Multiculturalism and the natural marketplace of ideas


Multiculturalism (MC) is not tolerance. Even the multiculturalists don’t want it to be confused with tolerance. The thought manipulators of the English MC movement prefer to draw a distinction based on chimerical and recently invented distinctions. After all if there are no differences – if the words tolerance and MC meant the same thing then what the hell would be the use of a fancy schmancy new word?

The answers is, of course, there is no need for a newer bigger harder to spell word to say a thing for which there is already a perfectly serviceable word that everyone already understands.

Here is a nice generic dictionary type definition of MC:
“The doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country.” (hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx

I find that to be a tad Spartan and vanilla. However, try as they might to prettify it, the notion of doctrinal thinking has to be included.

If you read the WIKI definition you can’t escape the aggressive aspects of it as doctrine.
The APA has their attempt here: www.apa.org/pi/multicult...initions.html
Here’s another: www.edchange.org/multicult...itial.html

Clearly the word does not mean “tolerance.”


Some among the MC crowd prefer distinctions based on connotations. They like to insist that Tolerance is somehow a negative thing. They say that mere tolerance is negative because it is not affirmative. All the linguistic gymnastics they use is their way of trying to get at the notion that merely tolerating a thing isn’t good enough, that you must embrace it and adopt it and include it in your culture. These things they insist are the affirmative aspects of MC.

Or stated another way they see tolerance as not going far enough. This of course means that to somewhere along the way the MC crowd got their heads around the idea that unless you actively nurture other cultures that you will be doing some kind of wrong. To whom this wrong occurs or how its mechanics operate are indeterminate. The MC crowd claim that the adherents of the culture that is merely tolerated are harmed. They can not however, say how this harm occurs. They claim that these harms are those which arise subsequent to people being marginalized and not included in the larger society.

The causes of these putative harms on which the MC crowd rely are dubious at best. Whether a sub set of a society is marginalized, isolated, and impoverished, is the result of mere tolerance or aggressive racism and bigotry is less questionable. It is without question that when a people view themselves as an insular distinct group that they will hold themselves apart from the larger society. It is precisely what every immigrant group has done in the USA since the foundation of the nation. There is not one immigrant group that has done otherwise. The Irish, Catholics, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Vietnamese, - all of them have gone through periods self imposed isolation. So to the larger society has almost always ready to hold these new groups at arms distance.

That first stage of isolation is the first stage of integration. The little immigrant group can have the safety of heir own company in which to digest the imposing larger society and it’s characteristics. The larger society gets time to acclimate itself to the unique characteristics of that new strange immigrant group. This is how humans have interacted since the dawn of intelligence in the species. They simply take a little time to circle each other and get to know the looks, smells, and quirks about each other. Then after some while each group will naturally begin to experiment with various aspects of the other.

This natural cycle can be short circuited by competition and conflict. Once there arises the notion of rarified resources or some form of conflict people often quickly gravitate to actively negative behaviors and ways of thinking. Bigotry and racism (both genetic responses in humans) can take hold and cause the groups to become alienated from each other in ways that once fixed are most difficult to undo.

I don’t believe that MC is the magic panacea to entrenched racism and bigotry. I don’t see MC as a tool to eliminate ghettoes and isolation. The very core thesis of MC is inimical to how humans are hardwired to interact. It’s my position that MC in the long run will cause more harm than good.

Here’s why:

One of the most glaring observations that one can make of MC is that it is highly selective. That is that MC proponents don’t concern themselves with seeking out and accommodating cultures that have been successful. They seek those about which they can employ the vernacular of victimization to describe the cultures to be accommodated.

That standing alone is a specious beginning. Whether a culture is a “victim” is a highly subjective notion. The only criteria that seem to be used by the MC crowd are (A) that it be a minority culture; and (B) that it be associated with disenfranchisement. After that all bets are off. There is no inquiry into whether the minority culture in question id even a worthy culture deserving of preservation. Nor is there inquiry into whether the culture is one that can successfully integrate into the larger society without suffering irreparable harm. There is absolutely no inquiry into whether the minority culture has elements that are central to its existence that may be diametrically opposed to the larger society. Or stated another way a poison pill for one or all cultures.

Instead of asking any critical questions proponents of MC blindly assume that all cultures are universally suitable to each other. They also assume that all cultures are worthy of aggressive preservation. This absolutely denies the inescapable fact of change as a constant in human evolution and behavior. It also absolutely denies the human character trait of competition. Cultures are exactly like business models. They come and go. Those that survive and raise a society to dominance and power are by definition the more worthy cultures. They will have served their members better making them stronger and more able to compete in the global marketplace of ideas and things. Conversely those cultures that can not change and adapt to an evolving world are less worthy. They should not receive substantial investment.

The things that have made Western culture so much more worthy are exactly those better more competitive aspects of older ancient cultures that manage to survive the market place of ideas that is human society. There is nothing artificial about how a cultural trait rises to prominence in society being adopted and assimilated into a larger culture. There is no human intervention that causes various traits and ideas to find success. It is simply competition that drives out the weak and shines a light on those aspects of any given culture that helps it’s members to survive.

What MC is doing it to attempt to short circuit the natural cycle of the marketplace of ideas by imposing an artificial cycle onto the natural one and often in place of the natural marketplace.

This is folly. This is folly because no matter what culture you come across you will find aspects of it that have served its member more or less well. Those aspects that serve less well should be set aside and abandoned allowing the stronger aspects to thrust forward. This process occurs in the absence of deliberation and manipulation. This occurs as a natural result of success and failure in the marketplace of ideas.

A cursory examination of the so called Western culture in the USA reveals that it is anything but pure western culture as taught by the post modernists. United States culture is a mélange of all the best elements of all of the minority cultures which have encountered the USA. They come from everywhere. The elements of other cultures that have survived can be picked out and traced to their origin by any anthropologist or historian and a great many are obvious to even the casual lay observer.

The melting pot isn’t the larger swallowing the smaller. That narrative is a lie told by the post modernist in an attempt to tar the west with an ugly brush. The melting pot is a constantly changing flux of influences and flavors where the most successful find a permanent place and bring the society as a whole further and further along in the market place of human ideas.