Why Multiculturalism Is Racism
Dr. Salim Mansur’s new book Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism has been positively reviewed and endorsed by a handful of mainly conservative reviewers and distinguished intellectuals.
In my opinion, the book has been underestimated. It is a real gem. And, despite a recent spate of other important books on this subject, including Ibn Warraq’s Why the West Is Best, Mansur’s work is unique. Mansur gives us very valuable information about the history of multiculturalism in Canada, which is important because Canada — where Mansur lives, writes, and teaches — may well be the very first Western democracy to have legally enshrined this policy. We learn, up close, what that policy has done.
In 1971, in an era of “identity politics” rising, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau passed the multiculturalism policy. In 1988 it was further enshrined as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Mansur observes:
Explicit in this idea of multiculturalism was the officially sanctioned view that all cultures are of equal merit and deserving of equal respect.
In addition, Mansur explains and connects a number of important things that no one has previously done — at least, not all in one place.
Mansur teaches us that, historically, the nineteenth and twentieth century Third World and European immigrants who came to North America were very different from late 20th and 21st century immigrants. In the past, an immigrant undertook a long and sometimes perilous voyage to the New World. In order to plan and execute this transition, such immigrants usually began to cut their ties to their native customs, even to their families; they wanted to assimilate and become “Canadians” or “Americans” or “Englishmen.” Visits back home were not easy or even possible. Ties were painfully cut — or new lives, far from persecution, were begun.
This is no longer true. What may have taken weeks or months in terms of travel can now be accomplished in a matter of hours. Modern wide-body aircraft means that someone can have their breakfast in central Asia and a late-night dinner in the New World. Satellite television means that an immigrant can continue to watch the news and be entertained in their home country’s language.
In the past, assimilation meant that a new immigrant would learn English as well as American or Canadian history and values. Not so today. The well-intentioned policy of multiculturalism now permits, even insists, that an immigrant learn mainly about the customs of the country she has left — and not about the customs of her new home. She or he may spend their entire lives speaking their home country language and socializing mainly with others just like themselves.
How could this have come about?
Mansur explains that Canadians were already sensitized to the demands of the Quebecois who wanted to secede and who ultimately became a bilingual (French and English speaking) province of Canada. Canadians were also so guilty about their own history vis-a-vis the indigenous peoples of Canada and horrified at the Nazi-era racism that led to the genocidal extermination of six million Jews. Thus Canadian leaders vowed to avoid the stench, the heartbreak, and the atrocity of persecuting anyone because they were “different,” especially if their skin color was dark, their features not Caucasian, their religion other than Christian, especially if their country of origin had been previously colonized.
An excellent article! I think just about everyone has seen the damage multiculturalism has caused, except for liberals. Hopefully, it is on the way out!
The Canadians are very proud of their multiculturalist social policies. American institutionalization of multiculturalism originated(mostly) as a response to the urban riots of the mid-60s, and aimed to co-opt troublemakers. I wrote about undoing multiculturalism here: http://clarespark.com/2011/02/11/undoing-multiculturalism/. It won’t be easy.
For quotations from the primary sources of MC, see http://clarespark.com/2010/10/18/the-dialectic-of-multiculturalism-helvetius-herder-fichte/.
Multiculturalism is actually a policy of colonialism – for your own country. “Multiculturalism” is an Orwellian newspeak word.
If you want to destroy awareness of a nation’s real cultural roots, which are an important part of making a nation what it is – and I’m talking about a nation’s sense of human rights and the attitudes that make it successful nation and not talking about race – just implement a policy that formally makes that nation equally rooted in all cultures and enforce the “equality” of cultures with the bureaucratic, interfering, law.
That’s a recipe to destroy that nation, something you’d expect to be dreamed up by someone who wants a blank slate.
Call anyone who opposes this a “racist”, another word which has become an Orwellian newspeak word.
Multiculturalism is a fatal millstone around the neck in a troubled sea. If we do not get rid of it, we are dead – bring on the commies.
It’s that simple.
BTW, it is not on the way out! It will not be on the way out until it has been formally repudiated.
This is a huge subject that Dr. Chesler has tackled. Multiculturalism will not be repudiated until larger political/social/economic questions are settled, a consummation devoutly to be wished for. I made a stab at it here: http://clarespark.com/2010/01/02/jottings-on-the-culture-wars-both-sides-are-wrong/. Although almost everything on my website takes up MC and racism, this is the fullest exposition.
Thanks to Dr. Chesler’s readers for visiting my website. We are in complete agreement on everything. For more on the institutionalization of multiculturalism and racism see http://clarespark.com/2010/04/18/links-to-nazi-sykewar-american-style/.
The New Hungarian Constitution is a good step in the repudiation direction….it is an affirmation of the Christian nature of the Hungarian people and state. Contrast this with the EU, which actively rejected even a mere hint of such language. The Hungarian Constitution is littered with such language.
Sea change is coming to European Christendom.
The Hungarian Constitution is not a “repudiation.” The new Hungarian Constitution is a proto-fascist document made by racists and supported by parties that contend Israel is “colonizing Hungary with Jews.”
Do your research, bud.
I am a liberal in many respects – I believe in social democracy, women’s and gay rights, national health insurance.. and I could go on. But if multiculturalism means that immigrants live in ghettos and dont learn the language and culture of their new country, I am opposed to it. And if it means
that customs such as female genital mutilation, honor killings and forced marriages, are in any way excused or tolerated I would actively oppose it.
Call it like it is multicult.
The good doctor provided many a satisfying column of a weekend morning for those who chose to read the ‘dumb’ conservative press represented by the Sun chain of papers back in the ’90s. Thankfully, these days more folk on the starboard side of thought are becoming aware of the light he shares with student, reader and others of like mind through sites like PJM.
In his latest book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” author Dinesh DeSouza covers the fallacy of the “colonialists” and “neocolonialists” like Obama’s African father, who blame all the woes of the black man in Africa to European colonialism. In fact, the opposite is true. For where colonies in Africa (which by the day lasted about 2 generations there) lasted longer, the African country is today better off, and where they were non-existent, the opposite. DeSouza also debunked the myth of Jewish financing of slavery in the US (a myth perpetuated by the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world), in his 1990s book “The End of Racism”.
All this is related to multiculturalism. Somebody should say “It is the race, stupid”. Why black Africa is always so behind and Haiti, the only African nation in Latin America, consistently the sick nation of the hemisphere? Race, mind you, is not all, OK, but a country that does not factor race into its immigration policy, might as well be said to be on the path to decline or suicide (as many are in the West now). Check Ernst Kretschmer – German psychiatrist and typologist – book “The Psychology of Men of Genius” (Berlin, 1929).
Multiculturalism is the miasma raising to overcome the light.
What a shame to taint an insightful column with such a lazy and bigoted comment as “it is the race, stupid”. There are many factors in Africa’s economic status, which is far from uniform. Start with: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/07/13/the_tragedy_of_africa_part_ii/page/full/
As to Haiti, it has a long and tragic history of tyranny from French rule, through rebellion, that has affected it to the current day:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Haiti—Root-Cause-Of-Poverty&id=482841
Read Jared Diamond before assuming race is the common denominator.
Anne, read the post, race is not a common denominator, but then, it is not a non-issue either, it is a factor, one that many would not entertain.
Completely Agree
No, it’s NOT the race, Stupid! It’s the culture. If it were the race, how would you account for people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Martin Luther King Jr., and a whole host of others, inventors, writers etc. The culture of the inner cities and the other countries that the immigrants are bringing with them is what is killing our country and preventing them from being AMERICANS. Our culture IS BETTER! It’s the best in the world and they are killing it.
Those you mentioned I admire. I will add Frederick Douglas. But you can’t prove a point with that approach, for you can’t dissociate race from culture. The successful US system is based on Anglo-Saxon law, it has been successful with slight variances everywhere in the world it has taken root (isn’t Anglo-Saxon a race, by the way?). In this book by Kretschmer I quoted it is entertained the example of the Renaissance in Italy as a successful mixing of 2 races, however similar. As one stated here, Polish, Irish, Italians, Germans, many differences, but more similarities than differences. Bring now and mix very dissimilar races and the experiment can be very detrimental. Race, however, is one of the most charged (and toxic) words used nowadays, as charged as the word God, but we should not shy from using it, when necessary.
Children try and embarrass and shame each other by name-calling; the West has let itself be convinced to commit cultural suicide by being called or calling itself racist.
The Orwellian irony is that the inhabitants of the Third World are well aware of their culture’s shortcomings – it’s why they want to leave. They have no illusions about arriving in the West and becoming the next Einstein or a founder of something like fractal geometry because they had been “leashed” so to speak, in their own countries by oppression, colonialism or racism.
There is not a single thing in this world that has stopped the entirety of Latin America in the last 400 years from occupying the place the West has. Good stuff, and bad, is where you find it, not where you expect it to be.
Multicults say it’s where you expect it to be, despite centuries of failure in those locations. Multicults are one big excuse factory that denies reality.
Multiculturalism is an extremely dangerous policy for two reasons.
The first is that it defines people not as free and rational individuals but as abstract members of an identity group. Stripping away the abiilty to be an individual rather than a member of a collective means that integration, collaboration, assimilation and direct interaction with any and all others is impossible. You are confined to a group and its identity-values.
The second is that this identity-group becomes, by virtue of its having moved spatially from its original homeland, an ABSTRACT rather than material reality. By this I mean that the beliefs and behavior of the group are moved from their historical and environmental origin, where they might have emerged from real events and real environmental dilemmas to be dealt with – and become abstract beliefs/behavior which exist for no rational reason.
Since the nation has accepted these immigrants as ‘members of a culture’ rather than as new members of the nation, and under multiculturalism, strongly encourages and even financially subsidizes them to ‘remain intact in their social beliefs/behavior’ – then the behavior becomes DOGMA. That is, the beliefs and behavior become isolate from the intrusion of reality and exist only as ‘themselves’.
As such, these beliefs and behavior become ‘fundamental’ to the identity of the immigrant, and any changes, any collaboration or integration with others, is viewed as a physical attack.
The beliefs and behavior become bonded to the members of this identity group so strongly that to divest yourself of them is akin to stripping your reality, your skin, off yourself. The dogma exists – not for any rational reason – but as a material part of your existence. This new identity, this multicultural identity, so far removed from its origins, becomes used in an adversarial manner. Other groups are, and must be, treated differently. Any questions about this dogmatic identity are viewed as physical attacks. Any suggestions of integration or taking on the values of your new nation are viewed as hostile attacks.
With regard to Islamism and radical Islam, multiculturalism enables fundamentalism to flourish and grow, for the beliefs and behavior are not subject to reality, to external demands from the population to ‘get along’ and ‘collaborate’.
Australia has taken steps to reject multiculturalism, requiring all visa and immigration applicants to sign a form that acknowledges their agreement that Australia respects free speech, gender equality, the English language, etc.
Canada is finally starting to acknowledge the same values but doesn’t have that Values Form yet.
Europe is starting to wake up and realize that allowing isolate identity cultures to exist, without enabling integration, reduces the inhabitants of these zones to fundamentalists.
Multiculturalism breeds vicious racism.
Etab,
Great response. Indeed, as the article (and author) state, not every culture is worthy of respect.
A simple objective look at their values would show why.
You mention : “Australia has taken steps to reject multiculturalism, requiring all visa and immigration applicants to sign a form that acknowledges their agreement that Australia respects free speech, gender equality, the English language, etc.”
Compare that to Pakistan, which requires visa holders, upon entering, to sign documents attesting to your belief and agreement that a particular minority sect of Pakistans Muslims are infidels and heritcs, or else you cannot enter the country.
One culture says “be nice!”, the other demands you participate in bullying.
But multiculturalists contend that both are “equal”, and the bullies should not be “discriminated” against,
even by their victims.
Insane.
You are confusing culture with government in your comments about Australia and Pakistan. I am not making a statement about ANY country, but it is ALWAYS important to keep culture apart from government. Government may try, and may succeed, to represent the culture of the people they are in charge of, but all too often they use culture as a means to divide and control. Culture is the “everyman” values of the majority. Something often forgotten (like when 85% of American’s believe that the wealthy should help keep society afloat through higher taxes and the government (elected by those same people) chooses to ignore them and NOT repeal the tax cuts!!!!!! That is a government culture of selfishness next to a population’s culture of taking care of eachother!!!!
I was not confusing anything, my friend.
The “culture” of the Australian Government is generically Christian. Or, Judeo-Christian, as by coincidence, are all sucessful western governments despite the recent (50 year) attempt to drag them toward socialist chaos. Christian beliefs in goodness and fair treatment are at the root of their “be nice to people” message to immigrants
The “culture” of Pakistans government is Islamist, the most primative and violent among many inferior belief systems you fing in every backward violent cesspool of a failed state where Christian Beliefs are rejected.
That is why, in THEIR government documents, they force you to agree “that THOSE guys should die” as it reflects the Islamic belief that rule by force and oppression are acceptable.
Because YOU are ignorant of how a nation/population produces wealth, and think that it emerges from the Magic Cauldrons of people who are thus defined as ‘the rich’ – does not mean that a government must share your ignorance.
And your view that 85% of Americans believe that wealth, produced by work, ought to be removed from those workers by the govt, and given to others who don’t make as much wealth ..is empirically false (prove that 85% want such an economic disaster).
If all profit from work is removed by taxes, then, there will be no ‘extra money’ available to expand the factories, build a new technology, hire more workers. Is this what you want? Do you seriously believe that profit/wealth is stored in some CEO’s old socks?! Profit/wealth is put back into the business and used to expand the business, hire more workers.
You know zilch about economics. And about empirical polling. Try again.
Equally, your example of ‘let’s take all the money and hand it around’ is not an attribute of culture but of psychological ignorance and greed – greed by those who want without earning; and ignorance of how an economy works. Again, and economy MUST produce profit, and this profit must NOT be taken by the govt but left within private enterprise to INVEST in more businesses and work.
The goal of multi-culturalism is to destroy nationalism to make way for world government. To destroy America you need to abolish “e pluribus unum” and establish “Out of One, Many.”
Not just nationalism, but classical liberal western culture. No exceptions are ever made of non-Western cultures.
If all cultures are different, if some cultures are more desirable then others, then it is inevitable that we have to make some choices. We have to embrace the greater discussion of origins and destiny’s. The truth is that all cultures are shy of the culture which is over all. Perhaps MultiCulturism was an attempt toward that virtuous culture…
But more important, it is right to view some cultures as undesirable. Islamic culture is totalitarian. We also live in a world where we are limited by the laws of nature. Islam is suppressive of all other systems, but still subject to natures law which allows diverse cultures, and the individuals who also choose and embrace them.
As technology has shrunk our world, it is also bringing together the clashes of cultures. Consequently we are being forced to compare and choose. But most are simply reacting to the undesirable elements of cultural diversity. This will not deal with the root issues. Egypt is a perfect example; historically democracy will end in dictatorship, and the strongest and most aggressive will rise to power. So why are we surprised at the result?
There is no time left for the lovers of true peace and diversity to be idle. We cannot simply revile barbarism, but aggressively choose a path that promotes enduring peace. We must STRIVE to perfect a proper world view and establish a governance in conformity to the laws of nature and natures creator.
Regardless of our choice, we will be tested by nature as to how well we built our culture; If built AND maintained on a solid foundation it will hold firm, if built on sand, it will fall.
Agreed. As with most leftist ideas, multiculturalism has good intentions at its heart. It’s supposed to keep people from being disadvantaged because they are “different.” Unfortunately, leftists have made their usual devil’s bargain of using government power to force multiculturalism on their fellow citizens.
“Islam is…still subject to natures law”
Islam is the the embodiment of the lowest of all of natures laws,
that being the law of simple brute force.
Women wear Burkas because men are stronger than women.
The average woman cannot physically subdue the avearage man, so its the Burka, or death.
Same thing with Stoning, Tongues cut out, and feet amputated.
It occurs because it CAN occur if they want to do it, and you cant physically prevent it from happening.
Force over reason, simple footpounds of kinetic energy, over ideas.
Repeat this phrase, under torture, or die.
Its always about force, and nothing else.
As if my intentional misspronouncement of
“there is only one god but allah” as:
“dare is only one glob, but olives” would mean anything to the universe.
But they will relent when I “do what they said”
They are satisfied by submission to simple force, not with any intellectual agreement or acknowledgement of the worthiness of their claim.
Islam is the singular, lowest, and least sophisticated “belief system” their is.
The Pen certainly IS less mighty than the Sword to them.
Because IS difficult to sever a neck, with a quill.
Islam is simply the lowest human common denominator.
Christians produce Mother Theressa. Islam sends a man to crush her skull.
Islam is Superior, by natures lowest law.
Very well said.
Nice article. Long overdue for the tacit racism of “multiculturalism” to be called.
The ignorance of “diversity is our strength” dogma is nothing but multiculturalism run amuck, and as mindless as believing all opinions are of equal value, all roads eventually lead to the same place.
This demand for multiculturalism under the guise of “tolerance” invariably leads us to meet up at the lowest common denominator, accommodating abject failure with great intent.
“diversity is our strength” is the complete opposite of the old saying “we must all hang together or we shall certainly hang separately.” Myself, I’d rather hang with you than next to you.
Multiculturalism is such a lie. Saying that all cultures are the same and should be treated with the same respect is just silly. There are still headhunters in New Guinea. Is their civilization better than ours? Certainly not. Is their way of raising children as good as ours? Of course not. Will their civilization grow, prosper, and eventually become a superpower, like ours? Definitely not. So there ARE certain cultures and people who just are not as good (or even as desirable) as the civilization and culture we are living in right now.
I see the same differences in those theocratic barbarians who believe in Sharia Law. I do NOT think women should be treated as property; I do not believe that men have the right cover women from head-to-toe in a bead sheet; I do not believe that women’s genitals should be mutilated for some stupid religious reasons; I do not believe that men have the right to kill sons or daughters for not living up to their “religious standards;” I see stoning as a medieval way of dealing with petty crimes (if they are crimes at all); I don’t think Jews should be killed; I don’t think that gays should be hanged; and I don’t think that anybody who doesn’t believe in what you believe in should be called an “infidel.” In short, the people who accept Sharia Law and believe in all of these things are backward barbarians who should remain in the 14th century and need to be isolated and ignored (if possible), until they can actually join the more modern countries of the world. All cultures are NOT the same, and to say so is not only a lie, but also an insult to advanced cultures who do not bielve in such disgusting things.
“Gay” is a sexual performance choice. “Islaami” is a cultural religious choice. “Jew” is a matter of birth while “Judaism” is a matter of cultural religious choice as “Mexican” is a matter of birth while “La Raza” is a matter of cultural “religious” choice.
“Gays” and “Islaamis” would like nothing more than to see each other disappear, as well as those who follow Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, La Raza, Islam… … … would rather the others disappear,etc.
In the absence of higher authority guidance, it won’t get any better unless there is a distinct border between people’s interactions or multiculturalism is ultimately destroyed, and it won’t get any better until then.
(Whew! That’s a lot of scare quotes.)
Saying that multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures are the same is a misunderstanding of the term. The ideal of multiculturalism is the idea that several different cultures can coexist peacefully and equitable in a single country rather than one national culture dominating.
I have come to believe that to a certain extent we can, so long as the values of said culture are compatible. When values conflict, multiculuralism dies, and in many situations it should die because some values held by some cultures are incompatible with American values. I have come to believe that we need a national culture, and we need to accept that with said culture there will be subcultures. These cultures will have differences, but in the end all subcultures must be part of the larger United States culture, other wise there is on United States.
When values conflict, multiculuralism dies,
???
Need a scenario on that one.
Need a scenrio?
Here you go…
That cute “Coexist” bumpersticker…
The first letter is “the crecent” of Islam.
Islam demands domination over all other religions.
In fact its a “crime” to have any other religeous symbols present anywhere they live.
Values conflict. One letter on that bumper sticker is insulted and angry the other letters even exist. The other letters are cool with hanging together.
The ‘C” is intolerant of the o, e, x, i, s, and t.
Your multicultural bumpersticker message of “everyone get along” falls apart because ONE letter, is a total prick.
Multiculturalism fails when there is conflict.
OK, gotcha — I was looking at it the other way, when values conflict, mutliculturalism thrives because it is in and of its nature, and it forces conflict.
LC,
You are right, multiculturalism CAUSES conflict, and in the sense, when it then “dies” I should more accurately express it as choice rather, than result.
Meaning, since it inevitably causes conflict, why dont we chuck it.
Your original question stands, thanks for making me re-think my response more clearly
I would suggest that multiculturalists are hypersensitive to discrimination. Hundreds of cultures and subcultures exist and thrive in this country, and always have. Traditionally, we have dealt with this situation by saying something along the lines of “…but we’re all Americans.” It appears today’s multiculturalism wants to rid us of this formulation by emphasizing our differences rather than our similarities. They insist that the important thing about a person is his or her membership in a sub-American group. They also insist that members of different groups pursue unique, independent, and often conflicting political, economic, and social agendas. I fail to see how this promotes the idea of everyone living together in harmony.
The Unicorn States of America decides to hold a month-long Festivus celebration which spans Carl Sagan’s birthday, Dhu al-Hijjah, Chanukah, Kwanzaa and Christmas, culminating in an honorary feast on December 26th.
Pork is $5.00 a pound, Kosher/halal steak is $7.00, and they expect to feed each of the 100 invitees a half pound plus a drink of soda pop, one each at $1.50, within their budget of $500.
The Christians demand ham…
I’ll clarify further. I was having a discussion about the old tradition of Japanese Samurai ritual suicide. Samurai sometimes killed themselves rather than live in dishonor. In my hyper multiculturalism days, was I defending those who committed suicide in the name of preserving their honor saying that it was not my place to judge but rather to try to understand their perspective. My friend, a true bleeding heart liberal by the way, said something that struck me. “Perhaps there is something intricately wrong in a culture where the only way one can redeem his honor is through suicide.” As a citizen of the United States, the samurai code of honor is incompatible with my value system. I ignored my values to allow for an act that I see as wrong and down right evil. Multiculturalism in this case dies, as it should. I’m not saying Samurai culture is evil, rather I am saying that I a culture that see suicide as a cowardly act can’t co-exist with a culture that see it as honorable under the right circumstances.
Amos 3:3: Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Reminding me of the verse, same chapter:
America’s hedge is withering…
Your comment that “it’s the race, stupid” is lazy, ignorant, and unworthy of this blog. It is unfortunate to see such a comment in response to the thoughtful and fair article.
With regard to Africa, the history and situation are complex – See Sowell’s two articles:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/07/12/the_tragedy_of_africa/page/full/
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/07/13/the_tragedy_of_africa_part_ii/page/full/
Haiti has a uniquely tragic history, having been severely punished for rebelling against the French in 1804, and having gone through waves of despotism since:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Haiti—Root-Cause-Of-Poverty&id=482841
The acceptance of the multicultural lie is the basis of genocide for the nation. Because it is in human nature for one culture to rise up and attempt to dominate the others. Which is why most countries resist ‘occupation’ of foreign elements. They know what will happen.
I can only assume the lefties also know what will happen, but want it to be so. That is why they keep pushing for more unfettered immigration.
I find it hard to believe for a minute that the righties have any less desire to dominate and destroy.
LC,
Depends on your definition of a righty…
Listen to some old JFK speeches…low taxes mean a rising tide lifts all boats, government solutions/interventions in the social sphere are enormously expensive and low-yield, some countries and their leaders just plain suck and mean us harm…
We’ve gone SO FAR left, that a ‘liberal icon” like JFK sounds like a Tea Party candidate 50 years later.
Heading “hard right” today brings us to just barely left of center of the America my dad lived in
Actually identity politics is a mug’s game: if you live by it you die by it.
Firstly, you are required to support the group’s means and goals, and its protections of various malefactors, just like a union: they win and you pay. People don’t like guilt by association but if the association is by choice you have little complaint if you are judged by its actions.
It destroys social solidarity with the larger society. If people want group identity that is fine, but it also means that other parts of the society may essentially tell you to call Obama say, if you want help.
Better still, there is no overt action or it is not necessary to make that point. I know that members of certain, cohesive groups are not employable because the customers don’t feel comfortable having them around. Not fair, not honest, but when you cut yourself off in that way, the results come if slowly.
Remember how some crowed when OJ walked about sticking to the man? Well, such prating makes opportunity disappear for a group, and you can’t even see it happen.
Finally it is all well and good for the leaders, they get gerrymandered seats, and then do nothing but live large: they can and will do nothing for their followers because they don’t and won’t work with others.
Bob
“Firstly, you are required to support the group’s means and goals, and its protections of various malefactors, just like a union: they win and you pay”
Brilliant, brief, and Spot-on.
Superb.
To be fair we really don’t know what’s going to happen. There has been such a huge wave of immigration over the last 20 years that we don’t know if normal integration will take place.
It was typical of Italians, Poles, Irish, that they would live in common neighborhoods for the first generation. The first generation rarely learned English (where applicable), rarely ventured beyond their own cultural comfort zone. The second generation generally bridges the gap, some language skills (in some cases still fluent), but ventures beyond the old neighborhood and old customs. The third generation is generally integrated with the surrounding culture and the fourth disconnected for all practical purposes.
Some legitimacy in that, I’m sure. There is historical truth in your statement.
However, we already have in many places of record, 3rd and 4th generation where assimilation of norms hasn’t happened. There is more to assimilation than speaking the language and attending public schools. There is also a mindset of virtues and convictions, personal responsibility and a love of country for the betterment of all.
And it has been my personal experience, our current situation isn’t turning out as often to be Ellis Island, but tribal Africa.
Your outline is valid for the immigration era of pre-multiculturalism. In that era, the children went to the local public school, which provided an education that included the values and history of the new nation, Canada.
The children were taught British and Canadian history; they were taught about the customs, holidays and values of Canada. There was no focus on ‘the old country’ or ‘the foods, culture, beliefs and values’ of Other Peoples. None. Any of that – whether it was Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Irish or..was left to the private family.
Now, with multiculturalism, ALL the beliefs, behavior, values, morals of these other cultures are celebrated, taught, focused on – in the public education. The children are discouraged from letting go of them and developed a shared new identity; the children are encouraged to self-define themselves within Identity Groups and to remain locked in these beliefs/behavior.
Children are even given special treatment, where,in one school, all Muslim children are given a room and time off for weekly teaching in that religion. In the public schools, there is no longer a common culture, but sets of identity blocs and different cultures. You remain in your identity-set – and you grow up in this set and work in this set and retain all the old tribal hatreds and beliefs.
Multiculturalism transforms what were once reasonable beliefs – beliefs based on history and environment (no eating of pigs because they were infected with parasites in that environment)…into dogma, into descriptions of the Only Valid Self. Multiculturalism isolates people into their Minds and the Imaginary Truths of these Fictional Tales.
ETAB,
“whether it was Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Irish or..was left to the private family”
And lets not forget most immigrants from these places shared more things in common, than not. Very similar rural (or urban) hard scrabble lives within a generic “christian” culture. Yes, things like language, food and customs were different among them, but the underlying belief in (and hope for) the rule of law, fair play, contracts, free will and self determination were pretty much the same as the “regular” or “already” Americans they were trying become.
The Italian feared the Pole and the Irish, and vice versa, because they were ALL suspicious of the other beating them to the ladder, and getting their fingers squished as they all tried to climb what they feared were limited numbers of rungs available. After their kids spoke the same language, they grew up, dated and married….Irish/Italian, German/Polish etc etc etc.
Not so with Failed State Tribal People. They come here with an entirely different belief system. Its not just language, food and custom that is different, it is their “View of Man And His Purpose On Earth” that is so incompatibly different.
The Failed State Immigrants despise our society, they despise the notion of free will and mutual respect. And they viscerally hate the shared Judeo-Christian culture that makes “us”, for all the diversity of our grandparents at Ellis Island, a united people. They see all of us…Pole, Irish, German, Italian, Spanish, whatever..as ‘Infidels” or “white devils” that need to be taken down a notch, or eventually destroyed in revenge.
Its not “multiculturalism” any more…That was Brooklyn and Chicago, 1890-1940…what we have now is “americans” verses “america haters” being CALLED “multiculturalism” by the COMMUNISTS who control the narrative
That the world is made up of multiple cultures is a fact–unless, of course, we want to be extreme cognitive relativists which does allow for the possibility of similarly situated people to see different “facts,” that seeing red for one person is actually seeing green for another (eg., color blindness). So it is possible that someone could not see that the world is multicultural. It does not logically follow from those facts that all cultures are of equal value an deserving of merit. Paradoxically, multi-culturalists refuse to apply that standard to themselves, ie., multi-culturalists are no more or less valuable as a point of view than anyone else, but they happily impose their multiculturalism on others as if it is of more value. But, since all cultures are equally of merit, perhaps we should bring back dueling (consensual violence between two adults) for settling disputes of honor in contrast to the current crass interest based judicial monopoly favored by liberal multi-culturalists? Perhaps discourse in polite society would improve and the murder rate would go down if dueling was a viable option for settling disputes over drug market shares instead of the current drive by shootings in the Ghetto that invariably risk the lives of the uninvolved?
The key to breaking this log jam is finally admitting that the culture of white European and American males invented the entire modern world and no other culture or sex was poised to do it. It’s okay to be a white guy. We don’t have to keep apologizing to everyone. We can be proud of our culture.
Very interesting and important! I’d also suggest John Welsh’s After Multiculturalism. It has a libertarian point of view that discusses many of these same themes. In his view, multiculturalism is the mirror-image of racism – it perpetuates the statism and collectivism inherent in racism. The book also reviews the thoughts of Rand, Rothbard, Nock, and contemporary thinkers.
Libertarianism is as blind as multiculturalism.
Gee, you are deep.
In what way or ways is “libertarianism as blind as multiculturalism”? Is there any substance to your comment, or is it just snark?
Libertarianism is no more interested in “forming a more perfect Union” than any multiculturalist.
For example, anarcho-capitalism’s nature begs reaping the benefit of an unlevel playing field, as the outrageous demands and destructive actions of the “Occupiers” demonstrates, and speaks volumes towards the false romance of that mindset. In the same way, an unregulated Wall Street, and Freddy and Fanny, corrupted themselves as an unregulated product of government-sanctioned power.
As such, a governmental means of judicial redress is required when citizens are bullied by those “rugged individualists” as yourself who see compromise and fair play as weakness, and is the only turn for those outside the establishment. And, make no excuses, the “establishment” lies in the control of anarchy just as sure as death and taxes.
Libertarianism is a “citizen of one” as as much as multiculturalism is a “citizenship” of cult of personality — selfish, irresponsible and withdrawn from community.
However, the very nature of citizenship itself demands responsibility to others.
Or I could just say, every self identified “libertarian” I’ve ever met was a selfish pot-head….bitching about the injustice of car insurance requirements, while on the verge of maiming people in their rickety-ass weed-mobile with no functioning turn-signals….and of course, no means to personally rectify the situation if they do ever injure someone with their un-fettered ‘Freedom”
Thats what “the government” is for.
Never, ever met a “libertarian” in the Marine Corps either….Service to their Republic, or god forbid, self sacrifice, not being high on their list of things to do.
Thank you. Your comments are interesting and, perhaps, a good critique of some forms of libertarianism. However, they do not substantiate that your earlier comment that equates libertarianism with multiculturalism. I think you are mistaken that libertarianism necessarily precludes any idea of “service to others.” In fact, some variants promote the concept of “equal liberty,” which seems to seek a balance between the aspirations of self and the demands of others. The one source I mentioned discusses some of this.
A big part of the motivation for multiculturalism is that in the 1960s western communists no longer able to defend Stalinism created the theory that Third World revolutions would be the vanguard of true communism. That’s why they celebrated Third World cultures and dismissed western culture for having resisted the Revolution.
Excellent article. Unfortunately, the left in the US can’t see it, therefore policies like English only in schools are targeted as racist, etc. I remembered another article on this subject in American Thinker about this subject by Mercer Tyson about multiculturalism and integration and how they weren’t compatible ideas. Here’s alink if interested.
Thank you Dr. Mansur for helping to further the cause for common sense in America and Canada.
Pierre Eliot Trudeau, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, invented “multiculturalism” to combat the Parti Quebecois, separatist (and communist) in Quebec. His point was that Canada is made up of two “cultures,” (whatever a culture is), English and French.
Unfortunately, his term has come to mean something quite different. The view that all cultures are equal (“multiculturalism”) is self-refuting, since it entails that the view that all cultures are not equal – good, useful, etc. – which is held by some “cultures” is equally good as the view that all cultures are equal.
Explicit in this idea of multiculturalism was the officially sanctioned view that all cultures are of equal merit and deserving of equal respect.
Except that some other cultures don’t accept this view.
So how dare the people drawing up this policy assume that Islam of the Qur’an and Muslims loyal to it agree that Western culture or Hindu or whatever deserve equal respect?
These people also find themselves in a quandary when they insist on a multicultural society and then demand that the tenets of a culture be respected even when at odds with the general society and the cognitive egocentrism gives way to cognitive dissonance.
Let’s face it, if the the world could unite to beat back and wipe out Islam everything else would seem small potatoes. The only problem is if it were to happen we would be the bad guys. It’s a losing situation. The world must tolerate the brainwashed cave people, while they remain resolute to overtake us. I feel like this scenario is analagous to Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom, when Indy is forced to drink blood and the mindless turbin heads are all hooting on the other side. Indy is the U.S. and the blood is the feigned politicization and absolute bullsh!tting of the modern liberal that we must drink in order to make life go on (to not think and be a slave to whatever comes).
I don’t know, maybe liberals are the true enemy.
The sacriificed guy is just some Muslim convert to Christianity that we confusedly watch become a matyr.
Multiculturalism indeed becomes racism.
But Multiculturalism first of all is the confusing with ethnic groups.
Multiculturalism is not existing in reality but is merely a communist tactic.
Multiculturalism replaces the two classes within communism with infinite classes in Multicultural perception where everyone and everything is victim of western enlightened (mainly white) man.
Furthermore racism ultimately is a reactionary tactic to obscure all solutions to all problems in society by fixating on skin color (or haplotype) as the distinguishing method of cultural differences.
In South Africa white splinter nazi and organic nationalist racists in effect helped the fascist ANC communists in power because – apart from the obscure reactionary tactic and apart from the socialist similarity – race within communism is a class defined sub-class.
Addendum
Multiculturalism (as a social concept) is in contrast with the dominating single legal culture.
So M. is not only racist but any (western) legal system undermining as well.
Because multiculturalism is fundamentally criminal it thus only facilitates criminal political, sectarian, theocratic regimes to infiltrate and seize power.
Mere democratic power reduced to electoral action cannot stop this infiltrating process.
Multiculturalism as a western liberal or western communist concept is inferior to the Islamic concept of the Caliphate with shariah as the only point of reference for Islam has only one or two classes.
The liberal dhimmies will be allowed by the Muslim clerics to advocate their multiculturalism under shariah.
Multiculturalism is a criminal social concept in that it suggests to be superior to western legal principles like freedom of Speech, the right for man to create its own laws, the division of powers, Religion and State etc.
Theo
“The liberal dhimmies will be allowed by the Muslim clerics to advocate their multiculturalism under shariah”
Mixed up a word there I think….
Liberals will be allowed to promote multiculturalism UNTIL Sharia.
The Islamists use the lefty Multi-dorks to weaken the system.
Liberals (predominantly communists and gays)will be massacred like the rest of us once Sharia is implemented
I went to a talk by Dr. Tom Krannawitter a couple of weeks ago and he took multiculturalism apart. He noted that it is incompatible with our founding documents. For example “we hold these truths to be self evident” and “the laws of Nature”. These statements are based on the notion that there is some basic truth. Yet multiculturalism says that Christians have a perspective, Jews another, Muslims another, Americans another, Europeans another, etc. They are all just different perspectives, none more right (or true) than another. Thus, there is no “truth”. But consider this; multiculturalism is also just another perspective – no more right than any other. Hence, multiculturalism is an intellectually bereft position that leads nowhere; it is charter ticket to an eternal merry-go-round of circular logic.
It’s worth noting, as does Salim Mansur in the below passage from a paper – http://www.aims.ca/site/media/aims/Multicullturalism.pdf – and presumably in this book (haven’t read it yet), that the creator of the world’s first state multiculturalism policy, Pierre Trudeau, later publicly doubted what he had done (as did others around him). As Mansur puts it:
“Sometime in the mid-1990s, when Pierre Trudeau made a rare visit to the Parliament in Ottawa, the speaker of the House of Commons arranged for a private luncheon attended by a dozen selectively invited Liberal members. Each guest was given the opportunity to pose one question to the former prime minister. Chris Cobb, writing in the Ottawa Citizen nearly a decade later, recalled the exchange between Trudeau and invited guests as some of those present recollected it. After several relatively routine questions, former Liberal MP John Bryden remembered asking Trudeau about the multiculturalism policy his government introduced in the early 1970s. In Cobb’s retelling, Bryden asked,
“Mr. Trudeau, you were one of the key architects of multiculturalism and now we are in a situation where many newcomers to Canada consider their ethnicity before being Canadian. Is this the outcome you wanted?”
There was silence around the table as the former prime minister thought before replying:
“No, this is not what I wanted.”
According to Mr. Bryden, Mr. Trudeau made no attempt to hide his disappointment that Canada and the federal presence had all but disappeared in Quebec.
“It was fascinating to hear,” said Mr. Bryden. “It was clear that he was deeply disappointed that under the Mulroney government and driven by a fear of separatism, the whole multiculturalism policy had been twisted to celebrate a newcomer’s country of origin and not a celebration of the newcomer becoming part of the Canadian fabric””
What Americans and others need to understand is that the first to embrace state “multiculturalism” did so as a way to mediate the French-English rivalry in Canada. Trudeau was not so much trying to deny the importance of a distinctive national identity for all Canadians, as he was trying to create one kind of overarching national identity that would defeat another (Quebecois nationalism, and interpretations of Canadian history that would interpret the 1867 Canadian federation as primarily an agreement between “two nations”).
In the 1960s, rising Quebecois nationalism/separatism led the government to see the need for a Royal Commission (a high profile public hearing and report) into ways of recognizing French language and history as part of Canada’s official identity. This official move to institutionalize “bilingualism and biculturalism” was then criticized by some people of non-French and non-British backgrounds as not reflecting their reality, leading to the adoption of an official policy of “bilingualism and multiculturalism”.
As I say, Trudeau was trying to triangulate around Quebecois nationalism/separatism. He wanted a different kind of Canadian nationalism which would kill the separatist threat which he saw as small-minded provincialism kind of like how liberal Americans of the 1960s looked at the white nationalist identity of southern US states. He did not see how his centrist/stateist worldview would in fact combine with “bilingualism and multiculturalism” to work against any kind of greater Canadian national identity and would instead favour trends towards some kind of imperial or ecumenical state that sets up patron/client relationships with however many sub-identities pop up under it and which see their interest not in negotiating differences locally with their fellow citizens, but rather applying to the Big Moma/Papa state to save them from the forces supposedly victimizing them at the local level. Hence we have witnessed the regime of state-imposed “human rights” (destroying individual and property rights in favour of top-down government-”multiculti” group patron-client relations).
Thus, as so often happens, we sowed the seeds of our dissolution as a free, self-governing people, without really knowing what we were doing. Because Trudeau denied the reality that Canada was constituted as a federation of two distinct nations, because he wanted to create one nation that was somehow going to work happily in either language, without language becoming a basis for strong divisions, and that would respect everyone’s ethnic background – in short because he was not thinking realistically – we got trapped in an imperial fantasy that can only be imposed, and never successfully, with top-down regulation.
A well written (literate) article, Phyllis, but you fail to consider the fact that Stephen Harper, a conservative prime minister, has been in power since 2006, first in a minority government and subsequently a (heavy) majority one. Conservative politicians are well aware of the many injustices and unfair practices of multiculturalism and, along with the public which elected Mr. Harper, are gradually changing the way we function here. I think you fail to understand that.
I have Two points on the multicultural garbage.
First point, regarding the COEXIST bumper stickers, I think they should have two more icons. The swastika and the Hammer & Sickle. It would make it more realistic.
Second point, When I read the multicultural point that all societies are equal, I think the challenge should be…so, German National Socialism is a valid viewpoint which deserves to be recognized for its contibutions to cultural history?
Seems to be a real easy response to this garbage–
Glenn, that’s some of what I was trying to say earlier (#23). I’ve often said, to the consternation of my liberal friends, “Celebrate diversity; hug a bigot.” Several months ago there was a TV series that ran briefly called “The Good Family”. It mocked liberal ideology but sadly was canceled when it failed to gain much viewership. It was a hoot.
Ibn Warraq writes: There is the erroneous and sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values; or if these values are different, they are all equally worthy of respect. The truth is that not all cultures
have the same values, and not all values are worthy of respect.
Multikulti is a tropical disease like dengue fever.
I agree, all cultures are not equal. It is easy to measure the superiority of one culture over another. Simply use the concept that “There is no arguing with Success” to determine which culture is better. By this measure if one culture is better at providing for the needs, dreams, and success of its adherents, then that culture is superior. Using this measure we quickly give a back of the envelope breakdown of mankind’s best cultures. American Culture is the best and mankind’s bleeding edge culture, followed by the Anglosphere cultures, the first world democracies, and trailed by the backward tribal Islamic and African Cultures. I should be recognized that many cultures are doing well because western cultures have developed resources, in particular Oil resources, in their territory. Such as Islamic Saudi Arabia, which if you took the oil away would leave you with something like a starving Islamic Egypt, incapable of even feeding itself.
American Culture bases its superiority on the three pillars of Capitalism, Democracy, and The Rule of Law shared by all 1st world cultures, and a tweak to The Rule of Law provided by the US Constitution which attempts to limit the damage the Federal Government Monopoly can do, and enshrines several Individual Rights into The Rule of Law.
candidate Barack Obama once called America a “patchwork quilt” in a sentence where you’d normally expect to hear “melting pot.” it really bothered me.
we need to press 1 for English now. schoolchildren must receive bilingual education, and various government documents have to be offered in a variety of languages. assimilation is a dirty word. that’s multiculti. (and then there’s the whole “religious tolerance” side of multiculturalism, which actually means tolerance for all religions OTHER than the Judeo-Christian tradition.)
we don’t ask that our immigrants learn English; we don’t ask anything, even that they be legal. but that’s not surprising, because we also don’t ask anything of native-born American citizens. JFK’s remark about what you can do for your country has been completely turned around: now we just want to know what the government is going to do for us.
the premise beneath multiculti is that America’s traditional, majority white, Judeo-Christian culture is not good enough, and not anything to be proud of. in fact, a lot of people, including our president, spend a lot of their time apologizing for it. I find that really sad.
Back in 1991(winter edition of American Federation of Teachers Magazine) an article appeared written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr called THR DISUNITING OF AMERICA What we stand to lose if multicultural education takes the wrong approach. Looks like it has. It’s a good article to read and see how the very union that published this article has abandoned what it says and pushes exactly what he feared would happen.
Many immigrants come to our shores to become Americans. That number is shrinking and they now come here to supplant our culture with theirs. They then demand we roll over and change our laws and culture to allow them to set up enclaves where they can exist outside the dictates of our laws. We better wake up and face it now before it gets completely out of control.
Irving Layton, a well known Canadian poet and Jewish Montrealer, used to remark that the only Canadian immigrants who did not place an ethic prefix before their identity (Polish Canadians, French Canadians etc) were the Jews. And the Royal Canadian Air Farce (a radio and TV show) had this joke in the 1980′s: Q. What is the definition of a Canadian? A. A D.P. (displaced person) with seniority.
The flaw in Canada’s multi cultural policy came because with legal status came funding for “community centers” and numerous other services. Whereas previous generations of immigrants had been supported by religious or sectarian communities, (for example, Italians in the 1950′s by the Catholic church; Jews by communal charitable organizations) the immigrants of the 1970′s until the present have been able to tap into the public purse.
I know from personal observation on the streets of the greater Toronto area for 25 years as a commercial real estate broker that a community center ostensively funded with public money may contain a mosque — possibly of the Islamicist variety — a clear prohibition of the funding terms. Or a property ajacent to the new community center will be sold (at higher prices than the market would warrant) to become a mosque perhaps funded by money from an offshore foundation — perhaps Saudia Arabian in origin.
And keeping in mind that Toronto has some of the least affordable (as a ratio of price to wages) residential real estate in the world (surpassing London, UK or NYC), it was a frequent wonder to me that persons with no apparent employment or source of income other than the public purse appeared able to buy houses for cash which magically became stuffed with tenants speaking the owner’s language far in excess of the capacity of the building. Needless to say, it wasn’t my job (nor did it appear to be anyone else’s job either) to check on the residency paperwork of those individuals.
But of course, nothing is said. That would be racist. As one reporter for a major Toronto daily once told me in the pristine confines of the Toronto City Hall cafeteria: “I will never write an article critical of new Canadians.”
What Ex Canuck describes here is the Liberals’ (equivalent to the Democrats) vote-buying scheme, which, for decades, worked very well for them until just recently. (The Liberals are now a rump third party—and furious: they think of themselves as the rightful “governing party” of Canada.)
Pierre Trudeau, Canada’s Obama, was canny: he used multiculturalism as a smokescreen to obliterate the British, Christian presence in the public square here, while Quebec got to keep all of its cultural institutions (they marginalized the Catholic Church, themselves) because they were protected, in law, by the 1867 British North America Act. (As a minority, the French were given this protection by the British: not imagining mass immigration, the generous British overlooked protecting their own rights in law! So, secular—unless one is Muslim: they get to have imam-led prayers in public, secular schools during instruction time—multiculturalism has replaced all that was once British and Christian. Quebec is allowed to do just about whatever it wants, including discriminating against non French speakers.)
But we do have SUN News now, which is quite prepared to call out certain Muslims and other opportunistic groups. The elites and consensus media treat SUN as disdainfully as American elites and consensus media treat FOX News. But, like FOX, SUN is plucky, and thoroughly documents its exposés of the freeloaders and opportunists. Our present, Conservative government is also making inroads on this file.
About multiculturalism, people, like Salim Mansur, are boldly saying, “The Emperor has no clothes”. All it takes is a few before more and more start to chime in.
In Toronto Public Library there are many books which glorify multiculturalism. There are few books which question this policy.
But it seems that people in the library are afraid of Salim Mansur latest book. One can not borrow “Delectable lie” because Toronto Public Library decided not to carry it.
An example of multiculturalism run amok is the race classification of “Hispanic” that one finds in many gov and non-gov forms in the US. According to this classification, a blond Argentinian, a white Cuban of Spanish extraction, a black Cuban of African extraction, and a pure tribal from Central America are classified within the same race. We know this is delusional, and factually wrong.
Whereas in this post many have concentrated on Muslim/Middle Eastern immigration when referring to enclaves and abuses against the shrinking majority and the system, my personal experience in several conversations with illegal Mexicans and Hondurans is probably even less encouraging, when I usually find the following common negative traits:
1) Hate for the US, the very country that have taken them as illegals, and from where they earn money to support families back home. This hate stems from a deep sense of inferiority and resentment, and an exaggerated, distorted, and self-assuring, historical perspective, for example when stating, against all historical facts, that “they, we” built Florida, and even the whole South.
2) An scumbag sense of entitlement when it comes to their rights and needs.
3) A tremendous, profound, lack of education. Many of these tribals speak a cursory type of Spanish that does not go beyond a second or third grade.
Now try to educate and integrate this crowd. Good luck. This is a “Helot” population in your very midst. And we all know what happened when the Helots rebelled in Sparta.
Multiculturalism is a form of racism, for sure, but so is the concept of racism itself. In their eagerness to blame, condemn and fight against the ideologies of Islam and Multiculturalism, Dr. Mansur and his readers overlook the fact that they can only do so from the perspective of another righteous and competing belief system. In their wish to find a quick and easy fix, people – on both sides of the ideological divide – do not sufficiently reflect on the fatal sense of moral superiority which drives them to fight their perceived enemy in the first place. They then miss the most important point: being of a conceptual nature, ideological battles can be won neither in a court of Law, nor though armies in the battlefield. The prophetic words ‘Not by might nor by power, but in my Spirit’ (Zachariah 4:6) now could be translated as: man must find ways to regard the cultural traditions of his emerging Global Village as essentially *equivalent* – equal in value and relevancy as cultural systems per se. I think that our differences must be bridged, not ignored or resisted. That’s where our focus should be, for the common sake of our entire Human family and all of Nature as well.
Michael:
You raise a very good point. Your writing could be prophetic. Humanity movement is towards unity, or the “global village” as you rightly pointed out. The outward evolution or movement (EU, travel, immigration, race intermarriage, Internet, Face Book, Twitter, technology, etc) is driven by the inward urge to unity and rediscovery of the Spirit (Zachariah 4:6). A change to a higher consciousness is not only imminent, but absolutely necessary if we are to succeed with this change. The human mind has run its course. As now Eckhart Tolle repeats, and Ramana Maharshi often stated before: the mind is mad. But it was Sri Aurobindo the first one to prophesy the birth of new species, the Supramental one, meaning not only a new consciousness, but the result on the world of matter and the flesh of man of it. Finally, the divinization of life and matter on earth. The “Global Village” concept is now being experimented upon in the city of Auroville, Tamil Nadu, still with mixed results.
However, it would be a serious mistake to kowtow to evils, such as multiculturalism or Islam, opting for a rosy picture of hope. Until that change of consciousness is here, that not only will not work, but may send the spiritual evolution back centuries. That would have happened had Hitler won, if not a mighty Vibhuti named Churchill had appeared. That will happen if Islam wins. Wars and strife will be here for a while. Let me give you an example, the disastrous consequences to the world at large of the partition of India have yet to be properly understood. The creation of Pakistan and the thwarting of India’s purpose in the spiritual scheme of things were mainly aided by a naive politician named Mahatma Gandhi, now a hero in India. Sri Aurobindo clearly recommended fighting the Muslims in a civil war if necessary, but the mistaken piousness of Gandhi and the pusillanimity of Nehru proved disastrous at the end.
Ultimately, everything is alive. The Earth is not only alive, but is an organism, a highly intelligent one. Check the Charles Hapgood book, 1951, the only book prefaced by Einstein for a possible reaction scenario.
“Global Village as essentially *equivalent* – equal in value and relevancy as cultural systems per se.”
You argue like that girl in Salomon judgement who agreed to split the baby in half. You are doing the same with values and the “spirit”
Great article, Phyllis. I will buy the book. In the meantime, remember that Canadians, despite the established multiculturalism in our society, voted in a majority conservative government so that some of these problems can be dealt with. People are becoming aware of the problems, and our own Prime Minister Harper in an interview on CBC tv with Peter Mansbridge, stated that the biggest threat to Canada was Islamic terrorism. I think that would not be expressed in the US, although the danger is the same. I hope Americans will vote in favour of their country in the next election.
I fully concur with Mansur & Phyllis.
In the US, the Obama administration has opened the door to the Muslim Brotherhood. We will pay dearly for this. The MB will use their deep pockets (petro$) to destroy the opposition and to scare people away from the courts.
The very word “minority” is racist as it discriminates and gives preferential treatment to certain politically favored segments of society and discriminates against others. Some immigrants get special rights, like Obama’s father, and others don’t. Of course, Obama and his children also receive preferential diversity admissions.Who gets to say Persians are white, or Jews, or a hundred other ethnic groups.Why should a wealthy immigrant. with a Latin last name get preference at virtually every school in America over a disabled vet or the child whose parent died defending his country?
Thanks for a most thought-provoking and stimulating essay, Phyllis. You, as always, open up discussion where others cloud them over or sweep them under the carpet–or distort them beyond comprehensibity.
When I lived in Canada, I used to think that multi-culturalism was a step beyond bi-culturalism, where the the choices were to be either this or that with no room for subtlty and nuances, historical variations or creative advances. Now I see that multi-culturalism has become one of those nonce words that hides inside itself a very old set of ideas about exclusion, anti-rationality and religious bigotry.
Now I live in New Zealand. Though isolated and alienated, it is possible to see the rest of the world from a point of some objectivity and disinterestedness. New Zealand has its own problems with those who seek to claim sovereignty and independence from the state–calling it colonialist, racist and imperialist–and yet who demand all the advantages of its welfare system and technological expertise. It also faces the problems of high immigration by people who answer polls that they still have more loyalty to their country of origins than to the land where they have sought refuge. So far, thankfully, violence has been minimal, more symbolic than actual.
I am particularly frightened by the failure of western nations to teach their own history and culture, and to see so many people ignorant of who and what they are and who thus try to become the “other”, which can never happen, except through utter abasement, self-hatred, delusions and soul-suicide. The idea should be the enrichment of the host country by the new immigrants, who both learn, absorb and celebrate the land they have moved to, and add new insights and cultural treasures.
Mansur’s book looks like an important one. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Norman, great comment. Many thanks.
This is to The Root ’83 bigot.
Never smoked pot, my car is pretty clean, and I did my service.
However, I’ll resist your fixed idea that the goal of life is service to the state, or to others, for that matter. Your comment sounds an awful lot like the central tenets of Obamaism.
At some point, individuals have a right to life, liberty, and property.
Multi-culturalis can be racist.
It was racist in apartheid South Africa, which insisted that blacks, Asians, and Khoisan had different cultures by nature and therefore could not even participate in “civilized” society except as menial workers.
It is racist today to treat citizens of different ethnic backgrounds as being defined entirely by those backgrounds, and making ethnicity (or religion) the chief basis of political and economic power.
But it was and is racist (or ethno-chauvinist) for one group to impose its culture on others, and seek to destroy other cultures.
When people of different ethnicities share a country, they should learn to accept their mutual differences in language, religion, cooking, dress, music, or sports.
Unfortunately there is no clear line between accepting cultural variations and fetishizing them. “White guilt syndrome” encourages the latter.
And it’s not just the dark-skinned minorities who are kvetching the loudest. It is the Left-wing college educated, caucasion elitists who are so much behind this insanity.
As I increasingly wonder, where do they think the enlightenment came from? Further, where do they think the whole concept of the classless society came from?
Saudi Arabia?
Probably, judging from the illustrious intellignece emanating from these folks.
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Fascinating discussion. I am relieved to find I am not the only one who has not swallowed the ‘multiculturism/diversity is good, Western civilisation is bad’ nonsense that surrounds me (I am in US). What I would like to ask you here is, when/why did this start, who is really behind it, and what do they hope to gain? Do they think a world filled with banana Republics, Islamic theocracies etc. would be better for business – because it does seem like huge conglomerates and powerful politicians are pushing it. Do they imagine they will be able to control the outcome? Thank you.
I would like to consider the chance of saying thanks to you for your expert advice I’ve continually enjoyed going to your web site. We’re seeking forward to the commencement of my school research and the complete preparing would never have been complete without surfing your website. If I could be of any support to other people, I’d personally be ready to help as a result of what I’ve gained from here.
אירועים חוגגים באולם אירועים ברחובות מומלץ! וגם ב אולמות אירועים בראשון לציון וגם ב מועדני בר מצווה