The dark side of multiculturalism

Multicultural theory asserts that assimilating immigrants from non-western countries is wrong because it presumes western culture is superior. Assimilation, in other words, is coercion. Liberal societies must accept not only the immigrants but also their cultures. Thus, the maintenance and even the assertion of cultural values becomes a fundamental right. Originally, of course, the elites that promoted this theory thought multiculturalism would amount to immigrants celebrating their native cultures while gradually adopting prevailing liberal principles of political order. Immigrants might hang trinkets from rearview mirrors, cheer soccer teams from the old country and hold festivals displaying the native cuisine and artifacts of their homelands, but they would, as it were, be good liberals.

Click to expand...

Multiculturalism was born out of liberalism's belief in diversity and tolerance for difference. But like all utopian illusions it has fostered the kind of societal and cultural conditions that undermine liberal order. Which is to say that multiculturalism's reversion to tribes will, if taken to the extreme, destroy the society that produced it, in same way that an infection wreaks havoc on the body's immune system.

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, the multiculturalists forgot that in liberal societies freedom must take precedence over communitarian impositions.

Click to expand...

The question points up an essential conflict between liberalism and radical multiculturalism. Why is western civilization required to dilute or deny its basic principles when confronted by cultures that reject those principles? More pointedly, what does a society do when confronted by even a small minority within an immigrant group that rejects the liberal principles of tolerance and diversity that inform multiculturalism? It is doubtful that liberalism can compromise on its most fundamental principles without becoming illiberal. As political theorist Brian Barry writes in Culture and Equality, "a liberal cannot coherently believe that liberal principles should themselves be compromised to accommodate the demands of anti-liberals."

Click to expand...

But peaceful coexistence is exactly what the Islamists reject. As Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah warlord put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." Osama bin Laden has been equally warlike: "The rule to kill Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is a sacred duty for any Muslim," he said in February 1998.
They don't speak for all Muslims, of course. But even so, as recent events attest, a considerable number of Muslims are sympsympathetic to his views. In July 2005, a British poll indicated that of the approximately two million Muslims in Britain, about six per cent — 120,000 people — thought the London suicide bombings were justified, while another 24 per cent — that's 480,000 — sympathized with the killers. Moreover, 16 per cent — 320,000 — say they have no loyalty to Britain.

So, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but if the British polls are anything to go by, way too many are sympathetic to the terrorists' goals.

Click to expand...

It is the devotion to individual freedom and the long commitment by generations of Americans to that concept that has provided the glue for the American national identity and allowed the United States to maintain itself as a democratic, multi-ethnic state. Everyone, regardless of race, creed or colour, has been expected to set their American identity over all other identities in exchange for living in a country that allows them to pursue their individual freedom (including religious freedom) to its rational limits. It is this ideological pillar that radical multiculturalism threatens to topple. If that pillar falls, if the American national identity fragments into tribalist attachments, well, arguably, so will the United States as a united nation-state.

Click to expand...

California said:

Why should we care what some canadian thinks?

Click to expand...

Glink said:

So to paraphrase in a manner such as a bottom feeder like myself might understand. Liberalism, if left to its unchecked self, will result in society's destruction from within due to its willing inclusion of non enlightened souls.
That about got it?

Click to expand...

Glink said:

So to paraphrase in a manner such as a bottom feeder like myself might understand. Liberalism, if left to its unchecked self, will result in society's destruction from within due to its willing inclusion of non enlightened souls.
That about got it?

Click to expand...