Multiculturism versus nationalism: the great debate

I've been very interested to see a growing awareness among European leaders that so-called 'multiculturalism' (which, in the context of politics, has been defined as 'the advocacy of extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central') isn't working, can't work, and must be replaced by a more logical, rational and feasible approach.

Last week the British Prime Minister made his position clear.

David Cameron has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.

. . .

As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.

In his view, such caution is part of the problem. In frank language he made abundantly clear he believes multiculturalism has failed. Any organisation that does not stand up to extremism will be cut off from public funds, and he wants the country to develop a stronger sense of shared identity.

. . .

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations," he added.

. . .

A genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them", Mr Cameron said.

"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

"It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things."

He said under the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner ... too", he said.

Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said when Mr Cameron expressed his opposition to extremism, he meant all forms, not just Islamist extremism.

"There's a widespread feeling in the country that we're less united behind values than we need to be," she told Today.

There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

Today, the French President added his voice to Mr. Cameron's.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.

"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.

. . .

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar have also recently said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.

Merkel in October said efforts towards multiculturalism in Germany had "failed, totally."

The comment followed weeks of anguished debate sparked by the huge popularity of a book by a central banker saying that immigrants, in particular Muslims, were making Germany "more stupid".

Again, more at the link.

I fully support the comments of all these politicians. I come from a country (South Africa) where one 'nation' or 'culture' tried to impose its superiority on all others for decades through the policies of apartheid. It was a miserable failure, of course; but the 'multicultural' South Africa that emerged from the ruins of apartheid has been equally unsuccessful. Its acceptance of almost any and all aspects of almost any and all cultures, in the name of 'tolerance', has merely ensured that the wicked, the evil and the criminal have been accepted along with the good and the useful.

The same can be said of many countries around the world. Think of the immigrant ghettoes in Malmo in Sweden, and the intolerance of their residents towards their host nation; think of the spread of female circumcision to the West, brought by immigrant families; think of the practice of 'honor killing', which has also spread to many countries where it was previously unheard of, also brought by immigrant families. In almost every case, the host nations have made matters worse by attempting to 'understand' the perpetrators' background, motives and culture, and 'make allowance' for those factors. I'm sorry, but there is no room whatsoever to tolerate evil. If it's evil, it's unacceptable. Period.

Unfortunately, in the United States, our politics is still dominated by those who won't or can't accept this reality. President Obama, in his speech accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, said:

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities - their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards.

. . .

... the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place.

. . .

For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

. . .

So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.

Again, there's more at the link. Those are wonderfully idealistic words: but they're not very realistic. Idealism has probably inflicted more death, injury and mayhem than any amount of realism!

A few months earlier, during a press conference in April 2009, President Obama said:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.

. . .

Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.

Again, see the link for the rest. The President's words are wonderfully idealistic. The problem is, of all the nations and religions and ideologies on Earth, a relatively small proportion accept and/or propagate the same values and ideals as the United States. In fact, a relatively large majority of them are actively opposed to those values and ideals! They are doing and will continue to do everything they can to keep them out of their own spheres of influence, and combat them in ours. President Obama doesn't say how he plans to 'create partnerships' with such entities. I'm not surprised . . . because no partnership is possible with them. It's like trying to mix oil and water. Ain't gonna happen.

To take a final quote from President Obama, in his address to the Islamic world in June 2009, he said:

... human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

(Bold print is my emphasis.) However, as George Santayana pointed out:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Do you think President Obama is listening to Britain's Prime Minister Cameron, France's President Sarkozy, Germany's Chancellor Merkel, Australia's former Prime Minister John Howard, and Spain's former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar? Do you think a doctrinaire statist, socialist, progressive President is likely to agree with them? I beg leave to doubt it; and that's why I fear that under President Obama's leadership, we're going to experience exactly the same sort of turmoil - if not worse - that Europe has already experienced under the banner of 'multiculturalism'.

I hope I'm wrong.

Peter