[Cynus]

This is the third in a series of posts on multiculturalism. The first two are here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic28228.html
And here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic31886.html

I try to search the blogosphere regularly to see what others are saying about multiculturalism and other issues I discuss here. What stands out it that if you do a search for “multiculturalism,” you are presented with an almost entirely right wing list of blogs. The right wing blogs generally consist of attacks on the multicultural policies of whatever country from which the blog originates, and examples of various perceived slights and attacks in the name of cultural diversity on the traditional culture of that country. I almost never come across a defense of multiculturalism on a liberal blog. You do see the occasional liberal blog praising the multicultural diversity of their city, but these are invariably fluff pieces that avoid the difficult questions involving sexism, homophobia, and various abhorrent cultural practices. I wonder then why the left is so uncomfortable discussing and defending multiculturalism. I think the answer is that the left is pulled in two directions. First, there is the legacy of the civil rights movement in liberal politics. Most liberals see themselves as heirs of the civil rights movement and the stated goal of the civil rights movement was integration, not multiculturalism. And so I sense a nervousness over whether taking a pro-multicultural position is in fact, as it surely is, an abandonment of the hard won gains of integration. But on the other hand, the left are the traditional champions of minority groups, and minority groups have embraced multiculturalism instead of integration. And so multiculturalism forces an awkward choice between integration and minority rights that liberals would rather not have to make. If a liberal blog decided to defend multiculturalism they would soon need to make a choice between multiculturalism and their traditional attacks on sexism or homophobia. They would then ultimately be left with the position that “diversity is fine as long as everyone behaves like western, urban, upper middle class, liberals.” This split is clear in feminism as some feminists have been roundly criticized for failing to condemn the sexism of many cultures in favor of "cultural sensitivity," while others have decided to attack these practices wherever they occur.
The choice can not be put off forever by the left, and right now it is unclear to me on which side the choice will fall. The right, ironically, has now become the champions of integration.

[kadoomsoon]

Always step back and smell the woods.

[Nicholai]

Here's something I posted on a philosophy forum a few weeks back.

- Why would someone move from country A to country B?

- Country B would have to be (seemingly) better than country A.

- If country B accepts immigrants from country A, country B will then need to support these newcomers with basic necessities (food, water, shelter, etc.) Would the people of country B go on food rations to allow for the people of country A to live there, if that were necessary? Would the people of country B allow themselves to be unemployed in order for those of country A to work and earn an income? Present/historical events show that this is unlikely. (some current examples)
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/032507/loc...
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2007/02/11/an...

- Continuing with the notion that country B would not be willing to give up for those of country A, abundance must therefore exist in Country B to allow for those of Country A to enter without greatly affecting the lifestyles of the majority in country B.

- Therefore, no matter why the people of country A came to country B (better freedoms, better lifestyle etc.), to the people of country B this relationship is entirely economic.
To the people of country B the question is a matter of perpetuating their lifestyle, not catering to newcomers. Country B did not become wealthy in order to help the people of country A, this was just an adverse affect. At the same time, if country B experiences an economic decline (and the majority population begins to feel these hardships and abundance no longer exists), the result will be a backlash against those outside the majority population.

Picture yourself before the time of European settlers in North America. If the Blackfoot tribe is suffering food shortages, could they send families to live with the Pima or the Cree, in turn throwing off the carrying capacity of the other tribes. The tribe would have to experience a period of starvation until they finally reached the regions carrying capacity once again. Today we have a population of some 6.5 billion peoples thanks in large part to the replacement of human labour with petroleum-run machinery. But as oil is a finite resource, so too is our artificial population bubble. When oil supply and agricultural production peak, the drop back to equilibrium begins. Let's hope it's a soft one.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kadoomsoon', '
')this is already been planned it is in writing, the illuminatis only enemy is what is left of the right, and they are going to remove them totally by turning the population against them just as you are unconsciously doing right now.
and it will happen,
It already happened in the future that is how we know about it.

Then peak oil comes. The man in the hood and sickle, with black blood. And if they don't repent of their evil deeds and change their lives they will be taken out too. Sigh o nara baby.

[Cloud9]

Multiculturism gives rise to tiny fascist fiefdoms. I never met a champion of this ideology who was not himself a racist.

[blukatzen]

This is a most timely topic for me, as I just got off the phone with an old vet of mine. I hadn't spoken to him in a few years, and I thought he had retired. (he said he was going through his old files and had thought of me, and was happy to have gotten through.)

He is from India, his wife is as well. He is Catholic, so one may think that they would be open to more multicultural ideas than others. Not so, for the most part.

They "keep up" with American/Western customs, etc. to RESPOND to their customers, but live in "their" society, which is more traditional.

In fact, most Asian people (immigrants or 1st generation) will. Same goes for more religious "traditional" cultures that are European, say Greek, for instance.

I have two stores (garden centers) that I manage, bordering some very exclusive suburbs that have many of these successful immigrants, and believe me, the head dresses are NOT coming off the Muslimis. The black dresses are not coming off of the traditional Italian and Greek matrons.

The family values are such that I have to make allowances in the schedules of my employees for traditional celebrations that encompass the whole family being there. (and I think that's great, that's how I grew up in certain regards, and I miss it.)

I think the idea is that they will pitch in and be 'multicultural' until it hits their value system (which is fairly quick) and then they trade, shop, etc. within the confines of their own cultural community. How I've made *some* success for our company is being sensitive towards this, and being "culture-friendly" towards the Indians, the Middle Eastern folk, the Asian and SE Asian cultures, I have now instructed our growers to grow more of the things from the diets of the new immigrant population here in Chicago. (I am being written up in the Indian Times Newspaper btw.)

I feel it's best to respect a culture, a neighborhood, but yet, to keep something fresh and new for the newcomers.

Teach them there was someone there beforehand that paved the way for them to have what they have now, and encourage them to build something new for everyone's good. Seems to work for me. YMMV.

Blu

[Cynus]

blukatzen,
Previous immigrants went out of their way to integrate and adopt American customs and values. I wonder what you think about the current immigrants you describe that do not integrate and whether you think it's a good thing or bad thing and whether immigrants have an obligation to adopt the customs of their new country.

[blukatzen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cynus', 'b')lukatzen,
Previous immigrants went out of their way to integrate and adopt American customs and values. I wonder what you think about the current immigrants you describe that do not integrate and whether you think it's a good thing or bad thing and whether immigrants have an obligation to adopt the customs of their new country.

[Gigashadow]

The hosting country gets to make the rules and, regardless of what people may claim, doesn't owe potential immigrants jack shit. They can deny someone for any reason, or no reason.

Immigrants don't get to decide that they are going to ignore the laws of the land and set up their own country-within-a-country where their own laws apply instead. People who have a problem with the host country's stance on homosexuality, feminism, etc. should not apply to live there. They especially should not be demonstrating about how they hate the people who already live there (anyone remember the muslims demonstrating in Britain with the "This is your 9/11" signs?). That sort of behavior should get people kicked out immediately. Show some respect for the people who decided they would invite you in to their country to stay.

[Alcassin]

Good thread Cynus.

As far as I see, left is divided between promoting cultural integration and multiculturalism. As you pointed out it comes to civil rights movement and even further back to French Revolution. First we have to define multiculturalism:

It's policy of promoting cultural diversity, as an effect of migration against the enforcement of the dominant culture in one state. People are different but they are equal. They may practice buddhism, speak their language and raise their children whatever they like. There is no question of efficiency about it.

We had great example of multiculturalism between different nationalities in United States - granted by some bills and religious freedom. I know it worked only among white colonialists but this example needs type of contract. Multiculturalism broadens this for every human/group/nation within the state.

Monoculturalism in ethnic diversified states ends in genocide - this seems to be working in pre-war Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia - where one group dominated the rest, but list of it is endless. In Poland before 1939, only 66% of citizens were Polish, the rest were Ukrainians, Jews and others. We had cultural supremacy which ended in 'Day without Jew' on univeristies, ethnic separation in schools for Jews and so on. Also Polish state was oppresive on Ukrainians as they couldn't learn their language and culture in schools but they had to accept Polish domination. It ended in mutual hate and violence in the east of country. It was great effort to polonize them, and it never worked.

Now Latvia practices both - from one side they are separating Russians living there as they have problem with obtaining citizenship without test proving they can use Latvian language, on the other hand they try to preserve Livonians. The problem with huge minority like Russians in Latvia may grow up in post PO world, monoculturalism will rather cause more problems than multiculturalism.

[deMolay]

The former Yugoslavia used to be held up as the shining example of what a blessing Multi-Cult was. Were is Yugoslavia today? Also remember these famous words which are still true today. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham Lincoln. I see Multi-cult as a living example of that old British maxim that made them an Empire, also used by the Roman's successfully. Divide and Conquer.

[Alcassin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'T')he former Yugoslavia used to be held up as the shining example of what a blessing Multi-Cult was. Were is Yugoslavia today? Also remember these famous words which are still true today. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham Lincoln. I see Multi-cult as a living example of that old British maxim that made them an Empire, also used by the Roman's successfully. Divide and Conquer.

[deMolay]

As long as the Strongman Tito was alive the different cultural groups feared him and did as he said. When he died each cultural group quickly wanted their own turf for their own cultures, result fracture and open war. The British and the Romans used the same tactics, in fact the British learned from the Romans, divide and conquer. The British used one culture against another. Multi-Cult is the Globalist's goal of Homogenizing human culture to a common denominator, better to fit in in the Corporate Globalist Plan.

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', '"')A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham Lincoln.

[Cynus]

I think the real question to ask is why has integration been such a failure? 43 years after Brown v. Board of Education, schools are more segregated than ever, neighborhoods more homogenous, African-Americans are returning to the south in record numbers and creating distinct communities, white flight continues unabated. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has documented how cultural diversity leads to less civil engagement, more isolation, and more alienation. And it is not just in the United States where integration has failed, all countries that have attempted to integrate racial minorities have ended up with persistent segregation and its resulting social problems. To understand why integration has failed we must understand how it was supposed to work in the first place.

Integration:
Western nations are founded on the Enlightenment view descended from Descartes that each individual is a distinct separate substance. This substance was essentially rational, and could over time acquire various beliefs, desires, etc. In this way it was believed that everything about an individual—sex, race, height, weight, religious and political beliefs—everything except for its rationality was merely contingent upon accident and/or personal experience. Specifically, the individual was born basically a tabula rasa (although Descartes thought there were some innate ideas) that could be provided with experiences that would form ones beliefs and character. It was presumed that if two individuals were provided with the same experiences, they would possess the same beliefs and character. Acting on these premises, the civil rights movement thus had two aims: to remove segregation on the one hand, and foster integration on the other. Integration was supposed to work by providing equal experiences and removing the differences that resulted in a lack of equality and thus prejudice and segregation. After all, on the Cartesian model, by giving all individuals identical experiences, or as closely identical as possible, we would remove cultural differences and result in an integrated culture. For example, bussing was an attempt to provide all citizens with the same educational experiences, a well as exposure to individuals of different races, in order to dispel prejudices resulting from ignorance due to a lack of experience of others. If all citizens were brought up in similar neighborhoods, going to similar schools, with similar exposures to others, given the same opportunities, we would achieve a society where racial differences no longer mattered since race and identity would no longer be linked. Whereas bussing was an attempt to repair educational inequalities, affirmative action was an attempt to integrate the work force so that professions were not racially determined and that racial disparities would be erased resulting in an integrated workforce with a common culture. Over time, with academic achievement equalized, cultural differences removed, and economic inequalities erased, we would move to a society where race no longer played a factor in determining personal identity, professional achievement, economic class, or cultural differences.

Why then has integration failed? Conservatives claim that integration has failed because ethnic and racial groups insist on self-segregating and refuse to integrate, liberals claim that persistent racism has kept integration from working. It is crucial to see that both sides accept the premises of integration, that the way to achieve it is to provide equal experiences. Since the theory on integration is correct, it is argued, if it has failed the only possible explanation is that it must have failed for moral reasons; someone is behaving immorally and thus preventing integration from succeeding. The validity of the theory of how integration was supposed to succeed is accepted by both sides, and if the theory is correct, then an explanation must be offered on why integration has failed to occur. The offered explanations are moral in character: either people are self-segregating, or people are racists. And so most of the civil rights movement has abandoned integration and embraced multiculturalism. It is my contention that neither explanation is correct, and that integration failed because it was based on a faulty conception of personal identity.

Personal identity:
One of the enduring philosophical questions is the question of what makes an individual the individual they are. What makes me the same person I was yesterday, or last year? What differentiates me from all the other people? If my memories could be transplanted into another person, would I be that person or the previous? The dominant theory of personal identity over the last several centuries was that of Descartes. For Descartes, one is individuated by being a separate spiritual substance. This substance acquires individual beliefs and desires through experience, and these can differ from individual to individual, and within the same individual over time, but the underlying substance remains constant and this is what constitutes the identity over time. Descartes’ views have largely been discarded as they give rise to all sorts of philosophical difficulties—primarily due to the mysterious nature of this spiritual substance and our vastly increased understanding of the workings of the brain.
What substance theories of personal identity overlook is the crucial role of history in dertemining ones identity. What separates one from all other individuals, what “individuates” is ones history: the one thing that you can share with no other being is your history, no two beings have the same history. Even identical twins have different histories, even from the moment their cells separated. And even if ones memories were implanted into another person, your histories would therefore differ. The main import of this discussion is that, as a result, to understand oneself, what makes you who you are and makes you different and unique from all other beings, is to understand your history. For example, if you want to know why you have the political beliefs you do, say why you believe in democracy, you need to know American history, why America is a democracy, what ideas lead to the political system we have today. But in order to understand this you need to understand the political disputes of the Enlightenment. And in order to understand this you need to know the political theories of the pre-Enlightenment that the Enlightenment was reacting to, etc. In order to understand why one has the religious beliefs you do one would clearly need to know ones personal history, how you were raised and any influences in your life that lead to your current beliefs. But to understand where these ideas came from would require one to know the various religious traditions, their history, the disputes that were involved in their creation, why they ended up the in form they have, and the history of how you ended up with these beliefs. To understand why you are where you are, you need to understand your personal history, why you moved from place to place through your life. But to understand this fully you need to know the history of your ancestors as they emigrated across the Earth even as far back as the original emigration out of Africa. Actually, you would need to know the history going even further back as to why the first humanids were in Africa in the first place, and the whole evolutionary history of life on earth. Race is the result of history as well, it records the migrations of people around the world from the original migrations out of Africa—in your race you wear the history of your ancestors on your sleeve as it were. The same could be said of any taste, desire, preference, aspiration, or conviction one has; to understand why you are the way you are you need to understand your history. Even to understand why one likes something as inconsequential as the taste of strawberry ice cream would require an understanding of history, in part your personal history and your various reasons for liking it, but also in part evolutionary history and why we developed the preference for sweets that we have, as well as the biological processes in play in the perception of sweetness.

In summary, you are the way you are, and different from every other being (although sharing much with them) because your history is different from every other being. If this is the case, as I think it is, integration, i.e., the adoption of a new culture, is the process of dropping one history and adopting another as ones own. Historically, immigrants come to the US and they soon (in a generation or two) more or less forget their history and the culture that results from it and adopt their new one. Soon they're proud of how "we" defeated the British, the Nazis, and the Communists, even if they're in fact British, German, or Russian and it was their ancestors that "we" beat. Cultural practices are also the result of history--the traditions, mores, rituals, and celebrations of each culture are the result of historical events and adaptations. In integration the previous historically derived cultural practices are dropped in favor of the also historically evolved cultural practices of the US. However, one can not drop their race the way you can drop other aspects of ones identity. For example, when the British celebrate “our” great naval history, Asian and middle-eastern immigrants know that that "our" does not include them—that British history does not include them--but white immigrants to England--after a generation or so--can drop their true background adopt a new history and blend in with the rest of the "we." Caucasians living in non-white countries come to feel the same thing, that they can't drop their history/identity and become fully part of the culture. African-Americans can never and should never drop their history the way European immigrants have been able to and see the country as a land of opportunity and freedom when the fact that "they" had no freedom and opportunity is always staring them in the face.

This tension between being pressured on the one hand by the political push for integration to adopt the “mainstream” or “white” history and the resulting values, politics, and identity, and on the other hand by the obvious fact that “our” history results in a very different lessons, values, and political beliefs-- leads to the feeling of alienation that minorities universally express, and finds its way into different political beliefs, social mores, artistic expressions, etc. The cognitive dissonance between the pressure to adopt an alien history, and the impossibility of doing so when ones race and its attendant history is ever apparent, results in the widespread alienation and its attendant social ills. The facts of slavery and Jim Crow can not and should not ever be dropped for the adoption of an alien history, but since integration requires the adopting of another’s history, integration is impossible. However, the failure of integration is not a moral failing on anybody’s part, it is the result of the adoption of a faulty theory of identity giving rise to false beliefs, and was bound to fail for this reason. Given the fact that history is essential to ones identity, one of the worst things you can do to a person is force them to abandon ones true history/identity and adopt a false history and resulting values of another race, ethnic group, or religion whose history results in very different values, and cultural identity (as was attempted with native Americans). This is, “identitycide” and is one of the worst forms of racism imaginable. And yet identitycide is the basis of America’s educational system, and much of the alienation that plagues African-Americans and other racial groups. Almost inevitably, this very alienation itself becomes part of cultural identity and gets passed down through generations.

I would argue that the solution to this problem is to abandon liberalism and adopt some form of communitarianism.

[deMolay]

The Globalist's love Monsanto seeds. Mankind is not an invention of Monsanto. We cannot be Homogenized, will not be Homongenized into a pretty little UN Globalist culture called Multi-cult. The mechanical dust is beginning to rust.

[Alcassin]

I live in a country that is completely homogenious. It has no real civil engagement, NGO's barely exists (the number has dropped since the fall of communism), and voting percentage in average is 45%. It's not problem of the 'cultures' it's the problem of alienation.

Communitarianism - like neoconservative Fukuyama - no thanks. It doesn't work and in practice there is no difference because this is minor change in only some way.