understands its consequences, foreseen or otherwise. To me, it seems likely that its road leads to a kind of retribalization of our culture through its primary coin of the realm, victimization rights.

This is why the hospitality aspect is formative in my thinking. If you wish to live in another country, for whatever reason, be it freedom or filthy lucre, expecting that country to change or convert to accommodate your culture is, in my mind, magical thinking. If you are intent on accomplishing this, perhaps you are better of where you already are.

Whatever multiculturalism’s “consequences”, what are the alternatives? The reality is that most immigrants are here for the money. Even if they are unwelcome by some, they will come as long as there is the economic incentive. But many immigrants are hard working, entrepreneurial, and help the their host economy as well as the world economy. The number who want to “impose their culture” or who present some sort of other problem by not conforming are far less representative than the current anti-immigration movements seem to presume. But the backlash against them is certainly a recruiting point for those who would manipulate their alienation.

The West is not the vulnerable party in this dynamic and is more likely to achieve respect and its interests by showing the strength of character not to argue Islamists in their terms. Denunciation of violence and support of free speech, for instance, should be given. The debate can only remain reasonable within this frame. The choice is one between fear and generosity when we ponder how to react. Fear is detrimental to rational thinking and is the foundation of hatred and violence.