Regular blog reader and "Brain Trust" fellow English Jacobite pointed me toward this story from the BBC that "Call Me Dave" Cameron has taken a page from the German lady chancellor to say that "state multiculturalism" in the United Kingdom is not working. Well, well done Dave! There's no slipping anything past you is there? It only took a few dozen home-grown terrorists and Mohammed becoming the most popular British baby name to prove the point that many others have been saying for a long time but "Call me Dave" has caught on. Oh what a worthy fellow to be councillor to the Sovereign. However, seriously, I am glad that the Prime Minister (any prime minister) has at least said something about the elephant in the room and he has, not surprisingly, already been called a right-wing extremist for daring to suggest that immigrant groups that are on the take from the government should actually not be advocating the downfall of the British government and British society. Oh, indeed, what a Nazi he is!Now, it might surprise some people to know that I have very negative feelings about what we call today "multiculturalism". I say that only because I have so often been accused of being so many different things. I've been called everything from an apologist for Islam, a rabid Catholic, a Protestant fundamentalist, a Zionist and an anti-Semite. However, I am not a fan of "multiculturalism" and that is specifically because I AM a fan of diversity. I have great admiration for many, many peoples and cultures all around the world and I even have a pretty multi-cultural family. It has been my experience that if I study the history of any nation around the world I can find something to respect and admire about them. I want all peoples and all cultures to be preserved, in fact I have spoken often about how I wish as many people that cared about saving the damn whales would care about saving the human beings and their cultures that are becoming extinct; be it the Manchus, the Tibetans or the American Indians.
The problem is that none of the "minority" cultures in places like Great Britain are in any danger of being lost. If you are a Pakistani the place to preserve your culture is in Pakistan -not England. England is the place to preserve English culture and I do not see that a racist or intolerant position to hold. Where I do think that Cameron and others go wrong is to think that the answer to these problems lies totally with assimilation. While it is certainly fair to say that if you are going to come and live in country "X" then you must adapt to the ways and customs of country "X" and not expect to go on as though you still live in country "Y". However, the English people or the Scottish people etc are very unique groups and a Nigerian can come to Scotland, speak with the local accent, choke down haggis and wear a kilt and he still will not be Scottish. Ethnicity, race and so on is not a choice; which is something I thought the liberal left used to understand -that is why punishing someone because of something they did not choose and cannot change is wrong. And frankly, to allow people into your country and then expect them to purge themselves of their native culture seems rather wrong.
I realize that I may sound as if I am talking in circles here but it is a rather circular problem. This is why I think "multiculturalism" as it is defined today is a bad thing and why it hurts rather than encourages diversity, because you are either forcing one people to give up their culture in favor of another or you are watering down your own culture in order to be more palatable and less offensive to the culture of the immigrant. No matter which way it is done, one or both of the cultures involved is being harmed. Am I saying then that all immigration is a bad thing? No, but you might ask the American Indians how it worked out for them. What I will say is that I do not understand why anyone has a "right" to move to a foreign country and expect to be treated in a certain way. Why does everyone from every corner of the former British Empire feel that they have a "right" to move to Britain? Given how they complain about how terrible the British were in ruling them I've never been able to understand why so many would want to, but, it seems to be a fact. My only question then is that if all of these people from all around the world have a "right" to come and live in England or Scotland (but let's be honest it's England) then where exactly in the world is the country that the English have a "right" to? I would have thought it was England but then I seem to woefully uninformed on this subject...
I’ve always thought the whole Antipathy towards the British Empire was a sort of modern Myth anyway, something rather like the popularity in proclaiming the evil of Christendom throughout the centuries or the Anti-Americanism we hear so often. it’s the same really. We all know America is the most evil nation on the planet, starts all sorts of wars, and is a corrupt and insolent nation, and l4ets not forget how tyrannical the Government is… so we should all have the right to move to America and become Americans! That’s because everyone knows that a lot of its overblown nonsense, and the same Is True of Britain. That’s not to say the Empire was Faultless, but The real problem with the Empire was mainly economic, and they never stabilised a Pan Imperial Government. Life was on average much better for the Average Colony than in most of today’s Independent States. Does anyone really think Rhodesia then was worse that Zimbabwe now?
ReplyDeletePeople know full well these places offer more, but don’t want it to. They want all the benefits those Cultures and places offer, but don’t want to admit that the Cultures themselves produced those things. They want to live in the modern Myth that the Culture is somehow divorced form the level of Freedom one enjoys or the advancement of the society in terms of how much Money you can make and how much stuff you can have, and seek o play off the modernistic mythos that the Non-Western Culture is always the victim of oppression whose problems were caused by the evil Western nation.
This allows them to save face for their own nation not being so prosperous or successful whilst still taking advantage of the west’s prosperity, and still blaming them for the woes of others.
The Prime Minister's statement is welcomed, hoever misinformed it may be. But at the end of the day, the liberal left, (and/or the watered down right), dont give a toss anymore about culture.
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph pretty much sums up my thoughts about multiculturalism. National multiculturalism will inevitably lead to global monoculturalism, when all nations are multicultural, i.e. exactly the same and diluted of their individual, national cultures. I am not a fan of multiculturalism because I value nations, cultures, identities and peoples, in their natural and organic state. It's the same, or a very similar reason why I am a monarchist. Because a nation's monarchy is a symbol of its particular history and identity, and the removal of a monarchy marks the end of a continuity through the nation's past that links it back to its beginnings.
ReplyDeleteTo Zarove, I of course agree that there is no justification for their attitude but it does exist -even if only because they are not being honest with themselves. Never having jumped on the "anti-imperialist" bandwagon I can agree that most formerly colonial nations were, flaws and all, better off than they are now. Even if you take the most infamous examples of colonialism that still often holds true.
ReplyDeleteSotC, that is true and I see I might have come off a bit hard on the PM but I really do salute him for raising the issue at all when it is so much easier and more politically expedient to simply ignore it.
NPP, I agree as well. The creeping monoculture of the world is something I despise most of all. Everyone seems to wear, watch, eat, listen to etc the same garbage all over the world. The point about the monarchy reminds me of an ad after the election of Obama in Sweden in which an African man was shown wearing the King's uniform and orders with the caption "No We Can't" or in other words that they could not have a Black leader in Sweden so long as they remain a monarchy. To me, it rather proves that multiculturalism is about an agenda rather than peaceful coexistence. Converting to a republic just so you can elect a leader just to show how much you care about tolerance by advancing every people/culture other than your own seems the height of absurdity to me.
In respect of the cultural minorities i think that you are right MM because if a country lets that forgein cultures invade them it slowly will became the new culture.
ReplyDeleteThe local cultures mus be respected and protected by the state, and part of that protection is the monarchy in europe.
If some extranger came to a country for example an chinese emigrate to germany he have two options or adopt the national culture of the country where he is living or form a group of people of his same etnia and islote of the locals, in other words assimilate or islolate and if he dont want to choose then he can just go back to his homeland.
Hi from a reader of the Mad Monarchist from argentina.
In that respect it is sort of like false-humility. "Oh, look ow humble I am, giving away my stuff. Recognize my humility!"
ReplyDeleteMulticulturalism is a huge issue in France as well, because we still don't really know what it means to be French. Is it nationality, ethnicity, value-system? I would favor a blend of all three myself, and at the risk of sounding ethnocentric or even (gasp) racist, I would say that a French person should be of French blood. The blood, sweat, and tears of my ancestors wasn't so that some people could take advantage of it when their ancestors fought for some other land.
Multiculturalism is very dominant at my school and it is not very "neat" or "peaceful" there. 1/3 is black, 1/3 is White or Hispanic, 1/3 is Jewish, Native, Asian, Indian (The one in Asia), and Muslim. This means the majority is African American. Even though 1/3 is black, I feel like 3/4 of the school is black because they ACT black.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I have a hard time seeing the current President of France as really "French" rather than a Hungarian in French fashions. I have also heard all the arguments over whether Charlemagne was French or German (neither of which really existed at the time) and I know at least one blog member (who has contrbuted in the past) who will always assert that Napoleon was Italian and not French at all. However, I'm related to some people of Gallic origins and I think I can tell one when I see them. The same problem exists though. Look at all of the fuss that was made over Algeria breaking away from France and yet how many Algerians now claim French citizenship.
ReplyDeleteAh well, like I said, there is blood, and there is spirit and actions.
ReplyDeleteCharlemagne I would say was more European than French or German, and should be celebrated by all nationalities in Europe (although he was a Frank).
Napoleon was born in France, with Italian background, and fought his entire life for France, embraced it, and was entirely French in his mind. Also, at the time, nationality was slightly more fluid. You had Barclay de Tolly a Russian, MacMahon a Frenchman, etc.
The problem with the children of immigrants is mostly one of culture. If you are still attached to your home culture, it will be more difficult to be French.
However, even if a person can act French to the best of his ability, it will still be difficult for some (including myself, I reluctantly admit with a slight degree of shame) to consider them "truly" French if they are not French-looking (that is to say, white). It's one of the troubles with our age, I suppose, finding out a way to define who is who, and knowing whether or not we have to overcome race or use it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no racist (funny how apparently that's the first indicator that racism will follow), but it is disconcerting and uncomfortable at times. For example, my cousin is currently "walking out" with a first-generation Ghanaian (or something, I forget) immigrant, and I have trouble accepting that, even if I have nothing against him as a person.
It was all so much simpler when people didn't make a fuss about it and it was just common sense that dictated whether you were of a certain nationality or not.
You've illustrated one of the problems with even addressing this problem -there will (as was the case with Cameron) immediately be cries of racism and today a racist is worse than a mass murdering terrorist and even the accusation can ruin a person. As stated, I also think this is serving a purpose because it is in the interests of the internationalists who see things like race, nationality, culture etc as standing in the way of their global agenda.
ReplyDeleteWith me beeing an immigrant myself (I'm living in Germany) I think its a interesting topic to discuss. Personaly I would have to agry with MM. (Although I strongly disagree with his views on Colonialism or Anti-Imperialism :) I think one have to consider for how long the immigrants are going to stay if it is for certain period of time or for their whole life as for the second one I would like to point out what the reader from Argentina wrote "Eather they assimilate or they isolate (Personally I prefer a mix of those two options) There is a nice Russian saying that says "Everything is good in a certain amount" that includes immigration as well. I mean I can understand and respect when people a patriotic and are interested in their own culture, History and women first. But its an another thing to try to prove scintifically that ones (EUropean/Christian) culture is superior to that of others, preferably that of Non EUropeans/Christians.
ReplyDeleteAs it is the case with the whole Islamophobia issue and those "Defence Leagues" right now.
And as for "The creeping monoculture of the world is something I despise most of all. Everyone seems to wear, watch, eat, listen to etc the same garbage all over the world." I couldn't agree more !
Let me add that as someone who does not believe any two people or any two living things are or ever will be equal, rejecting in fact "equality" as a realistic goal in any even other than law, I will say that I do not view any two cultures as equal. One is perfectly capable of looking at a people or a culture and judging it inferior or superior to others in one way or another. They key point though, at least in my view, is that no cultures are equal nor are they static. Certain one will be superior to others at certain times and that will change slowly over time. For example, for a considerable period of history it was the Asian peoples who were clearly the most dominant and advanced in the world. Later, western civilizations overtook them. The Islamic world reached a relatively high point in their history at a time when the Christian world had descended into barbarism. Then, of course, there is the fact that being superior, that is stronger, wealthier, more victorious etc does not mean one is inherently "better" overall in terms of the value to the people and the contribution to the world.
ReplyDeleteI had always thought it an inherent contradiction anyway. Most of today’s world eschews Imperialism, of it destroys the peaceful and beautiful and Good Native Cultures, which must be preserved. it is also wrong for one nation to tell other nations what do to and to control them.
ReplyDeleteBut, in order to maintain world peace and stability and ensure Human Rights, we have to create a Global Society, with a Global law Code and a Globally enforced standard of what those Human Rights are, and many even clamour for a formal legal body to create a Global Governance that would in turn have power to enforcing International Law onto us all.
The contradiction seems obvious and striking: On the one hand, they want to abolish the practice of one Nation being able to dominate others, and oppose Imperialism; yet on the other, they want to basically crate an Empire that will dominate the entire planet. If the schemes of the Humanist Manifesto 2 or today’s modern Political theorists were to actually be achieved, you’d have a Global Government which oversaw every National Government on the Planet, set laws binding on all Nations, and that would set the standards for such Nations.
And those National Cultures that are displace din the evil Imperialism? They’d still be displaced. Not all peoples have the same definition fo what basic rights shod be, and not everyone shares the same perspectives on law and Society. Those things are often Culturally derived. Should they crate a Global Government and world society, that imposes a singular standard of what Human Rights are, they necessarily also must impose a specific way of thinking about the world as well, and this way must replace any conflicting Cultural traditions that stand in its way, and reshape said Culture to fit the new Global ideal.
That’s the irony of the Modernist, they want to create an Empire, but claim to hate Imperialism, and ill insist this is not an Empire. They claim to want to preserve Cultures and his is why Imperialism was wrong, then seek to destroy Cultures that don’t accommodate their Values.