Multiculturalism. Questioned.
Multiculturalism is government policy in Australia and Canada. At it's root, it argues the relativist case that all cultures are equally legitimate and acceptable.
I will question that with examples. If that is the case, was the case, if we were to go back to WW2, would the proponents of multiculturalism accept Nazi Germany's culture of 1933-39 as acceptable (with it's authoritarianism, and the nascent holocaust in evidence)?.
Moreover, bearing in mind that immigration is the seedbed of multiculturalism, why do people emmigrate?
In a large percentage of cases, it is to gain more economic prosperity, in many cases, to gain freedoms not available in the old country. In both examples, there is the implicit recognition that one country and culture can deliver sought after advantages that another cannot. Ipso facto all cultures are not equally desirable. And the 'vote' is measured by the relative inflow/outflow one society from another. The USA, Canada, UK, Australia, western Europe have nett inflows of immigrants. But few desire to emmigrate to Myanmar, or North Korea, or Iran, for example.
Societies and cultures can also be valued given their contibutions in the world of Science, Engineering, Literature, Philosophy. In this book on Nobel Prize winners (as good an indicator as I know in terms of such contributions), it's noted; "...over forty- percent of the science winners came from the United States. And that after this came Britain around fourteen, Germany ten , and France five percent...". Interestingly also; "...though they constitute less than two tenths of one percent of the world's population Jews have ... thirty percent of the prizes...".
As I posted here, one incredibly brave lady, Dr. Wafa Sultan, pointed out some home truths to an Islamic cleric on a televised debate;
"...he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking...".
Thre are many examples of neighbouring countries (or even split countries under different political philosophies - such as Nth vs Sth Korea, East vs West Germany) like Sth Africa vs Zimbabwe, Myanmar vs India, Israel vs her neighbours, of one culure thriving and the adjacent stagnating. the differences are beyond mere geology, climate or history. The determinate must at least include culture.
So all cultures are not equally valid, and a forced policy of multiculturalism is a structure built on a foundation of sand and untruths.
I will question that with examples. If that is the case, was the case, if we were to go back to WW2, would the proponents of multiculturalism accept Nazi Germany's culture of 1933-39 as acceptable (with it's authoritarianism, and the nascent holocaust in evidence)?.
Moreover, bearing in mind that immigration is the seedbed of multiculturalism, why do people emmigrate?
In a large percentage of cases, it is to gain more economic prosperity, in many cases, to gain freedoms not available in the old country. In both examples, there is the implicit recognition that one country and culture can deliver sought after advantages that another cannot. Ipso facto all cultures are not equally desirable. And the 'vote' is measured by the relative inflow/outflow one society from another. The USA, Canada, UK, Australia, western Europe have nett inflows of immigrants. But few desire to emmigrate to Myanmar, or North Korea, or Iran, for example.
Societies and cultures can also be valued given their contibutions in the world of Science, Engineering, Literature, Philosophy. In this book on Nobel Prize winners (as good an indicator as I know in terms of such contributions), it's noted; "...over forty- percent of the science winners came from the United States. And that after this came Britain around fourteen, Germany ten , and France five percent...". Interestingly also; "...though they constitute less than two tenths of one percent of the world's population Jews have ... thirty percent of the prizes...".
As I posted here, one incredibly brave lady, Dr. Wafa Sultan, pointed out some home truths to an Islamic cleric on a televised debate;
"...he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking...".
Thre are many examples of neighbouring countries (or even split countries under different political philosophies - such as Nth vs Sth Korea, East vs West Germany) like Sth Africa vs Zimbabwe, Myanmar vs India, Israel vs her neighbours, of one culure thriving and the adjacent stagnating. the differences are beyond mere geology, climate or history. The determinate must at least include culture.
So all cultures are not equally valid, and a forced policy of multiculturalism is a structure built on a foundation of sand and untruths.
posted by Phil at 6:46 pm
2 Comments:
cultures are equally valid, I would say.
the examples you are giving are less talking about culture, but about the dominant politics at a time in a country.
I agree with you on some points - that in terms of immigration the laws of the host nation must be respected and followed, and no excuse should be made on base of culture. however, a truly free nation will allow specifics of another culture, especially religious beliefs.
I don't think that the religion is a valid criteria when checking where nobel prize winners come from. rather check on the economy of the country they are living in, on the education availabe in the country they grew up as a child, and on the freedom of research and speech where they studied. the arabs had an incredible wisdom and the best doctors at one time in point, when amercia did not exist at all. and the jewish community probably benefits of a strong culture of dedication, network and ambition.
so maybe all cultures are equally valid, but we should be strong enough to say that not all cultures can live together. I wouldn't want an aztek offering in my neighbours' place, to take a politically correct example ;-)
live and let live takes quite some effort from both sides.
hej phil, how u doing :-) always nice to stop by your blog!
Hi pmuckl. Doing OK, but been interstate with work 2 out of the last 3 weeks.
West Aussie is 5 1/2 hours flying away, SAus 2. And work was full-on, so blogging has suffered.
Post a Comment
<< Home