Comments on: Multiculturalism’s Racist Agenda

By: Allison Taylor

Allison Taylor — Tue, 08 May 2007 19:04:36 +0000

Msafiri,
Thanks for writing. You make some very interesting points. I agree with you that a good education will include as much world history as possible — including triumphs, like Ghandi, as well as the failings of Colonialism and tragedies, like World War II and the rise of fascism. I have no problem with teaching the facts or great literature, no matter who writes it. I just think you should be able to judge cultures good or bad — that is, pro-life or anti-life. Saying all cultures are morally equivalent is unjust and leaves you no way to fight the injustices, like murder in the name of faith.

You are right that disagreements are usually about definitions. Multiculturalism is such a vague concept that is almost meaningless, which is why I think you have to look at its historical and political use — it was a program set up to help immigrant communities retain their cultural identities and was intended to fight discrimination by stating all cultures are equal in value.

But I don’t think encouraging people to identify with a particular race or ethnic group can eliminate racism. I think this practice makes matters worse because it divides people into “tribes.” Tribalism by nature leads to warfare because it places value on the group or tribe over the individual. But there is no intrinsic value in any group. A group is always made up of individuals, and it is individuals who have political rights and who need to be protected by government.

Allowing each individual the freedom to pursue his or her own path to happiness without hurting others is ideal. Whether that path is through religion or through science is up to them. Religion should not be forced on anyone, which is why I oppose theocracies. But I respect another person’s right to practice any religion, so long as the practices of the religion do not violate individual rights.

I agree that the “mad mullahs” have put moderate (or pro-reason) Muslims in a very bad place. They are trying to force a theocratic government that imposes its will on the people. A proper government should be in place to protect individuals from force, not use force against its citizens. This is a tragedy.

I do not know the answer to the current problems within the Muslim world, except that, yes, it will eventually mean that people will have to let go of identifying with groups or tribes based on religion or ethnicity. (Or, if they identify with a group, they can’t expect their group to govern over others.) I don’t think there is any value in identifying with an ethnic group at all. There is no “intrinsic value” as you say, to a race or culture. I don’t think one should hold on to a “culture” for culture’s sake — a person’s value is not based on the tribe he is born into.

Whenever you see men trying to establish a religion as a government, it is just an excuse to have power over people. I think you would agree that the “mad mullahs” are power-hungry men who seek to dominate others in the name of religion. In that sense, they are just like the Christian popes of the past. Fortunately, Christianity did not survive as a form of government in the West, and the concept of individual rights was discovered.

I do think there is hope against tyranny. At least, I don’t want to stop thinking there is hope for people who live under that threat.

By: Msafiri

Msafiri — Mon, 07 May 2007 21:55:57 +0000

I think I disagree with some of your points, but it would seem to me to be a disagreement about definitions, rather than substance. For example, “multiculturalism” seems to mean to you a policy of division and segregation which fosters mutual incomprehensibility and hostility along arbitrary and dangerous lines. I don’t want this any more than you do, but for me, “multiculturalism” means that school syllabi now teach the novels of Toni Morrison as well as those of Salman Rushdie, that philosophers can legitimately ponder the life and times of Ghandi, and that History includes the mistakes and lapses of our past, as well as our triumphs. We should celebrate our freedoms, but they are not automatic to us–people had to fight for them, suffer for them and die for them. (Abolitionists, civil rights activists, the women’s movement, etc.) We are not self-evidently “perfect.” If we needed reminding, the Holocaust happened well within the lifetime of people now alive, and Germany certainly had not been invaded by marauding Muslims when it decided to kill Jewish people. Which is to say, all forms of absolute thinking, attempts to control thought and dissidence, and the propensity to react to difference with violence are dangerous. No matter where they come from, or what book/text/law they claim as support.
Further, certainly it is ridiculous to allow the killing of babies, the mutilation of women, the issuing of fatwahs (really, these are nothing more than contracts for assasination, or “hits” which are already illegal) and other such maniacal and homicidal behaviour. However, Islam is not a virus. You don’t “get infected” and then find yourself under a compulsion to run out and murder people or bomb buildings or oppress people. The problem, it seems to me, is that we have surrendered too early and too easily. The mad mullahs have said to us (on their way to purchasing bombs and guns to kill us with) that theirs is the only version of true Islam. Ms. Ali agrees with them. If we agree too, then we have said that all the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have never killed, oppressed, or otherwise harmed anyone in their lives were wrong, and mistaken in believing themselves to be Muslims. We have also said to ourselves that our culture–to the extent that we can identify it–is so weak, so fragile, and so lacking in intrinsic merit that the only way we can defend it is by converting ourselves into unthinking hostile people every bit as fanatical, as absolutist, as prone to sweeping generalisations and rigid discriminations as the mad mullahs themselves. I do not see this as a positive development for us. In fact, from where I stand, it looks like we are handing them victory on a plate. They’ve won. We are all them. We hate multiculturalism. All of it. No exceptions. Happily for the mad mullahs, they hate multiculturalism too–that is precisely why they want to kill us.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 03 May 2007 21:14:25 +0000

Scott,
I’m editing your post because it is a repost of your blog and not a true comment. I understand your anger at the problems erupting over “race” in Europe–but the point of my article is that race is irrelevant. People should be judged on their behavior and culture is behavior.

If everyone saw themselves as an individual as opposed to a member of a group, then we wouldn’t see the problems we see today. Multiculturalism encourges “group” think or tribalism.

When I use the term “assimilate” I simply mean: follow our rules and obey our laws. Nothing else.

Anyone who judges someone on the basis of skin color is still by definition a “racist.” I would apply that to anyone, whether they direct their prejudice at a white person or non-white person.