The term Multi-cultural is proudly bandied about in cliché fashion, by the opiated masses to describe what they insist we must all seek in our modern, good, tolerant societies. The apparently self-evident, endlessly benficial aspiration all modern Western countries must strive for in hosting immigrants: an idyllic, eclectic society of societies, under the paradoxical banners, "We are one, but we are many", "We are the same but different", a society fully integrated yet concurrently needing to be tolerant, a society of "cultures" living together, but not actually together, in a beautiful catatonia-inducing harmony.
The assumptions are impressive: different "cultures" always compliment each other; a multi-cultural society is the best society; a multi-cultural sociey is harmonious; there is no alternative but death and racism; racism is not a feature of a multi-cultural society; there is little to worry about with multi-culturalism; multi-culturalism is good for individualism and can accommodate or compliment all the various types of "cultures" (We call these "ethnosities" rather than "cultures", as "culture" entails growth, development, evolution and change, rather than tradition and conservatism); multi-culturalism is always acheivable, only impeded by racist bigots.
That's the talk. But what are the facts?
Look on the ground at these multi-cultural societies, these Ethnosities, and you will see something different from the rhetoric.
The "cultures" that move into their host countries are almost always from the third or developing world, particularly countries that have been torn apart by racist, religious, ethnic and cultural wars, intolerance and conflict; countries that have failed economically, socially, politically, ideologically. Countries that are either too young to have reconciled with, and transitioned into, modernity, or are too old to break with their barbaric dark-age traditions.
The "cultures" arriving on our desirable shores aim only to inhabit our wealthiest largest cities and then head straight from customs and immigration to the ghetto occupied by only their own kind.
These lucky people then proceed to segregate themselves by choice from their host cultures. No sooner have they borded the airport-city bus than they are met by their people; people from support groups that are set up to support and induct them and only them to their new home (our home).
These are the facts, verifiable by empirical evidence any moron can conduct by walking the streets.
Multi-culturalism on the ground is exclusively metropolitan and more accurately named Multi-Ghetto-ism. Thus anyone can visit, see for themselves, the various ethnic-based ghettoes that feature without deviation in all the world's Western capital and major cities. Their journey has been a time-travelling experience, skipping through the ages of human development into the future, from 7th century goat-herding deserts to 21st century Western civilisation.
Within these ghettoes, each "culture" creates effectively an exclusive community within a community. How integrated is that? Why do they do it?
The goals of multi-culturalism appear in stark contrast to what is seen on the ground: a group of people striving to create a ghetto of their own kind, separate from but living off its host community. Almost exclusively, these cultural ghettos feature only the societal aspects of their former homeland: their religion, their language, their food, their marital practises and ethical belief systems.
The kind of exclusions practised within these ghettos are racist by the very definition used by multi-culturalism advocates themselves:
As if this voluntary separation and exclusion weren't enough to contradict the tenets of multi-culturalist propaganda, these ghetto communities then go further to extend favour and opportunity to only members of their own culture. They hire people only from their culture, buy houses and businesses together, lend money to each other, send their children to schools only from their culture, marry within their own culture, shop at only their shops, let rental properties favouring tenants from or interests that serve their culture, starting small businesses that cater only to their culture, etc etc.
That behaviour is by definition the practise of racism. How ironic that the immigrants are more racist in practise than their hosts; hosts who accuses each other of racism, and the need for the host country to stop being racist.
There is even a common practise for older immigrants not bothering to learn the host language. They don't see the need. Why understand the host if you don't need to? One wonders whether they have any idea which country they're even living in, when there's so much separation between guest and host.
The mainstream public discussion of multi-culturalism is normally at best a bland, neutral one, at worst a self-congratulating, self-righteous utopianist one.
However, as with anything in this Age of Political Correctness, the hardest, most important, discussions are quickly aborted upon the hint of mentioning multi-culturalism might be bad, might be subject to criticism or critical analysis. Such philosophical proponents are vilified, labelled bigots, racists, morally corrupt.
So, fundamentally, there is one simple problem facing any critical, intellectual analysis or even discussion on multi-culturalism or ghetto communities or racism from immigrants:
People are not telling the truth.
People are lying about their true feelings, their true beliefs, their true rational conclusions.
Why?
Three reasons:
1) Ego:
Many people are powerless and insignificant, so they take up causes that can't lose and rave from the soap box their elevated morality, their superior intellect. Taking up a huge global cause makes them feel powerful, righteous, loved, admired, respected. It doesn't matter the cause, as long as it's got tonnes of support, especially in the online mainstream communities.
2) Fear of Retribution:
Many people won't admit the truth, as they don't want to be vilified, accused of racism, or being attacked for inciting hatred or bigotry, and fear being killed for saying what they really think.
(how ironic: the discussion is racist, but the exclusive practises in the ghettos are not.)
This fear of offending is even solidified with the protection of people's feelings by the Law.
We are talking here about the decades old age of Political Correctness: you can't say anything offensive.
If you asked someone what they really thought about multi-culturalism or living side by side with different cultures, they would be too afraid to tell you the truth.
3) Propaganda:
If you asked different immigrant cultures why they segregate themselves within their host country, choosing to separate themselves from their host culture, they would lie for the same reasons, but in addition they want their culture to appear to be wonderful and harmless.
They will lie to keep up the facade that their culture is harmless and wonderful and tolerant.
So we've established that racism exists across the table, from the immigrants themselves against the host, not only from the host community.
So why is "Racism" (the practise of excluding people and favouring others based on their "race" defined nowadays as culture or ethnicity) so pervasive, globally and historically?
A fundamental truth ignored or feared in debate is the simple fact that people just don't like people who are different from them.
It's instinctive. It's a hard-wired survival instinct practised between and within all species, to preserve the species or sub-species. Fear of strangers is an animal and therefore human quality. It is not cultural or rational. It is not a mental disorder that can be cured. It is not a misguided opinion. It is raw instinct and the compulsion to express it is evidently less than most can bear.
However, there are rational practicalities to explain or justify this instinct. If you share nothing with another group or person, nothing shared in beliefs held most dearly, you cannot expect support, understanding or collaboration. You cannot expect empathy.
We are all drawn to people who share our dearly-held beliefs and understandings about the world, about how to treat people, how to live. You can't expect to maintain your cultural identity and the survival of your own culture, if it has to be compromised by accommodating another.
We are therefore drawn to those who look and behave like us, and equally, we are repelled from those who appear different. This compulsion is directly proportional to the level of difference. The more different you appear, the more repulsive you are. Think of dating websites that match people with people like them, people of similar interests, beliefs, backgrounds.
It's not right or wrong, bad or good, it just is. Look at the world, look at history. War and conflict is fundamentally caused by the repulsion between two groups. The preservation of one culture against dilution by another.
Then there is the resentment by the West of wasted effort.
Western societies spent centuries fighting, dying and suffering to preserve their hard one cultural evolution: the separation of church and state, the empowerment of women and vulnerable groups, the education of their children, especially their daughters, the equality between all, treatment of those with different sexual orientations and genders, treatment of animals.
What did our forefathers, our ancestors fight and die for? Our values, our beliefs, our evolution to modernity.
Many of the immigrant cultures come from countries that have not evolved their own beliefs and societal systems, laws and customs, from the dark ages of humanity we spent centuries escaping at great cost and sacrifice. Many people feel threatened by all this sacrifice and effort being wasted when a culture arrives that practises and even promotes those things we died getting rid of long ago. We're back at square one!
Therefore, there is a stark contrast between the fundamental beliefs and customs of host and guest cultures.
Other contrasted cultural behaviour can be quite patently antagonistic: e.g. the Muslim sacrificial ceremony and Halal practise of slitting the throats of cattle, in contrast to the Hindu protection and reverance of cattle. Thus, the splitting up of post British Raj India into Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
There are many other irreoncilable practises between cultures living within the same society.
Arranged marriage, marriage of minors, treatment of women, kinds of punishment for crimes, genital mutilation, treatment of animals, influence of relgion in law and politics, dressing in public, shaking hands, covering woman in blankets, the list goes on.
Many claim to tolerate these differences and accuse others of intolerance.
Tolerance is a telling choice of word.
Tolerance becomes a poor indicator of the best kind of acceptance expected between different cultures. Why? Because tolerance in common usage means, "putting up with". Should we not progress from tolerance, if we are to integrate harmoniously with others? Yet tolerance is as far as we have come and it is the greatest level of acceptance expected.
Why should we feel proud that we have only achieved a level of tolerance toward each other? Imagine that as a wedding vow. I promise to tolerate you. How well would that be received?
The old tried and tested term "foreigner" is understandable. We call things and people that make no sense to us, that we can't relate to, that are so different from us, "foreign". And we call immigrants and even tourists, "foreigners".
Look at the different uses of the term: this is all quite foreign to me; foreign affairs.
The French use the term "L'etranger", also meaning "stranger", for our term "foreigner". To the French, people from other countries are "strange". How true.
The proponents of Multi-Culturalism are self-righteous liars and they must be stopped. They propound a corrupt understanding of the problems we face integrating foreigners into our homes. Those seeking truth must unite and take their place in mainstream public debate, so that the discussion can proceed without fear of vilification toward the truth.
Should Multiculturalism be accepted as a society that includes several cultures living side by sude in a parallel culturalism, or should it be the aspiration for diverse cultures to live together?
The term multicultural is meant to signify a society in which multiple cultures live together in one harmonuious nation, but in reality a multicultural society is a society in which different cultures live alongside each other in separate societies withing a society.
Acknowledeging this truth is only the beginning of the conversation in achieving the outcome multicultuarlism pretends to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment